Global strong solutions without contact for a viscous fluid interacting with a purely elastic beam

Integrating incompressibility and using the prescribed traces, we obtain \int_0^L\partial_th\,\mathrm dx=0. On a compact positive-gap interval, the two-dimensional product estimate ensures \mathbf u\cdot\nabla\mathbf u\in L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega_h)). Then we use the test pair (\mathbf u, \partial_t h \mathbf e_2) for the coupled problem. Reynolds transport contributes \frac12\int_0^L|\partial_th|^2\partial_th\,\mathrm dx, which cancels the convective boundary flux. The beam equation can be paired with \partial_th\in L^\infty(0,T;H_\sharp^1(0,L)). The elastic product rule follows from \partial_x^2h\in L^2(0,T;H_\sharp^1(0,L)) and \partial_t\partial_x^2h\in L^2(0,T;H_\sharp^{-1}(0,L)). Fluid traction and beam work cancel because the traces match. We thus obtain the energy identity with dissipation 2\mu\int_{\Omega_h}|D\mathbf u|^2\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dy. The cross-gradient integration by parts proved in Lemma 2.9 identifies this dissipation with \mu\int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla\mathbf u|^2\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dy. Temporal regularization and the continuous initial traces justify the calculation from zero.

The one-dimensional Sobolev embedding and positivity of h justify the chain rules and integrations by parts below. We first observe that

Since \partial_x h has zero mean and is continuous, it vanishes somewhere in each period. Integrating the preceding inequality from such a zero to x bounds (\partial_x h(x))^3/h(x) from above. Integrating from x to the next periodic copy of the same zero bounds it from below. Consequently,

which implies (2.2).

For the reciprocal-height estimate, we apply periodic integration by parts and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality to obtain

The periodic W^{1,1} estimate bounds the maximum of h^{-1} by its mean plus one half of the L^1 norm of its derivative. Indeed, periodicity implies that its total variation is at least twice its oscillation. Applying this estimate and then the Cauchy–Schwarz and Young inequalities, we obtain

which shows (2.2). Taking cube roots, using (a+b)^{1/3}\leq a^{1/3}+b^{1/3} for a,b\geq0, and recalling \lVert \partial_x^2h\rVert_{L_\sharp^2(0,L)}^2\leq2\mathcal E(0)/\alpha, we obtain

which proves (2.2).

Differentiating Q and using u_1(x,h)=0, we find

The two zero endpoint values of u_1 imply

Also \partial_t h =\int_0^h \partial_y u_2 \,\mathrm dy, so (\partial_t h)^2\leq h\int_0^h| \partial_y u_2 |^2\,\mathrm dy. Integration in x proves (2.3). Finally, (2.3) follows from the bottom condition \mathbf u(x,0)=0 and the fundamental theorem of calculus.

Since h\in H_\sharp^2(0,L) is positive, (?) implies F\in H_\sharp^3(0,L)\hookrightarrow C^2([0,L]). We estimate F and \ell\partial_xF simultaneously, using

The combinations on the right satisfy first-order identities involving only \partial_xh and \partial_x\ell. Indeed, since

direct differentiation yields

Choose the sign for which the absolute maximum of these two periodic functions is larger, and take a point where this maximum is attained. The derivative of the selected function vanishes there, while the absolute value of the other function is no larger. Taking absolute values in the preceding identity and using (?), we obtain

Absorbing the first term and recalling the slope bound in (?), we conclude that, at every point,

Consequently, since \ell=\varepsilon h^{2/3},

Finally, the equation itself implies

This completes the proof.

By (?), we have

Then F\in H_\sharp^4(0,L) because h\in H_\sharp^3(0,L). Integration by parts yields

Moreover,

Adding them together with \alpha > 0,\beta \geq 0 proves (2.6).

Testing (?) by h \partial_t F and integrating by parts, we obtain the exact identity

Since \partial_x(\ell^2 h) = \frac72 \partial_x \ell h \ell, we have

where we used \|\partial_x\ell\|_{L_\sharp^\infty(0,L)} \leq 1/16. Moreover, by Young’s inequality, \ell = \varepsilon h^{2/3}, (2.2), and (2.5) one records

Therefore, by (?) and (2.3), we infer from (Proof) that

which proves the first inequality of (2.7).

Now testing instead by (h/\ell^2) \partial_t F, one has

Here h/\ell^2=\varepsilon^{-2}h^{-1/3} and \ell \partial_x h /h=\frac32 \partial_x \ell and \|\partial_x\ell\|_{L^\infty}\leq 1/16. Thus the first term on the right-hand side is controlled by

Furthermore, by Young’s inequality, \ell = \varepsilon h^{2/3}, (2.2), and (2.5), it holds

Combining these bounds with the preceding estimates and (?), we obtain

Here we have used (2.3). This shows the second inequality in (2.7).

Finally, integrating by parts with Lemma 2.2 leads to

The height has a positive minimum on the compact interval. Using the equation \partial_x^2F=\ell^{-2}(F-\partial_xh), the coercive weak formulation, and one-dimensional Sobolev multiplication, we first obtain F\in H_\sharp^2(0,L) and then F\in H_\sharp^4(0,L) because h\in H_\sharp^3(0,L). Resolvent estimates for the difference of two coefficient fields imply continuity with values in H_\sharp^4(0,L).

Subtracting (?) at t+\tau and t, and dividing by \tau, we obtain

Since \partial_th\in C([0,T];H_\sharp^1(0,L)) and F\in C([0,T];H_\sharp^4(0,L)), the right-hand side converges in L_\sharp^2(0,L), uniformly on compact time intervals. Elliptic estimates then show that the time derivative belongs to C([0,T];H_\sharp^2(0,L)), which gives (2.8).

The stream function consequently has three spatial derivatives in L^2, while its Eulerian time derivative is

which has one spatial derivative in L^2 continuously in time. This proves (2.8). Also \partial_xF\in C([0,T];H_\sharp^3(0,L))\cap C^1([0,T];H_\sharp^1(0,L)), so

is integrable and the product rule for \int_0^L\partial_th\,\partial_xF\,\mathrm dx is valid. After pullback by \chi_h, the fluid product rule follows from the identity \partial_t(\mathbf u\circ\chi_h)=(\partial_t\mathbf u)\circ\chi_h+z\partial_th\,(\partial_y\mathbf u)\circ\chi_h\in L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega_1)), the preceding regularity of \mathbf w, and the Jacobian h. The displayed regularity follows from the positive gap and \partial_th\in C([0,T];H_\sharp^1(0,L)). Thus Reynolds transport and the integrations by parts used below hold down to zero, by temporal regularization if necessary. In the beam acceleration term of the coupled identity, the integral is understood as the displayed duality pairing.

The positive minimum used here justifies the operations on an existing solution. Every inequality used to estimate the distance is proved separately with the gap dependence displayed explicitly.

First, integrating by parts and recalling \operatorname{div}\mathbf u=0, we find

Indeed, \partial_y u_2 =- \partial_x u_1, and differentiation of the trace u_1(x,h(x))=0 implies \partial_x u_1 + \partial_x h \partial_y u_1 =0. The lower-boundary term vanishes by (?), and the lateral terms cancel by periodicity. The same computation with \mathbf w=\mathbf u proves 2\int_{\Omega_h}|D\mathbf u|^2\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dy=\int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla\mathbf u|^2\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dy.

By incompressibility and the definition of \mathbf w, it holds

Since u_1|_{y=0} = u_1|_{y=h} = 0, \partial_y\chi(z)=\chi'(z)/h and \partial_y^3\chi(z)=\chi'''(z)/h^3=-12/h^3,

The first term satisfies

Invoking identities above, we arrive at

By \partial_t h =- \partial_x Q, we compute

Substituting F= \partial_x h +\varepsilon^2h^{4/3} \partial_x^2 F into (?) with (?) yields (2.9).

By the flux bound in (2.3), we have

By Young’s inequality and (2.6), we have

where the last step uses (2.2).

We first record the second spatial derivative of the stream function. Differentiating at fixed physical coordinates, with the profile and its derivatives evaluated at z=y/h\in(0,1), we obtain

For the time derivative, we use the formula established in the proof of Lemma 2.8. Since the profile and its derivatives are bounded on [0,1], (2.7) implies

where we used \lVert F\rVert_{L_\sharp^\infty(0,L)}\leq C and (2.3) for the second term.

By (?) and (2.5), every term in (Proof) other than the one containing \partial_x^2 h is bounded by Ch^{-1}. The remaining term is controlled by C| \partial_x^2 h |h^{-2/3}. Therefore invoking (2.2), one has

In view of Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, one further shows

For the time contribution, spatial integration by parts leads to the exact identity

Here the top trace of \partial_t \psi is \partial_t F, since \chi'(1)=0. By (2.3) and (2.7), one derives

Moreover, it holds

Then

For convection, incompressibility and the top traces yield

The first term is bounded by \lVert h \partial_x F\rVert_{L_\sharp^\infty(0,L)}\int_0^L (\partial_t h)^2/h\,\mathrm dx\leq C\mathcal D. From (?) and (2.5),

Applying (2.3) to the other term, we find

Indeed, multiplying the right-hand side of (?) by h leads to a bounded coefficient by (?). Combining the estimates for time and convection proves (2.12).

By (2.5) and Hölder’s inequality,

The energy bound therefore implies

Further by vertical integration of (?), we obtain

and hence

Since both exponents are strictly below one, the sum of the absolute values in (Proof)–(Proof) is at most 3\mu \mathcal S+C_*-3\mu for a sufficiently large fixed C_*\geq3\mu. Consequently, \mathcal Z+C_*\geq3\mu(1+\mathcal S). The upper bound follows from the same estimates.

We retain \widetilde{\mathbf v}=\mathscr E(\partial_th) and \overline{\mathbf v}=\mathbf v-\widetilde{\mathbf v} from Section ?. Combining (3.7) with (?), the contribution of the full fluid H^2 norm to (3.8) has coefficient C_0N^{-1}. Let c_f>0 be the coercivity constant multiplying the fluid integral in (3.8). We first fix N\geq N_0 so that C_0N^{-1}\leq c_f/2, also keeping the positivity ensured by (3.6). This choice depends only on the energy, the prescribed gap, and the fixed parameters. After absorbing this contribution, we obtain, for every \eta>0,

By (3.8) and the mechanical energy bounds, one has

Let c_x>0 and c_v>0 denote the coefficients of the fluid integrals on the left-hand sides of (3.3) and (Proof), respectively, and let K_N be the coefficient of \int_0^t\lVert \partial_x\mathbf v\rVert_{H^1(\Omega_1)}^2\,\mathrm ds on the right-hand side of (Proof). With N now fixed, choose

We add (3.3), taken with this \delta, to \vartheta times (Proof). The first choice absorbs the tangential dissipation on the right-hand side, and the second absorbs the full fluid terms contributed by (3.3). By the preceding norm comparison, the terms evaluated at time t on the left, together with the constant 1 already present in (3.3), control c_\vartheta\mathcal E_1(t) for some c_\vartheta>0. We finally choose \eta>0 so that \vartheta\eta\leq c_\vartheta/4, which them leads to

after division by the fixed positive coercivity constants.

By the mechanical energy identity, \int_0^T(1+\mathcal D(s))\,\mathrm ds\leq T+\mathcal E(0)/\mu. Applying Gronwall’s inequality, we conclude that

Equations (3.3), (3.5), (3.7), and (?) control the remaining structural norms. The spatial and temporal Piola transform then recover the corresponding physical fluid norms.

The mechanical energy bounds h in H_\sharp^2(0,L), \partial_th in L_\sharp^2(0,L), and \mathbf v in L^2(\Omega_1). Together with h\geq \min h, it controls h, h^{-1}, and \partial_xh in L_\sharp^\infty(0,L). The matrices A_h and B_h^{-1}B_h^{-\top} are therefore uniformly elliptic, and their entries are uniformly bounded in L^\infty(0,1;H_\sharp^1(0,L)).

We shall repeatedly use the one-dimensional inequalities with values in L^2(0,1),

Here \lVert f\rVert_{L^2(0,1;H_\sharp^s(0,L))}^2=\int_0^1\lVert f(\cdot,z)\rVert_{H_\sharp^s(0,L)}^2\,\mathrm dz. Multiplication by B_h^\top and B_h^{-\top} is bounded on H^1(\Omega_1) with the stated constants. The only coefficient derivative requiring an estimate is a bounded factor times \partial_x^2h, and

Combining the coordinate change with the fixed bottom trace, we obtain (3.2).

For a field with zero bottom trace, ellipticity, Poincare’s inequality, and the same multiplication bounds imply (3.2). Thus the coercivity constant also depends only on the energy and separation.

Differentiating the Piola transformation twice yields (3.2). Indeed, the scalar composition with \chi_h and its inverse is bounded on H^2 under an H_\sharp^2(0,L) bound for h and a positive gap, cf. [SchwarzacherSu2025, Proposition 2.1]. The additional highest derivative in the Piola multiplication satisfies

Products with \partial_x^2h multiplying a first fluid derivative are controlled by (?) and Young’s inequality. Products with (\partial_x^2h)^2 multiplying an undifferentiated fluid factor use \lVert \partial_x^2h\rVert_{L_\sharp^4(0,L)}^4\leq C(1+\lVert \partial_x^3h\rVert_{L_\sharp^2(0,L)}). These observations prove both directions of (3.2).

The exact temporal conversion is

The matrix \partial_tB_h^{-\top} contains bounded factors multiplying \partial_th and \partial_t\partial_xh. Estimating the latter coefficient in L_\sharp^2(0,L) against the column supremum of \mathbf v and using the one-dimensional interpolation inequality for \partial_th in L_\sharp^\infty(0,L), we derive (3.2).

The same estimates control the geometric transport terms. For convection, we invoke the two-dimensional interpolation inequality to obtain

Using (3.2) and \mathcal D\leq C\mathcal E_1, we obtain (3.2) for every \delta>0.

This completes the proof.

We take (\boldsymbol\varphi,\zeta)=(-\partial_x^2\mathbf v,-\partial_t\partial_x^2h) in (?), since \partial_x is the tangential direction and does not change the coupling of kinetic condition. Integration by parts in x yields

By (3.2), we have

where c > 0 depends only on the mechanical energy and the positive gap.

For the right-hand side, we estimate it term by term. First, the time derivative of hB_h^{-1}B_h^{-\top} is a sum of bounded coefficients multiplying \partial_th and \partial_t\partial_xh. Since \lVert \partial_x\mathbf v\rVert_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\leq C(1+\mathcal D)^{1/2}, for every \eta>0, it holds

Similarly, we know the x-derivative of hB_h^{-1}B_h^{-\top} is bounded in L_\sharp^2(0,L;L^\infty(0,1)). Consequently,

We now estimate the three viscous remainders in (Proof). For the first one, applying Cauchy–Schwarz inequality in z and Hölder’s inequality in x yields

By the boundedness of A_h and (?), we have

Since

one obtains from (?) that

The first integral is estimated exactly as I_3, using (?). For the integral containing \partial_x^3h, we instead derive

which then by Young’s inequality yields

Finally, invoking (3.2), we find

Choosing \eta > 0 sufficiently small such that 12 \eta \leq c and integrating (Proof) proves (3.3). The trace condition and the zero mean of \partial_th show (3.3).

These bounds can be obtained directly from the horizontal Fourier modes. At a nonzero frequency k\in(2\pi/L)\mathbb Z, the vertical component w_k=(\mathscr{E}(\xi)_k)_2 solves

and the horizontal component is (\mathscr{E}(\xi)_k)_1=-(ik)^{-1}\partial_zw_k. Solving this fourth-order equation with the basis e^{|k|z}, e^{-|k|z}, ze^{|k|z}, and ze^{-|k|z}, we integrate the resulting exponential terms and find

The zero mode vanishes. Multiplying (Proof) by the appropriate powers of |k| and summing by Parseval’s identity proves the three estimates. The constructed velocity satisfies the stated Stokes problem. Uniqueness follows by testing the difference of two solutions by itself. The first estimate extends the solution to negative-order boundary data by transposition, cf. [Raymond2007, Appendix A].

Finally, applying Cauchy–Schwarz to the Fourier series, we obtain

which is (3.4). Thus the time derivative of the fluid test can be estimated by duality.

Let \Lambda=(1-\partial_x^2)^{1/2} be the tangential operator, defined by horizontal Fourier series with frequencies 2\pi k/L, k\in\mathbb Z. We choose \zeta=\Lambda^3(h-H) and use \boldsymbol\varphi = \mathscr{E} (\zeta) in (?). Since h-H has zero mean, the test pair is admissible by Lemma 3.4. Integrating the two acceleration terms by parts in time, we arrive at

Since h-H has zero mean and \alpha>0, it holds

for a fixed c>0. From the lifting estimates, we also have

We estimate the right-hand side term by term. By (3.3),

Since lifting is linear and independent of time, \partial_t\boldsymbol\varphi solves the same problem with boundary value \Lambda^3\partial_th\,\mathbf e_2. For the term containing \partial_t\boldsymbol\varphi, we apply (3.4) and obtain

The multiplication estimate in the second step uses only \partial_x^2h\in L_\sharp^2(0,L) and the column supremum for \mathbf v.

For the coefficient-time term, the entries of \partial_t(hB_h^{-1}B_h^{-\top}) contain bounded factors multiplying \partial_th and \partial_t\partial_xh. Consequently,

Using the L^2(\Omega_1) bound for the lift and Young’s inequality, for every \eta>0 we obtain

For viscosity, boundedness of multiplication by B_h^{-\top} on H^1 implies

Arguing as for J_3, we find

The transport term requires only the H^1(\Omega_1) norm of the test. Since B_h^\top(\widehat\mathbf u-\partial_t\chi_h)=\mathbf v-z\partial_th\mathbf e_2 has zero normal component at z=0,1 and divergence -\partial_th, integration by parts yields

The two-dimensional inequality \lVert \mathbf v\rVert_{L^4(\Omega_1)}^2\leq C\lVert \mathbf v\rVert_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\lVert \mathbf v\rVert_{H^1(\Omega_1)} controls the quadratic fluid product by C(1+\mathcal D)^{1/2}. Products with \partial_th use its L_\sharp^\infty(0,L) norm, bounded by C\mathcal E_1^{1/2}. In particular,

The estimates of J_5 and J_6 apply to every admissible test of the stated regularity. In particular,

Choose \eta>0 so that 4\eta\leq c/2 and integrate (Proof). Since \mathcal E_1\geq1, the preceding estimates yield

It remains to estimate the fluid and beam pairings evaluated at times 0 and t. By the mechanical energy bound and interpolation,

Hence, for every \varepsilon>0, Young’s inequality implies

and its value at t=0 is bounded by C(1+\mathcal E_1(0)). This completes the proof of (3.5).

Indeed, |g(x)-g(y)|\leq \lVert \partial_xg\rVert_{L_\sharp^2(0,L)}d(x,y)^{1/2}, where d denotes periodic distance. The periodized kernel of \Lambda_N^{-1} has moment of order 1/2 bounded by CN^{-3/2} and its derivative has the corresponding moment bounded by CN^{-1/2}. These statements follow by scaling the Bessel kernel on the line and then periodizing. Moreover,

The last inequality follows from the L^2 norm of the Bessel kernel. These facts prove the first two estimates in (3.6), and Hilbert-space interpolation leads to the third one.

To show (3.6), write the commutator as \Lambda_N^{-1}(gf)-g\Lambda_N^{-1}f. In one dimension H^{1/2}\cdot L^2\subset H^{-1/2} and H^{1/2}\cdot H^1\subset H^{1/2}. The first product assertion also follows immediately by duality from H^{1/2}\subset L^4. Applying these two product estimates, we have (3.6). All coefficient families below are finite polynomials in z, so the same bounds on \Omega_1 follow from their slice estimates.

We next establish the positivity needed for the acceleration terms and the principal part of the tangentially smoothed viscous form. With \mathbf{w}=\Lambda_N^{-1/2}f, the difference from \int(g\mathbf{w})\cdot\mathbf{w} is

Interpolating between the L^2 and L^\infty increment estimates, we obtain

The positive-order kernel for \Lambda_N^{1/2} has moment of order 3/4 bounded by CN^{-1/4}. One direct verification uses the periodic heat kernel and

The periodic heat kernel has the required moment bound Cr^{3/8}, whose integral against e^{-N^2r}r^{-5/4} is bounded by CN^{-1/4}. By Minkowski’s and Hölder’s inequalities,

Finally H_\sharp^{1/4}(0,L)\subset L_\sharp^4(0,L) yields

which proves (3.6).

We test (?) with the admissible pair (\boldsymbol\varphi,\zeta)=(\Lambda_N^{-1}\partial_t\mathbf v,\Lambda_N^{-1}\partial_t^2h). The operator \Lambda_N^{-1} commutes with spatial derivatives and boundary traces, so the pair is solenoidal and preserves the coupling condition. Integration by parts in time in the elastic terms and symmetry of the viscous form yield

Here K_1 is the sum of the two structural norms. The coefficients \rho_fhB_h^{-1}B_h^{-\top} and the full principal block matrix \big((A_h)_{ij}B_h^{-1}B_h^{-\top}\big)_{i,j=1}^2 are uniformly positive and bounded in L^\infty(0,1;H_\sharp^1(0,L)) using only the energy and gap. By Lemma 3.6, we may choose N\geq N_0 depending only on these quantities so that

The same choice ensures positivity of the principal part of the viscous quadratic form inside the time derivative in (Proof).

We now estimate the right-hand side term by term. From the Fourier symbol of \Lambda_N^{-1/2} and (3.3), we obtain, uniformly for N\geq1,

To estimate K_2 and K_3, we first expand the viscous form. For an arbitrary test \boldsymbol\varphi, its expansion is

Here \partial_1=\partial_x and \partial_2=\partial_z. We keep the four coefficient families separate, since only the principal coefficient needs a decaying power of N.

The mechanical energy and the positive gap imply

The transposed mixed family has the same bound. A horizontal derivative of a mixed coefficient and an undifferentiated zeroth-order coefficient satisfy

The same bounds hold after the z derivatives used below. Indeed, these coefficients are finite polynomials in z. Their scalar coefficient functions depend smoothly on h,h^{-1},\partial_xh, with at most a linear factor of \partial_x^2h in the mixed terms and a quadratic factor in the zeroth-order terms. Smooth functions of h,h^{-1},\partial_xh have uniformly bounded H_\sharp^1(0,L) norms. The only quadratic structural product needing explanation is controlled by

This follows from the one-dimensional fractional product estimate and interpolation, or from \lVert f\rVert_{L_\sharp^4(0,L)}\leq C\lVert f\rVert_{L_\sharp^2(0,L)}^{3/4}\lVert f\rVert_{H_\sharp^1(0,L)}^{1/4} and \lVert (1-\partial_x^2)^{1/4}f\rVert_{L_\sharp^4(0,L)}\leq C\lVert f\rVert_{L_\sharp^2(0,L)}^{1/4}\lVert f\rVert_{H_\sharp^1(0,L)}^{3/4}.

We now estimate K_2, the coefficient-time integral in (Proof). In the principal coefficients a time derivative produces \partial_th and \partial_t\partial_xh. The mixed coefficients additionally produce \partial_t\partial_x^2h, and the zeroth-order coefficients produce \partial_x^2h\,\partial_t\partial_x^2h. Integrate the latter two derivatives once in x. The resulting products are obtained directly from (?), with at most the following structural factors:

They multiply two fluid factors, one of which is acted on by \Lambda_N^{-1}. The only second fluid derivatives generated in this integration by parts have a horizontal derivative and are bounded by \lVert \partial_x\mathbf v\rVert_{H^1(\Omega_1)}. The estimates use

Here the first inequality also uses the energy bound for \partial_th in L^2. To make the highest products explicit, their absolute integrals over \Omega_1 satisfy

Each estimate uses Cauchy–Schwarz in z before applying Hölder’s inequality in x. The other products have fewer derivatives and satisfy the same bound. Thus, expanding 2K_2 in (Proof), we obtain

Since K_2 is one half of this integral, we fix \delta, for example \delta=1, and obtain

For K_3, we estimate the commutator difference in (Proof). Expanding -2K_3 by (?), commuting the self-adjoint operator \Lambda_N^{-1}, and integrating by parts once, we obtain

The bottom contribution vanishes because \partial_t\mathbf v=0 there. To proceed, we first expand

The same product rule applies to the differentiated mixed commutator. For the terms with two derivatives on \mathbf v, (3.6) yields

Among the other terms, the three containing a first derivative of \mathbf v have a differentiated principal coefficient or an undifferentiated mixed coefficient. Their H_\sharp^{1/2}(0,L) norms are bounded by C(1+\lVert \partial_x^3h\rVert_{L_\sharp^2(0,L)}^{1/2}), uniformly in z. The two terms containing \mathbf v have a differentiated mixed coefficient or a zeroth-order coefficient, with norms bounded by C(1+\lVert \partial_x^3h\rVert_{L_\sharp^2(0,L)}+\lVert h\rVert_{H_\sharp^{7/2}(0,L)}). We apply (3.6) to these five terms.

At z=1, both \mathbf v and \Lambda_N^{-1}\mathbf v have vertical traces, while \partial_iB_h^{-\top} has zero second column. Hence

The principal boundary terms satisfy, by (3.6) and the fixed-strip trace theorem,

Pairing the volume and boundary terms with \Lambda_N^{-1/2}\partial_t\mathbf v and \Lambda_N^{-1/2}\partial_t^2h, respectively, we obtain

Using \lVert \mathbf v\rVert_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\leq C, \lVert \nabla\mathbf v\rVert_{L^2(\Omega_1)}^2\leq C\mathcal D, and 1+\lVert \partial_x^3h\rVert_{L_\sharp^2(0,L)}^2\leq C\mathcal E_1, it follows from Young’s inequality that

Finally, since \lVert \Lambda_N^{-1}\partial_t\mathbf v\rVert_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\leq N^{-1/2}\lVert \Lambda_N^{-1/2}\partial_t\mathbf v\rVert_{L^2(\Omega_1)}, we apply Young’s inequality and (3.2) with its parameter proportional to N^{-1}. For K_4 and K_5, we obtain, for every fixed \delta>0,

We next estimate the two expressions inside the time derivative in (Proof). The structural squares generated by integration by parts in time constitute K_1 and have already been estimated. For the elastic pairing, we have

For the fluid viscous quadratic form at time t, we first consider the terms in which both spatial derivatives fall on the fluid factors. The full principal block is uniformly positive: for every \boldsymbol\xi_1,\boldsymbol\xi_2\in\mathbb R^2,

Moreover, its entries have uniformly bounded horizontal H_\sharp^1(0,L) norms, with constants depending only on the energy and gap. Applying (3.6) to this block and the vector (\partial_x\mathbf v,\partial_z\mathbf v) at each fixed z, and then integrating in z, we obtain

provided N is sufficiently large. This is the positive principal contribution used to absorb the mixed terms below. For either mixed term, move \Lambda_N^{-1/2} to the differentiated fluid factor and use the product estimates underlying (3.6). The mixed coefficient has H_\sharp^{1/2}(0,L) norm bounded by C(1+\lVert \partial_x^3h\rVert_{L_\sharp^2(0,L)}^{1/2}), while \lVert \Lambda_N^{-1}\mathbf v\rVert_{L^2(0,1;H_\sharp^1(0,L))}\leq C_N\lVert \mathbf v\rVert_{L^2(\Omega_1)} is energy controlled. For the zeroth-order family in (?), set

The energy bound and one-dimensional interpolation imply

Applying Cauchy–Schwarz in z and Hölder’s inequality in x , we obtain

The product of the two fluid norms in the preceding estimate is bounded by C_N\lVert \mathbf v\rVert_{L^2(\Omega_1)}^2, which is controlled by the mechanical energy. Combining the principal, mixed, and zeroth-order terms, we conclude that

The absolute value of the expression inside the time derivative in (Proof), evaluated at t=0, is bounded by C_N(1+\mathcal E_1(0)).

Now we integrate (Proof) over (0,t). Choose the small parameters in the estimates of K_3,K_4,K_5 so that their acceleration terms are absorbed by the mass coercivity. In view of the estimates of K_1,K_2 and the preceding bounds at times 0 and t, we conclude that

Applying the preceding estimate with \eta/2 in place of \eta, and then using (3.5) with \varepsilon chosen so that C_N\varepsilon\leq\eta/2. we record (3.7). For N\geq1, the Fourier symbols satisfy

Consequently,

which finishes the proof.

With the reduction above, we now test the transformed fluid equation (?) by \partial_t\overline{\mathbf v}. Its pressure term vanishes because the test is solenoidal and has zero trace. Using \partial_t\mathbf v=\partial_t\overline{\mathbf v}+\partial_t\widetilde{\mathbf v}, we obtain

We first estimate the expression obtained by differentiating only the geometric coefficients of the viscous integral. The formula

shows that the only second spatial derivative of the beam velocity is a coefficient times \partial_t\partial_x^2h\,\overline{\mathbf v}\cdot\nabla(B_h^{-\top}\overline{\mathbf v}). Integrating this term once in x leaves only \partial_t\partial_xh. After expanding the remaining factors, we obtain the following eight types of products, together with terms obtained by deleting \partial_x^2h or one derivative of \overline{\mathbf v}:

All their coefficients are bounded in terms of the energy and the gap. At each x, the two fluid factors are paired in L^2(0,1). Equations (?)–(?) yield, for every \delta>0,

For the products with additional derivatives of the geometric coefficients, we obtain

The last estimate pairs the two structural factors in L_\sharp^2(0,L) and uses the column supremum for each fluid factor. Thus

In view of (?), one has

By direct spatial differentiation, we have

The terms involving the highest geometric derivatives satisfy

It follows that

which implies

Moreover, it holds from (3.2) that

By the coercivity

which then absorbs the fluid acceleration terms on the right-hand side by taking small \delta>0. Then we conclude

To recover the spatial fluid derivatives, we apply [SchwarzacherSu2025, Theorem 4.5] with s=q=2, boundary integrability index 2, and boundary Besov order 2>3/2. The height is bounded by the energy in H_\sharp^2(0,L) and hence in H^2(0,L)=B_{2,2}^2(0,L), where B_{2,2}^2(0,L) denotes the usual Besov space. Its uniform C^{1,1/2} modulus permits boundary charts with uniformly small Lipschitz constants after rotation, while the positive gap keeps the two boundaries separated. The stationary Stokes constant therefore depends only on the energy and the gap. Denoting by p_0 the pressure of zero spatial mean, we obtain

The boundary Sobolev norm is measured through the same uniformly controlled graph charts. By the convection estimate in the proof of Lemma 3.2 and Young’s inequality, one has

We then use (3.2), (3.2), and (3.3) to control the other two terms left with explicit remainder (1+\mathcal D)\mathcal E_1. The physical pressure constant is determined by the mean beam equation. Write p=p_0+p_1(t) with p_0 of zero spatial mean. Since \partial_th has zero mean,

The trace estimate uses only the energy-controlled geometry and the positive gap. We then conclude that

Now let us choose \delta in (?) sufficiently small to absorb its acceleration contribution through (?) and apply (?) once more, and integrate in time. This proves (3.8).

Finally, (3.2) shows that the viscous integral on the left-hand side of (3.8), evaluated at time t, controls \lVert \overline{\mathbf v}(t)\rVert_{H^1(\Omega_1)}^2. Since the mechanical energy bounds \partial_th in L_\sharp^2(0,L), interpolation and Lemma 3.4 therefore imply (3.8) for every \delta>0.

We first propagate the acceleration from a regular time s. By the acceleration estimate in [SchwarzacherSu2025, Section 3.2 & Theorem 4.4], we have, initially for almost every pair of regular times 0\leq s\leq t\leq T and then for the corresponding energy representatives,

Here we have used the upper and lower bounds for h, together with the zero mean of \partial_th and \alpha>0, to write the differentiated physical energy in terms of its equivalent Sobolev norms. The constant 1 absorbs the lower-order terms in the source estimate. The corrected velocity derivative in the source calculation is precisely

where all terms can be controlled independently of higher norms at the initial time s.

Note that

Consequently, on the fixed interval t \in [0,T], integrating (Proof) against s\,\mathrm ds on (0,t) leads to

The fluid acceleration term on the right is controlled by the unweighted lower estimate. It remains to estimate the two beam terms.

To estimate the beam velocity, retain the stationary lifting \widetilde{\mathbf v}=\mathscr{E}(\partial_th) from Section ?. Its boundary conditions and time derivative are given by Lemma 3.4 and (?). Differentiating (?) and beam equation (?) in time and testing with (\boldsymbol\varphi,\zeta)=(\widetilde{\mathbf v},\partial_th), we obtain

Here we have

Multiplying (?) by t and integrating by parts from 0 to T, we obtain

We estimate the full cross functional using the original coupled equation. Applying (?) with (\boldsymbol\varphi,\zeta)=(\widetilde{\mathbf v},\partial_th) and integrating by parts in the periodic variable, we obtain

By (3.1), the upper bound in (3.2), and Lemma 3.4, for regular times we have

Consequently,

Note that t\mathcal H(t)\to0 as t\downarrow0, uniformly along the higher approximations with common lower-order bounds.

We now estimate O_i, i=1,\dots,8 in order. For O_1, we apply the trace theorem to the boundary identity \partial_t\mathbf v|_{z=1}=\partial_t^2h\,\mathbf e_2 and find

Interpolation between H_\sharp^{-1/2}(0,L) and H_\sharp^{1/2}(0,L), followed by Young’s inequality, yields, for every \delta>0,

The last term is controlled in (3.1).

For O_2, the bounded geometric coefficients and (?) imply

Both factors belong to L^2(0,T) by (3.1). Therefore by Cauchy–Schwarz in time and t\leq T, we have

For O_3, the entries of \partial_tB_h^{-\top} contain only bounded factors multiplying \partial_th or \partial_t\partial_xh. By the lower-order bounds and the column estimate in Lemma 3.2, we have \lVert h(\partial_tB_h^{-\top})\mathbf v\rVert_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\leq C_T. Consequently, by (?) and (3.1) we infer

For O_4, the same lifting estimate with (3.2) and (3.1) yields

For O_5, the H^1 multiplication bounds for B_h^{-\top} and the stationary lifting estimate in Lemma 3.4 imply

The last term is finite by (3.1).

By Lemma 3.4 and one-dimensional Sobolev embedding with values in L^2(0,1), one records

The strong solution bounds h in L^\infty(0,T;H_\sharp^3(0,L)) and both \mathbf v and \widetilde{\mathbf v} in L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega_1)). In particular, their column suprema and the spatial coefficient bounds used below are uniform on [0,T]. Since the entries of \partial_tA_h contain only \partial_th and \partial_t\partial_xh, for O_6, similar to the proof of Lemma 3.8, we have

where the second inequality uses the same column estimates and norm conversions as in Lemma 3.2.

For O_7, set a_j=\frac{z(A_h)_{1j}}h,a_1=z,a_2=-\frac{z^2\partial_xh}{h}. The separation bound and (3.1) imply

We shall use, for \mathbf f\in H^2(\Omega_1),

These bounds follow from the coefficient-product argument in Section ?, in particular the expansion underlying (?), and the column estimate (?), using the uniform H_\sharp^3(0,L) bound for h from (3.1).

Explicit differentiation of B_h^{-\top} leads to the pointwise bound

Expanding \partial_i((\partial_tB_h^{-\top})\mathbf v) and applying Cauchy–Schwarz in z and Hölder’s inequality in x, we obtain

For the first term, integration by parts in x yields, for j=1,2,

The remaining terms in the estimate of O_7 have the same bound. Consequently, by (3.1) and Lemma 3.4, one infers

For O_8, in view of the preceding product estimates with \mathbf v and \widetilde{\mathbf v}, we find

Using (?), (?), the preceding estimates of O_1,\ldots,O_8, and the zero mean of \partial_th, we obtain, for every \delta>0,

Combining this estimate with (?) and the unweighted lower bound for \partial_t\widehat\mathbf u, and rescaling \delta, yields

To absorb the last integral, differentiating \mathbf v=B_h^\top\widehat\mathbf u and using the global bound (3.1) lead to

In particular, \partial_t\partial_x^2h\,\widehat u_1 is controlled by \lVert \partial_th\rVert_{H_\sharp^2(0,L)} and \lVert \widehat u_1\rVert_{L_\sharp^\infty(0,L;L^2(0,1))}. Products of \partial_t\partial_xh with \nabla\widehat u_1 are controlled by \lVert \mathbf v\rVert_{H^2(\Omega_1)}. These account for all derivatives of the Piola coefficients.

Collecting (?), (?), and (?) together, we conclude that

where we have chosen \delta > 0 sufficiently small such that all the norms on the right-hand side can be absorbed suitably via the weighted higher energy or dissipation.

We next recover the Eulerian and spatial estimates using the temporal conversion (?) and \widehat\mathbf u=B_h^{-\top}\mathbf v. After taking a spatial derivative, the additional products contain \partial_th\,\nabla^2\widehat\mathbf u and \partial_t\partial_xh\,\nabla\widehat\mathbf u. The former uses H_\sharp^1(0,L)\hookrightarrow L_\sharp^\infty(0,L), and the latter satisfies

Thus (?) also controls t\partial_t\mathbf u in L^\infty(0,T;L^2(\Omega_h))\cap L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega_h)).

For the spatial estimates, use the stationary Stokes estimate and convection absorption from the proof of Lemma 3.8, together with the pressure normalization (?). Combining these with the beam equation (?), the fluid-traction trace estimate, and (3.1), we obtain

Multiplying (?) by t^2 and using (?) shows (5.1), which completes the proof.