Global existence of a classical solution for the isentropic nozzle flow

Shih-Wei Chou, Bo-Chih Huang, Yun-guang Lu and Naoki Tsuge

arXiv: 2402.05268v1 · PDF · 7 February 2024
Categories: math.AP
Licence: CC0 1.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Our goal in this paper is to prove the global existence of a classical solution for the isentropic nozzle flow. Regarding this problem, there exist some global existence theorems of weak solutions. However, that of classical solutions does not have much attention until now. When we consider the present problem, the main difficulty is to obtain the uniform bound of solutions and their derivatives. To solve this, we introduce an invariant region depending on the space variable and a functional satisfying the Riccati equation along the characteristic lines.

Items 14

Definition

Definition 1.1

52AP

\begin{aligned} w=\frac{m}{\rho}+\frac{\rho^{\theta}}{\theta}=v+\frac{\rho^{\theta}}{\theta}, \quad{z}=\frac{m}{\rho}-\frac{\rho^{\theta}}{\theta} =v-\frac{\rho^{\theta}}{\theta}\quad\left(\theta=\dfrac{\gamma-1}{2}\right). \end{aligned}

Remark

Remark 1.1

7OGX

\begin{aligned} &v=\frac{w+z}2, \;\rho=\left(\frac{\theta(w-z)}2\right)^{1/\theta},\;m=\rho v. \end{aligned}

Remark

Remark 1.2

HBJA

Let L_1,L_2,U_1,U_2, M be constants satisfying (H1) and (H2). For any \tilde{M} such that \tilde{M}\geq M, replacing M in (?) with \tilde{M}, constants L_1,L_2,U_1,U_2, \tilde{M} also satisfy (H1) and (H2). The similar fact holds for (H1) and (H3) (resp. (H1) and (H4)).

Remark

Remark 1.3

C9ZJ

We observe the following properties of \Delta_{m,x} (see Figure ?).

From (?), we find \Delta_{m,x}\ne\emptyset.
From (?), Rectangle ABCD does not intersect \lambda_1=\lambda_2=0. Solutions in \Delta_{m,x} satisfy \lambda_1<0 and \lambda_2>0. This means that they are the subsonic flow.
AB and CD are away from z=0 .
BC and DA are away from w=0.
L_1,\;U_1,\;L_2,\;U_2 are very close.
Rectangle ABCD is away from the vacuum w=z.
From (?), we find that A lies in \{w\geq -z\} and C lies in \{w\leq -z\}.

Used by Proof

Remark

Remark 1.4

K5HE

We observe the following properties of \Delta_{r,x} (see Figure ?).

From (?), we find \Delta_{r,x}\ne\emptyset.
AB and CD are away from z=0.
BC and DA are away from w=0.
Rectangle ABCD does not intersect \lambda_1=\lambda_2=0. Solutions in \Delta_{r,x} satisfy \lambda_1>0 and \lambda_2>0. This means that they are the supersonic flow.
L_1,\;U_1,\;L_2,\;U_2 are very close.
From (?), Rectangle ABCD is away from the vacuum w=z.

Theorem

Theorem 1.1

S565

We assume that

a(x) and L_1,L_2,U_1,U_2 satisfy (H1) and (H2),
(z,w)\in C^1({\bf R}_+) satisfies (z_0(x),w_0(x))\in\Delta_{m,x} and
\begin{aligned} \begin{split} -\delta_1\left(1+Mx\right)^{-1-\alpha}&\leq\Phi(x,0;z_0,w_0)\leq\delta_2,\\ \delta_1\left(1+Mx\right)^{-1-\alpha}&\leq\Psi(x,0;z_0,w_0)\leq\delta_2, \end{split} \end{aligned}
for some positive constants \delta_1\leq \delta_2,
the compatibility conditions: w_0(0)+z_0(0)=0,\;w'_0(0)-z'_0(0)=0.

Then, if we choose M in (?) large enough, the initial boundary problem (P1) has a time global classical solution.

Theorem

Theorem 1.2

NBTL

We assume that

a(x) and L_1,L_2,U_1,U_2 satisfy (H1) and (H3),
(z,w)\in C^1({\bf R}_+) satisfies (z_0(x),w_0(x))\in\Delta_{r,x},\;(z_B(t),w_B(t))\in\Delta_{r,0} and
\begin{aligned}& \begin{split} &\delta_1\left(1+Mx\right)^{-1-\alpha}\leq\Phi(x,0;z_0,w_0)\leq\delta_2,\\ &\delta_1\left(1+Mx\right)^{-1-\alpha}\leq\Psi(x,0;z_0,w_0)\leq\delta_2, \end{split} \end{aligned}
\begin{aligned} \begin{split} &\delta_1\leq\Phi_B(0,t;z_B,w_B)\leq\delta_2,\\ &\delta_1\leq\Psi_B(0,t;z_B,w_B)\leq\delta_2, \end{split} \end{aligned}
for some positive constants \delta_1\leq \delta_2,
the compatibility conditions: z_0(0)=z_B(0),\;w_0(0)=w_B(0) and
\begin{aligned} \begin{cases} z'_B(0)+\lambda_1(u_0(0))z'_0(0)=\dfrac{\gamma-1}{8}a(0) \left[\left\{w_0(0)\right\}^2-\left\{z_0(0)\right\}^2\right],\\ w'_B(0)+\lambda_2(u_0(0))w'_0(0)=-\dfrac{\gamma-1}{8}a(0)\left[\left\{w_0(0)\right\}^2-\left\{z_0(0)\right\}^2\right]. \end{cases} \end{aligned}

Then, if we choose M in (?) large enough, the initial boundary problem (P2) has a time global classical solution.

Theorem

Theorem 1.3

QJ21

We assume that

a(x) and L_1,L_2,U_1,U_2 satisfy (H1) and (H4),
(z,w)\in C^1({\bf R}_+) satisfies (z_0(x),w_0(x))\in\Delta_{l,x} and
\begin{aligned}& \begin{split} &-\delta_1\left(1+Mx\right)^{-1-\alpha}\leq\Phi(x,0;z_0,w_0)\leq\delta_2,\\ &-\delta_1\left(1+Mx\right)^{-1-\alpha}\leq\Psi(x,0;z_0,w_0)\leq\delta_2, \end{split} \end{aligned}
for some positive constants \delta_1\leq \delta_2.

Then, if we choose M in (?) large enough, the initial boundary problem (P3) has a time global classical solution.

Theorem

Theorem 1.4

0SC0

([B, Section 3.8]) Suppose that z_0,w_0\in C^1_b({\bf R}_+), that z_B,w_B\in C^1_b({\bf R}_+), a\in C^1_b({\bf R}_+) and that the compatibility conditions hold. Then there exists a positive constant T such that three problems (P1), (P2) and (P3) have a unique bounded C^1 solution on {\bf R}_+\times [0,T] respectively, where T depends only on C^1 norms of z_0, w_0, z_B, w_B, a.

Used by Proof

Proposition

Proposition 2.1

BC9X

\begin{aligned} (z_0(x),w_0(x))\in \Delta_{m,x}\quad\text{ for any $x\geq0$} \end{aligned}

and (P1) has a smooth solution satisfying \rho\geq0, then, \Delta_{m,x} is an invariant region for (P1).

Proof of Proposition 2.1

Choosing \varepsilon>0 small enough, we define

\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \Delta_{m,x,\varepsilon}=&\left\{(z,w); -\left(L_1-\varepsilon\right)e^{-\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}\leq z\leq -\left(U_1+\varepsilon\right)e^{\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy},\right.\\ &\left.\left(L_2+\varepsilon\right)e^{-\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}\leq w\leq \left(U_2-\varepsilon\right)e^{\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy},w\geq z\right\} \end{split} \end{aligned}

and assume that (z_0(x),w_0(x))\in \Delta_{m,x,\varepsilon}. Let us prove \Delta_{m,x} is an invariant region for (P1) by a contradiction. Then, from Theorem 1.4 and the finite propagation, it suffices to solutions on a compact set K=[0,R] for a positive constant R.

If this does not hold, there exist x_*\in K and t_*>0 such that the following cases occur.

(Case 1) \underline{z}(x_*,t_*)=-L_1, (z(x,t),w(x,t))\in {\rm int}(\Delta_{m,x}),\; x\in{\bf R}_+,\;t<t_*,
(Case 2) z(0,t_*)=\underline{z}(0,t_*)=-L_1, (z(x,t),w(x,t))\in {\rm int}(\Delta_{m,x}),\; x\in{\bf R}_+,\linebreak t<t_*,
(Case 3) \bar{z}(x_*,t_*)=-U_1, (z(x,t),w(x,t))\in {\rm int}(\Delta_{m,x}),\; x\in{\bf R}_+,\;t<t_*,
(Case 4) {z}(0,t_*)=\bar{z}(0,t_*)=-U_1, (z(x,t),w(x,t))\in {\rm int}(\Delta_{m,x}),\; x\in{\bf R}_+,\linebreak t<t_*,
(Case 5) \underline{w}(x_*,t_*)=L_2, (z(x,t),w(x,t))\in {\rm int}(\Delta_{m,x}),\; x\in{\bf R}_+,\;t<t_*,
(Case 6) {w}(0,t_*)=\underline{w}(0,t_*)=L_2, (z(x,t),w(x,t))\in {\rm int}(\Delta_{m,x}) ,\; x\in{\bf R}_+,\;t<t_*,
(Case 7) \bar{w}(x_*,t_*)=U_2, (z(x,t),w(x,t))\in {\rm int}(\Delta_{m,x}),\; x\in{\bf R}_+,\;t<t_*,
(Case 8) {w}(0,t_*)=\bar{w}(0,t_*)=U_2, (z(x,t),w(x,t))\in {\rm int}(\Delta_{m,x}) ,\; x\in{\bf R}_+,\;t<t_*,

where \underline{z}=e^{\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}{z},\;\bar{z}=e^{-\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}z,\; \underline{w}=e^{\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}w,\; \bar{w}=e^{-\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}w and {\rm int}(\Delta_{m,x}) represents the interior of \Delta_{m,x}.

(Case 1) We set r=w/z. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{m,x}, from \eqref{eqn:invariant1}_1 and \eqref{eqn:invariant3}_2, we notice that

\begin{aligned} -\sigma_1\leq r\leq0. \end{aligned}

Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{m,x}, we deduce from (?), (?) and (?)

\begin{aligned} e^{-\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}\left(\underline{z}_t+\lambda_1\underline{z}_x\right) =&a(x)\dfrac{\gamma-1}8\left(w^2-z^2\right) +\bar{a}(x)\left(\dfrac{\gamma+1}4z^2+\dfrac{3-\gamma}4zw\right)\\ =&a(x)\dfrac{\gamma-1}8z^2\left(r^2-1\right) +\bar{a}(x)z^2\left(\dfrac{\gamma+1}4+\dfrac{3-\gamma}4r\right)\\ >&-l\bar{a}(x)\dfrac{\gamma-1}8z^2\left|r^2-1\right| +\bar{a}(x)z^2\left(\dfrac{\gamma+1}4+\dfrac{3-\gamma}4r\right)\\ \geq& \dfrac{(\gamma-1)\bar{a}(x)|r^2-1|}{8}z^2\left\{f(r)-l\right\}\\ \geq&0. \end{aligned}

In this case, \underline{z} attains the minimum at (x_*,t_*). Then, since \underline{z}_x=0 and \underline{z}_t\leq0, we can deduce a contradiction from (?).

(Case 2) In this case, we find that \underline{z}_t(0,t_*)\leq0 and \underline{z}_x(0,t_*)\geq0. Observing Remark 1.3 (2), since \lambda_1<0, we can deduce a contradiction from (?).

(Case 3) We set r=w/z. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{m,x}, from \eqref{eqn:invariant3}_2, we notice that -\sigma_1\leq r\leq0. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{m,x}, we deduce from (?), (?) and (?)

\begin{aligned} e^{\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}\left(\bar{z}_t+\lambda_1\bar{z}_x\right) =&a(x)\dfrac{\gamma-1}8\left(w^2-z^2\right) -\bar{a}(x)\left(\dfrac{\gamma+1}4z^2+\dfrac{3-\gamma}4zw\right)\\ <& -\dfrac{(\gamma-1)\bar{a}(x)|r^2-1|}{8}z^2\left\{f(r)-l\right\}\\ \leq&0. \end{aligned}

In this case, from the finite propagation, \bar{z} attains the maximum at (x_*,t_*). Then, since \bar{z}_x=0 and \bar{z}_t\geq0, we can deduce a contradiction from (?).

(Case 4) In this case, we find that \bar{z}_t(0,t_*)\geq0 and \bar{z}_x(0,t_*)\leq0. Observing Remark 1.3 (2), since \lambda_1<0, we can deduce a contradiction from (?).

(Case 5) We set r=z/w. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{m,x}, from \eqref{eqn:invariant3}_1, we notice that -\sigma_1\leq r\leq0. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{m,x}, we deduce from (?), (?) and (?)

\begin{aligned} e^{-\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}\left(\underline{w}_t+\lambda_2\underline{w}_x\right) =&-a(x)\dfrac{\gamma-1}8\left(w^2-z^2\right) +\bar{a}(x)\left(\dfrac{\gamma+1}4w^2+\dfrac{3-\gamma}4zw\right)\\ >& \dfrac{(\gamma-1)\bar{a}(x)|r^2-1|}{8}w^2\left\{f(r)-l\right\}\\ \geq&0. \end{aligned}

In this case, \underline{w} attains the minimum at (x_*,t_*). Then, since \underline{w}_x=0 and \underline{w}_t\leq0, we can deduce a contradiction from (?).

(Case 6) In this case, from the boundary condition v=0\;(\text{i.e., } w+z=0), (Case 4) and \eqref{eqn:invariant7}_2, we find that {w}(0,t_*)= -{z}(0,t_*)>U_1\geq L_2.

(Case 7) We set r=z/w. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{m,x}, from \eqref{eqn:invariant1}_2 and \eqref{eqn:invariant3}_1, we notice that -\sigma_1\leq r\leq0. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{m,x}, we deduce from (?), (?) and (?)

\begin{aligned} e^{\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}\left(\bar{w}_t+\lambda_2\bar{w}_x\right) =&-a(x)\dfrac{\gamma-1}8\left(w^2-z^2\right) -\bar{a}(x)\left(\dfrac{\gamma+1}4w^2+\dfrac{3-\gamma}4zw\right)\\ <& -\dfrac{(\gamma-1)\bar{a}(x)|r^2-1|}{8}w^2\left\{f(r)-l\right\}\\ \leq&0. \end{aligned}

In this case, \bar{w} attains the maximum at (x_*,t_*). Then, since \bar{w}_x=0 and \bar{w}_t\geq0, we can deduce a contradiction from (?).

(Case 8) In this case, from the boundary condition v=0\;(\text{i.e., } w+z=0), (Case 3) and \eqref{eqn:invariant7}_1, we find that {w}(0,t_*)= -{z}(0,t_*)<L_1\leq U_2.

Since \varepsilon is arbitrary, we can complete the proof of Proposition 2.1.

Uses Theorem 1.4, Remark 1.3

Proposition

Proposition 2.2

0GNJ

\begin{aligned} (z_0(x),w_0(x))\in \Delta_{r,x}\quad (z_B(t),w_B(t))\in \Delta_{r,0}\quad \text{ for any $x\geq0$ and $t\geq0$} \end{aligned}

and (P2) has a smooth solution satisfying \rho\geq0, \Delta_{r,x} is an invariant region for (P2).

Proof of Proposition 2.2

We first set \underline{z}=e^{\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}z and r=w/z. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{r,x}, from \eqref{eqn:invariant6}, we notice that

\begin{aligned} 1< r\leq\sigma_2. \end{aligned}

Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{r,x}, we deduce from (?), (?) and (?)

We next set \bar{z}=e^{-\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}z and r=w/z. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{r,x}, from \eqref{eqn:invariant4}_1 and \eqref{eqn:invariant6}, we notice that

\begin{aligned} 1< r\leq\sigma_2. \end{aligned}

Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{r,x}, we deduce from (?), (?) and (?)

\begin{aligned} e^{\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}\left(\bar{z}_t+\lambda_1\bar{z}_x\right) =&a(x)\dfrac{\gamma-1}8\left(w^2-z^2\right) -\bar{a}(x)\left(\dfrac{\gamma+1}4z^2+\dfrac{3-\gamma}4zw\right)\\ \leq& -\dfrac{(\gamma-1)\bar{a}(x)|r^2-1|}{8}z^2\left\{f(r)-l\right\}\\ \leq&0. \end{aligned}

We next set \underline{w}=e^{\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}w and r=z/w. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{r,x}, from \eqref{eqn:invariant5}, we notice that 0\leq r<1. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{r,x}, we deduce from (?), (?) and (?)

Similarly, we first set \bar{w}=e^{-\int^x_0\bar{a}(y)dy}w and set r=z/w. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{r,x}, from \eqref{eqn:invariant4}_2 and \eqref{eqn:invariant5}, we notice that 0\leq r<1. Then, if (z,w)\in \Delta_{r,x}, we deduce from (?), (?) and (?)

Applying the maximum principle to \underline{z},\bar{z}, \underline{w} and \bar{w}, we can complete the proof.

Proposition

Proposition 2.3

4V9O

\begin{aligned} (z_0(x),w_0(x))\in \Delta_{l,x}\quad\text{ for any $x\geq0$} \end{aligned}

and (P3) has a smooth solution satisfying \rho\geq0, then, \Delta_{l,x} is an invariant region for (P3).

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2402.05268v1 by Shih-Wei Chou, Bo-Chih Huang, Yun-guang Lu and Naoki Tsuge, under the licence CC0 1.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2402/2402.05268.jsonl.