We consider a mathematical model which describes the quasistatic contact between a viscoelastic body and an obstacle, the so-called foundation. The material’s behavior is modelled with a constitutive law with long memory. The contact is with normal compliance, unilateral constraint, memory effects and adhesion. We present the classical formulation of the problem, then we derive its variational formulation and prove an existence and uniqueness result. The proof is based on arguments of variational inequalities and fixed point.
Authors
Mircea Sofonea (Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Physique, Université de Perpignan)
Flavius Patrulescu (Tiberiu Popoviciu Institute of Numerical Analysis, Romanian Academy)
Keywords
existence, fixed point, mathematical model
Cite this paper as
M. Sofonea, F. Pătrulescu, A viscoelastic contact problem with adhesion and surface memory effects, Math. Model. Anal., vol. 19, no. 5 (2014), pp. 607-626
A viscoelastic contact problem with adhesion and surface memory effects
M. Sofonea 1, F. Pătrulescu 2 1 Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Physique
Université de Perpignan, 52 Avenue de Paul Alduy, 66860 Perpignan, France
2 Tiberiu Popoviciu Institute of Numerical Analysis
P.O. Box 68-1, 400110 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Abstract
We consider a mathematical model which describes the quasistatic contact between a viscoelastic body and an obstacle, the so-called foundation. The material’s behavior is modelled with a constitutive law with long memory. The contact is with normal compliance, unilateral constraint, memory effects and adhesion. We present the classical formulation of the problem, then we derive its variational formulation and prove an existence and uniqueness result. The proof is based on arguments of variational inequalities and fixed point.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification : 74M15, 74G25, 74G30, 74D05, 49J40
Keywords: existence, fixed point, mathematical model
1 Introduction
Processes of contact with adhesion are important in many industrial settings where parts, usually nonmetallic, are glued together. For this reason, a considerable effort has been made in their modeling, analysis, numerical analysis, and numerical simulations and, as a result, the engineering and computational literature on this related topics is extensive. Moreover, the mathematical literature devoted to the analysis of adhesive contact process is rapidly growing.
General models with adhesion can be found in [7, 8, 9, 15, 18, and the references therein. In particular, a description of the derivation of various equations and conditions related to the adhesive contact can be found in [9]. The analysis of various contact models with adhesion, including existence and uniqueness results for weak solutions, can be found in [1, 2, 3, 4, 20, 26, 25, for instance. In carrying out this analysis, a systematic use of results on elliptic and evolutionary variational inequalities, convex analysis, nonlinear equations with monotone operators, and fixed points of operators was made. The numerical analysis of quasistatic and dynamic models of adhesive contact can be found in [20]. There, fully discrete schemes were considered and error estimates were derived. Moreover, an application of the theory in the medical field of prosthetic limbs was described in [16, 17. There, the bonding arises between the artificial limb and the tissue and is of considerable importance, since debonding may lead to decrease in the person’s ability to use the limb. The main ingredient in the models presented in all the above mentioned papers is the introduction of a surface internal variable, the bonding field, which describes the fractional density of active bonds on the contact surface. As a fraction its values are restricted to . When at a point of the contact surface, the adhesion is complete and all the bonds are active; when all the bonds are inactive, severed, and there is no adhesion; finally, when the adhesion is partial and only a fraction of the bonds is active.
In this paper, we cover the modelling and variational analysis of a new contact problem with adhesion within the infinitesimal strain theory. The evolution of the bonding field is described by a general first order ordinary differential equation, already used in the previously cited papers. Nevertheless, we introduce three novelties in the contact model, which make the difference with our previous papers. First, we describe material’s behavior by a viscoelastic constitutive law with long memory. Second, we model the adhesive contact with a normal compliance condition with unilateral penetration which takes into account the memory effect of the surfaces. A similar condition was introduced in [23, 24] in the study of frictionless contact process without adhesion. Also, a contact condition with normal compliance, unilateral constraint and adhesion was used in [11. There, in contrast with this paper, the memory effects of the foundation were neglected, the process was assumed to be dynamic and the material’s behavior was described with an elastic-visco-plastic constitutive law. The third novelty arises in the fact that, unlike a large number of references, the adhesive contact problem considered in this paper are formulated on the unbounded interval of time . This implies the use of the framework of Fréchet spaces of continuous functions, instead of that of the classical Banach spaces of continuous functions defined on a bounded interval of time, used in our previous papers.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce some notations and preliminary material. In Section 3 we provide a detailed description of the model of adhesive contact. Then, in Section 4, we list the assumptions on the data, derive the variational formulation of the problem and state our main existence
and uniqueness result, Theorem 4.1. The proof is provided in Section 5. It is based on arguments of variational inequalities and fixed point.
2 Notations and Preliminaries
In this short section we present the notations we shall use and some preliminary material. For further details we refer the reader to [10, 18, 22]. Everywhere in this paper we use the notation for the set of positive integers and will represent the set of nonnegative real numbers, i.e. . For a given we denote by its positive part, i.e. . Let . Then, we denote by the space of second order symmetric tensors on . The inner product and norm on and are defined by
Here and below the indices run between 1 and and, unless stated otherwise, the summation convention over repeated indices is used.
Let be a bounded domain with a Lipschitz continuous boundary and let be a measurable part of such that meas . We use the notation for a typical point in and we denote by the outward unit normal at . Also, an index that follows a comma represents the partial derivative with respect to the corresponding component of the spatial variable, e.g. . We use standard notations for the Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces associated to and and, moreover, we consider the spaces
These are real Hilbert spaces endowed with the inner products
and the associated norms and , respectively. Here represents the deformation operator given by
Completeness of the space ( ) follows from the assumption meas ( ) , which allows the use of Korn’s inequality.
For an element we still write for the trace of on the boundary . We denote by and the normal and the tangential component of on , respectively,
defined by . Let be a measurable part of . Then, by the Sobolev trace theorem, there exists a positive constant which depends on , and such that
(2.1)
For a regular function we denote by and the normal and the tangential components of the vector on , respectively, and we recall that and .
We also introduce the space of fourth order tensor fields given by
and we recall that is a real Banach space with the norm
Moreover, a simple calculation shows that
(2.2)
Given a normed space ( ) we use the notation for the space of continuous functions defined on with values in . It is well known that, if is a Banach space, then can be organized in a canonical way as a Fréchet space, i.e., as a complete metric space in which the corresponding topology is induced by a countable family of seminorms. Details can be found in [5] and [14], for instance. Also, for a subset we still use the symbol for the set of continuous functions defined on with values in . Finally, for and we denote by the set of continuous functions defined on with values in .
We end this section with the following result which will be used in Section 5 of the paper.
Theorem 2.1 Let ( ) be a Banach space, a nonempty closed subset of and let be a nonlinear operator. Assume that there exists with the following property: for all there exist two constants and such that
for all and for all . Then the operator has a unique fixed point .
Theorem 2.1 was proved in [19] in the case when . Nevertheless, a careful examination of the proof shows that the theorem is still valid for operators
, provided that is a nonempty closed part of . The modification in proof are straightforward and, therefore, we do not provide the details. We only mention that the difference consists in the use of the Banach fixed point argument for contractive maps defined on the set with values on , for all , instead of contractive maps defined on the space with values in .
3 Problem statement
The physical setting is as follows. A viscoelastic body occupies a bounded domain with a Lipschitz continuous boundary , divided into three measurable parts and , such that meas . The body is subject to the action of body forces of density , is fixed on and is submitted to the action of surface tractions of density on . Moreover, the body is in adhesive contact on with an obstacle, the so-called foundation. We adopt the framework of the small strain theory, we assume that the contact process is quasistatic and we study it in the interval of time . To derive a mathematical model which corresponds to this physical setting we need to precise the constitutive law of the material, the balance equations and the boundary conditions, as well.
In this paper we assume that the material’s behavior follows a viscoelastic constitutive law with long memory of the form
(3.1)
where, here and below, denotes the displacement field, represents the stress field, is the linearized strain tensor and represents the time variable. Also, and represent the elasticity operator and the relaxation tensor, respectively, and are assumed to verify the following conditions.
Note that in (3.1) and below, in order to simplify the notation, we do not indicate explicitly the dependence of various functions on the spatial variable . Various examples and mechanical interpretation concerning viscoelastic constitutive laws of the from (3.1) can be found in [6, 21, 22,
Next, since process is quasistatic, we shall use the equilibrium equation
(3.4)
where denotes the divergence operator for tensor valued functions, i.e. . This equation shows that at each time moment the external forces are balanced by the internal stresses. Moreover, since the body is fixed on and given tractions are acting on we impose the following displacement-traction conditions:
(3.5)
(3.6)
In addition, we assume that the densities of body forces and surface tractions have regularity
(3.7)
We now turn to the description on the adhesive contact conditions on the surface in which our main interest is. First, we assume that the penetration is limited by a bound and, therefore, at each time moment , the normal displacement satisfies the inequality
(3.8)
Next, we assume that the normal stress has an additive decomposition of the form
(3.9)
where the functions and describe the deformability, the rigidity, the adhesive and the surface memory properties of the foundation. We assume that satisfies the normal compliance contact condition, that is
(3.10)
Here is a given function which satisfies
The part of the normal stress satisfies the Signorini condition in the form with a gap function, i.e.
(3.12)
Details on the Signorini condition and normal compliance function can be found in [10, 12, 13, 18, for instance. Here we restrict ourselves to recall that the normal compliance condition describes the contact with a deformable foundation and the Signorini contact condition describes the contact with a perfectly rigid foundation.
The function satisfies the condition
where is a surface memory function which verifies
(3.14)
Details on this condition can be found in [24.
Finally, the contribution of the bonding to the normal traction, , satisfies
(3.15)
where is the truncation function given by
Here and below is the characteristic length of the bond, beyond which it stretches without offering any additional resistance (see, e.g., [15]) and represents an adhesion coefficient. More details on this condition can be found in [20.
We combine (3.9), (3.10), (3.15) and denote to see that
(3.17)
Then we substitute equality (3.17) in (3.12) and use (3.8), (3.13) and (3.14) to obtain
the following contact condition
To complete our model we assume that the resistance to tangential motion is generated mainly by the glue, and the frictional traction can be neglected. In particular, when all the adhesive bonds are inactive, or broken, the motion is frictionless. Thus, the tangential traction depends on the intensity of adhesion and on the tangential displacement, but only up to the bond length , that is
(3.19)
where the truncation operator is defined by
Then, acts as the stiffness or spring constant, and the traction is in direction opposite to the displacement. The tangential function satisfies
We follow [7, 8, 20] and assume that the bonding field satisfies the unilateral constraint
(3.22)
Moreover, its evolution is governed by the differential equation
(3.23)
in which represents the Dupré energy and is the truncation operator given by
We complete this differential equation with the initial condition
(3.25)
and we assume that the adhesion coefficient, , the Dupré energy , and initial bonding field, , satisfy the conditions
We gather the above equations and conditions to obtain the following formulation of the mechanical problem of quasistatic adhesive contact with normal compliance, unilateral constraint and surface memory term.
Problem . Find a displacement field , a stress field and a adhesion field such that
(3.28)
(3.29)
(3.30)
(3.31)
(3.32)
(3.33)
for all , there exists which satisfies
for all and, moreover,
(3.35)
The unique weak solvability of the contact problem will be stated in Section 4 and proved in Section 5. We end this current section with some additional comments of the contact condition (3.34), which represents one of the novelties of this paper.
First, we recall that (3.34) describes a condition with unilateral constraint, since inequality (3.8) holds at each time moment. The rest of the comments in this paragraph, together with the corresponding equalities and inequalities, are valid for a given point on the contact surface . Nevertheless, we recall that, for simplicity, we skip the dependence of various functions on . Assume that at a given moment there is penetration which did not reach the bound , i.e. . Then, (3.34) yields
(3.36)
This equality shows that at the moment , the reaction of the foundation depends both on the current value of the penetration (represented by the term ) and on the history of the penetration (represented by the integral term in (3.36)). Assume now that at a given moment there is separation between the body and the foundation, i.e. . Then, (3.34) shows that
(3.37)
i.e. the reaction of the foundation is nonnegative and depends on adhesion coefficient, on the square of intensity of adhesion and on the normal displacement, but as it does not exceed the bound length . Once it exceeds it the normal traction remains constant and .
In conclusion, condition (3.34) shows that delimitation takes place when there is separation. When there is penetration the contact stress is given by a normal compliance condition with memory term of the form (3.36) but up to the limit . When the limit is reached, the stress is given by a Signorini-type unilateral condition. This condition can be interpreted physically as follows. The foundation is assumed to be made of a hard material covered with a thin layer made of a soft adhesive material with thickness . The layer has adhesive viscoelastic behavior, i.e. is deformable, allows penetration and develops memory effects. The hard material is perfectly rigid and, therefore, it does not allow penetration. To summarize, the foundation has a rigid-adhesive-viscoelastic behavior; its adhesive- viscoelastic behavior is caused by the layer of the soft material while its rigid behavior is caused by the hard material.
4 Variational formulation and main result
We now turn to the variational formulation of Problem and, to this end, we assume in what follows that ( ) represent a triple of regular functions which satisfy (3.28)-(3.35). We introduce the set of admissible displacements and the set of admissible bonding fields, respectively, defined by
(4.1)
(4.2)
Let and be given. We use the Green’s formula to see that
and, combining this equality with the equilibrium equation (3.29), we find that
Then, we split the surface integral over and and, since a.e. on on , we deduce that
Moreover, since
taking into account condition (3.32) we obtain
(4.3)
We write now
then we use the contact condition (3.34) and definition (4.1) of the set to see that
(4.4)
We use (3.34), again, and the hypothesis (3.14) on function to deduce that
(4.5)
Then we add the inequalities (4.4) and (4.5) and integrate the result on to find that
(4.6)
Finally, we combine (4.3) and (4.6) to obtain that
(4.7)
Next, we use the Riesz representation Theorem to define the operator and the function by equalities
(4.8)
(4.9)
It follows from assumptions (3.11) and (2.1) that
(4.10)
which shows that is a monotone Lipschitz continuous operator. Moreover, the regularity (3.7) implies that
(4.11)
We also consider the functional defined by
(4.12)
Then, we use (4.7) and notations (4.8)-(4.12) to deduce that
(4.13)
Also we integrate the differential equation (3.33) with the initial condition (3.35) to obtain that
(4.14)
Finally, we recall that the unilateral constraints imposed to the displacement and bonding field, combined with the definitions (4.1) and (4.2), yield
(4.15)
We now gather the constitutive law (3.28), the variational inequality (4.13), the integral equation (4.14) and the unilateral constraints (4.15) to obtain the following variational formulation of Problem .
Problem . Find a displacement field , a stress field and a bonding field such that for all we have
(4.16)
(4.17)
(4.18)
The existence of the unique solution of Problem is stated below and proved in the next section.
Theorem 4.1 Assume that (3.2), (3.3), 3.7), (3.11), 3.14, (3.21), 3.261), and (3.27) hold. Then, there exists a unique solution ( ) of Problem . Moreover, the solution satisfies,
(4.19)
We conclude that, under assumptions of Theorem 4.1, Problem has a unique weak solution with regularity (4.19).
We end this section with some inequalities involving the functional which will be used in the proof of Theorem 4.1. Below in this section , and denote elements of while , and represent elements of ; recall also that and denote the normal component and the tangential part of , for ; and, finally, denotes a generic positive constant which may depend on , and , but does not depend on nor on the rest of the input data, and whose value may change from place to place.
First, we note that is linear with respect to the last argument and, therefore,
(4.20)
Next, using (4.12) we find that
and since
we obtain
Using now the inequalities , valid a.e. on , and the property (3.21) (c) of the function , we deduce that
Next, we combine the previous inequality with (2.1) to obtain
We now choose in (4.21) to find that
(4.22)
Similar manipulations, based on the Lipschitz continuity of the truncation operators and and on the boundedness of the function , show that
(4.23)
Inequalities (4.21)-(4.23) and equality (4.20) will be used in various places in the next section.
5 Proof of Theorem 4.1
The proof of Theorem 4.1 will be carried out in several steps. To present it everywhere below we assume that the hypothesis (3.2), (3.3), (3.7), (3.11), (3.14), (3.21), (3.26), and (3.27) hold. Also, we use the product space , endowed with the norm
Let . In the first step we consider the following variational problem.
Problem . Find a displacement field such that, for all , and
(5.1)
We have the following result concerning this problem.
Lemma 5.1 There exists a unique solution to Problem which satisfies . Moreover, if represents the solution of Problem for , then there exists such that
(5.2)
Proof. Let and consider the operator and the functional defined by
(5.3)
(5.4)
We use (3.2), (4.10), (4.20), (4.22) and (4.23) to see that the operator is strongly monotone and Lipschitz continuous; moreover, it is easy to see that the functional is convex and lower semicontinuous and, in addition, the set is a closed convex nonempty subset of . Using these ingredients, it follows from standard arguments on variational inequalities (see, for instance Theorem 2.8 in [22]) that there exists a unique element such that
(5.5)
Denote . Then, it follows from (5.3)-(5.5) that the element is the unique element which solves the variational inequality (5.1).
We now prove the continuity of the function . To this end, let and denote , for . We use standard arguments in (5.1) to find that
Therefore, (3.2), (4.10), (4.21) and (2.1) yield
(5.6)
where is a positive constant. This inequality combined with (4.11) and the regularity of the functions show that . Thus, we conclude the existence part in Lemma 5.1. The uniqueness part follows from of the unique solvability of (5.1) for each . Finally, the estimate (5.2) follows by using simuilar arguments as those used in the proof of the inequality (5.6).
We now consider the operator which maps every element into the element given by
(5.7)
for all . Here is the solution of Problem provided in Lemma 5.1. We have the following result.
Lemma 5.2 The operator takes values in the set . Moreover, it has a unique fixed point .
Proof. Let and denote by the function defined by
(5.8)
Then, using (3.26) and (3.27) it follows that and, moreover, a.e. on , for all . We conclude from here that . On the other hand, it is easy to see that is a continuous function from to the product space , which concludes the first part of the lemma.
For the second part, we consider and, for the sake of simplicity, we use the notation , for 1,2 . Let and let . We use assumptions (3.3) and (3.14) on and , respectively, inequalities (2.2) and (2.1) as well as the bounds , , valid a.e. on , for all . After some elementary calculation we deduce that
(5.9)
where, here and below, represent various positive constants which do not depend on . We conclude from here that
(5.10)
where now represent various positive constants which depend on . We now combine the inequalities (5.10) and (5.2) to deduce that
and we note that, obviously, is a closed subset of the space . These ingredients allow us to apply Theorem 2.1 to conclude the proof.
Now, we have all the ingredients needed to prove Theorem 4.1.
Existence. Let be the fixed point of and let be the functions defined by
(5.11)
(5.12)
for all . We recall that and, using the equalities (5.7), (5.11) and assumption (3.14) we deduce that
(5.13)
(5.14)
(5.15)
for all . We show that satisfies the system (4.16)-(4.18).
First, we note that (4.16) is a direct consequence of (5.12). Next, we write the variational inequality (5.1) for and use the equalities (5.11)-(5.14) to see that (4.17) holds. And, finally, we claim that (4.18) also holds. Indeed, let be the function defined by
(5.16)
A careful examination of equalities (5.16) and (5.15) show that the following properties hold, a.e. on is a non increasing function, and, if there exists such that , then for all . We deduce from here that for any . Therefore, since (5.15) and (5.16) imply that we find that
(5.17)
Equality (4.18) is now a direct consequence of the equalities (5.16) and (5.17).
This proves that the triple represents a solution of Problem . The regularity expressed in (4.19) is a direct consequence of the Lemmas 5.1 and 5.2 , combined with assumptions (3.2) and (3.3).
Uniqueness. The uniqueness of the solution follows from the uniqueness of the fixed point of operator defined by (5.7) combined with the unique solvability of Problem
. Indeed, let be a solution of Problem which satisfies (4.19) and let be given by
(5.18)
for all . We substitute equality (4.16) in (4.17) and, using (5.18), we deduce that satisfies the inequality (5.1), at each time moment . On the other hand, it follows from Lemma 5.1 that Problem has a unique solution, denoted , with regularity . Therefore, we conclude that
(5.19)
We use (5.19) to see that
for all . Therefore, (5.7) and (5.18) show that and, using the uniqueness part in Lemma 5.2, we deduce that
(5.20)
We now use (5.19), (5.20) and (5.11) to see that
(5.21)
Then we use (4.16), (5.21) and (5.12) to deduce that
(5.22)
and, finally, (5.20) and (4.18) show that
(5.23)
The uniqueness part of the theorem is now a consequence of equalities (5.21), (5.22) and (5.23).
References
[1] E. Bonetti and G. Bonfanti and R. Rossi, Analysis of a unilateral contact problem taking into account adhesion and friction, Journal of Differential Equations, 253, no. 2 (2012), pp. 438-462.
[2] O. Chau and J.R. Fernández and M. Shillor and M. Sofonea, Variational and numerical analysis of a quasistatic viscoelastic contact problem with adhesion, J. Comp. Appl. Math., 159 (2003), pp. 431-465.
[3] O. Chau and M. Shillor and M. Sofonea, Dynamic frictionless contact with adhesion, J. Angew. Math. Phys. (ZAMP), 55 (2004), pp. 32-47.
[4] M. Cocu and R. Rocca, Existence results for unilateral quasistatic contact problems with friction and adhesion, Math. Model Numer. Anal., 34 (2000), pp. 981-1001.
[5] C. Corduneanu, Problèmes globaux dans la théorie des équations intégrales de Volterra, Ann. Math. Pure Appl., 67 1965, pp. 349-363.
[6] A.D. Drozdov, Finite Elasticity and Viscoelasticity-A Course in the Nonlinear Mechanics of Solids, World Scientific, Singapore, 1996.
[7] M. Frémond, Equilibre des structures qui adhèrent à leur support, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 295, Série II (1982), pp. 913-916.
[8] M. Frémond, Adhérence des solides, J. Mécanique Théorique et Appliquée, 6 (1987), pp. 383-407.
[9] M. Frémond, Non-Smooth Thermomechanics,Springer, Berlin, 2002.
[10] W. Han and M. Sofonea, Quasistatic Contact Problems in Viscoelasticity and Viscoplasticity,Studies in Advanced Mathematics 30, American Mathematical Society-International Press, 2002.
[11] J. Jarušek and M. Sofonea, On the solvability of dynamic elastic-visco-plastic contact problems with adhesion, Annals of AOSR, Series on Mathematics and its Applications, 1 (2009), pp. 191-214.
[12] A. Klarbring and A. Mikelič and M. Shillor, Frictional contact problems with normal compliance, Int. J. Engng. Sci., 26 (1988), pp. 811-832.
[13] A. Klarbring and A. Mikelič and M. Shillor, On friction problems with normal compliance, Nonlinear Analysis, 13 (1989), pp. 935-955.
[14] J.J. Massera and J.J. Schäffer, Linear Differential Equations and Function Spaces, Academic Press, New York, London, 1966.
[15] M. Raous and L. Cangémi and M. Cocu, A consistent model coupling adhesion, friction and unilateral contact,Comput. Methods Appl. Engrg., 177 (1999), pp. 383-399.
[16] J. Rojek and J.J. Telega, Contact problems with friction, adhesion and wear in orthopaedic biomechanics. I: General developments, J. Theor. Appl. Mech., 39 (2001), pp. 655-677.
[17] J. Rojek and J.J. Telega and S. Stupkiewicz, Contact problems with friction, adhesion and wear in orthopaedic biomechanics. II: Numerical implementation and application to implanted knee joints, J. Theor. Appl. Mech., 39 (2001), pp. 679-706.
[18] M. Shillor and M. Sofonea and J.J. Telega, Models and Analysis of Quasistatic Contact, Lecture Notes in Physics 655, Springer, Berlin, 2004.
[19] M. Sofonea and C. Avramescu and A. Matei, A fixed point result with applications in the study of viscoeplastic frictionless contact problems, Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis, 7 (2008), pp. 645-658.
[20] M. Sofonea and W. Han and M. Shillor, Analysis and Approximation of Contact Problems with Adhesion or Damage, Pure and Applied Mathematics 276, Chapman-Hall/ CRC Press, New-York, 2006.
[21] M. Sofonea and A. Matei, Variational Inequalities with Applications. A Study of Antiplane Frictional Contact Problems, Advances in Mechanics and Mathematics 18, Springer, New York, 2009.
[22] M. Sofonea and A. Matei, Mathematical Models in Contact Mechanics, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 398, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.
[23] M. Sofonea and F. Patrulescu, Analysis of a history-dependent frictionless contact problem, Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids, 18 (2013), pp. 409-430.
[24] M. Sofonea and F. Patrulescu and A. Farcaş, A viscoplastic contact problem with normal compliance, unilateral constraint and memory term, Appl. Math. Opt., 69, no. 2 (2014), pp. 175-198.
[25] A. Touzaline, Analysis of a contact adhesive problem with normal compliance and nonlocal friction, Ann. Polon. Math., 104, no. 2 (2012), pp. 175-188.
[26] A. Touzaline, Study of a viscoelastic frictional contact problem with adhesion, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin., 52, no. 2 (2011), pp. 257-272.