Evolution Boussinesq model with nonmonotone friction and heat flux boundary conditions
Pawe{\l} Szafraniec

TL;DR
This paper establishes the existence and regularity of solutions for a 2D Boussinesq model incorporating nonmonotone friction and heat flux boundary conditions, advancing mathematical understanding of complex fluid-thermal interactions.
Contribution
It introduces a novel approach combining time retardation, regularization, and Galerkin methods to analyze hemivariational inequalities in fluid dynamics.
Findings
Proves existence of solutions for the model.
Establishes regularity properties of solutions.
Extends mathematical theory to nonmonotone boundary conditions.
Abstract
In this paper we prove the existence and regularity of a solution to a two-dimensional system of evolutionary hemivariational inequalities which describes the Boussinesq model with nonmonotone friction and heat flux. We use the time retardation and regularization technique, combined with a regularized Galerkin method, and recent results from the theory of hemivariational 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.
Evolution Boussinesq model with nonmonotone friction and heat flux boundary conditions
††thanks: Research supported by the Marie Curie International Research Staff Exchange Scheme Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 295118 and the National Science Center of Poland under the Maestro Advanced Project No. DEC-2012/06/A/ST1/00262.
Pawel Szafraniec111E-mail: [email protected].
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Jagiellonian University in Krakow
ul. Lojasiewicza 6, 30-348 Krakow, Poland
Abstract. In this paper we prove the existence and regularity of a solution to a two-dimensional system of evolutionary hemivariational inequalities which describes the Boussinesq model with nonmonotone friction and heat flux. We use the time retardation and regularization technique, combined with a regularized Galerkin method, and recent results from the theory of hemivariational inequalities.
Keywords: evolution hemivariational inequality; Clarke subdifferential; nonconvex; parabolic; weak solution; fluid mechanics;
**2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: ** 76D05, 76D03, 35D30, 35Q35.
1 Introduction
The Boussinesq system of hydrodynamics equations arises from several physical problems when the fluid varies in temperature from one place to another, and we simultaneously observe the flow of fluid and heat transfer. The system couples incompressible Navier–Stokes equations for the fluid velocity and the thermodynamic equation for the temperature distribution. For the derivation of the Boussineq equations, see [4, 7, 25]. The mathematical theory of Navier–Stokes equations has been of the strong interest in the mathematical commmunity for many years, the basic references are monographs [31] and [32]. The coupled system of incompressible Navier–Stokes problem with the heat equation has been studied in both static and evolutionary cases by many authors, e.g. see [6, 15, 17, 18] and the references therein.
In the present paper we study the Boussinesq system which consists with two evolutionary partial differential equations of parabolic type. We impose mixed nonmonotone subdifferential boundary conditions. More precisely, we divide the boundary into two parts. On one part the usual Dirichlet condition applies. On the other part, called the contact boundary, we consider a nonmonotone friction law for the velocity, as well as a nonmonotone law for the heat flux. Because of these nonmonotone conditions, the formulation of the problem based on a variational inequality approach and the notion of convex subdifferential can not be applied. It is worth noting that the subdifferential boundary conditons for Navier–Stokes equations in the convex case have been studied in [9, 10] and more recently in [14]. These authors consider multivalued boundary conditions generated by the subdifferential of the norm function. Our work generalizes some of the aformentioned results to the problems with boundary conditions described by the Clarke subdifferential of locally Lipschitz functions, cf. [5]. For this reason, we use the theory of hemivariational inequalities to derive the weak formulation of the problem. For the mathematical theory of hemivariational inequalities modeling stationary (time–independent) problems, we refer to [11, 13, 26, 27] and the references therein. For the evolutionary hemivariational inequalities and their various applications to mechanics, we refer the reader to [19, 20, 21] and the recent monograph [24].
Furthermore, in our approach we introduce a strong coupling between the Navier–Stokes equations and the heat equation. This coupling together with an additional presence of nonmonotone contact conditions represents the main difficulty of the system under consideration. Note that the Navier–Stokes equations and Stokes problems with nonmonotone boundary conditions and without such coupling have been studied in [22, 23] and [30]. Finally, we mention that the main tools in the present paper are abstract results from the theory of hemivariational inequalities, cf. [19] and the time retardation method. The latter technique has been successfully applied to coupled systems in viscoelastic damage, as well as to Stefan problem and thermistors. The time retardation method allowed to obtain interesting existence results in [8, 16] and [28].
The structure of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we present the preliminary material used later. Section 3 describes the physical setting and the classical formulation of the Boussinesq problem. Section 4 contains the variational formulation of the problem and the proof of our main result on existence and regularity of the solution.
2 Preliminaries
In this section we recall definitions and notations use throughout the paper.
We first recall the definitions of the generalized directional derivative and the generalized gradient of Clarke for a locally Lipschitz function , where is a Banach space (see [5]). The generalized directional derivative of at in the direction , denoted by , is defined by
[TABLE]
The generalized gradient of at , denoted by , is a subset of a dual space given by for all .
Let be a bounded domain in with smooth boundary consisting of two open disjoint sets and such that . For a vector , we denote by and its normal and tangential components on the boundary, i.e., and , where dot denotes the inner product in and is the outward unit normal vector to .
We introduce the following function spaces
[TABLE]
Moreover, we introduce divergence–free spaces and
[TABLE]
For a finite time interval , we define the following spaces
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For convenience we denote and . The space is defined as the closure of in the norm. By and we denote the trace operators and .
We define bilinear and trilinear forms , , and by
[TABLE]
where ,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
We introduce the following functional defined by
[TABLE]
where . We also define the operators , , , by
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
respectively.
In what follows, we recall the properties of the forms and . The proof of the following lemma can be found, for example, in Lemmata 3.4 and 3.5 in [31] and Chapter 9 in [3].
Lemma 1**.**
(a) For all , we have
[TABLE]
(b) For all , , we have
[TABLE]
Finally, we recall the Green formula and the Aubin–Lions compactness lemma, which can be found in Theorem 2.25 in [24] and Corollary 4 in [29], respectively.
Theorem 2**.**
Let be a bounded domain in with Lipschitz boundary . Then for all and the following formula holds
[TABLE]
where denotes the linear space of second order symmetric tensors on and .
Lemma 3**.**
Let , , be reflexive Banach spaces and continously with compact embedding . Let . Then the space is compactly embedded into for , .
Throughout the paper we denote by a generic constant that can change value from line to line.
3 Problem statement
Let be a bounded domain in with a regular boundary consisting of two nonempty sets and . For a fixed and finite , consider the following Cauchy problem for nonstationary Boussinesq equations
[TABLE]
The system (4)–(7) describes the incompressible viscous fluid flow in the domain , where denotes the fluid velocity, is the temperature, is an external force vector field depending on , is the pressure, is the kinematic viscosity coefficient of the fluid and is the heat conductivity function. For the sake of simplicity, we investigate the isotropic case. The reader can easily generalize these results in anisotropic situation. The divergence free condition (5) states that the motion is incompressible.
We supplement the system (4)–(7) with the following boundary conditions. We impose the adhesive boundary condition on part , i.e.,
[TABLE]
On part we consider the nonmonotone friction law
[TABLE]
which is also called the slip boundary condition. Concerning the temperature, we assume that it is prescribed on , i.e.
[TABLE]
and the heat flux through satisfies a nonmonotone law of the type
[TABLE]
In conditions (9) and (11), the functions and are assumed to be locally Lipschitz with respect to their last variable, and , denote their Clarke subdifferentials. Here stands for the standard stress tensor for incompressible fluid which is given by
[TABLE]
where is the identity matrix and , is the strain tensor, .
We need the following hypotheses.
is such that
- (a)
is measurable for all and .
- (b)
is locally Lipschitz for a.e. .
- (c)
for all , , a.e. with .
- (d)
for all , , , , a.e. with .
is such that
- (a)
is measurable for all and .
- (b)
is locally Lipschitz for a.e. .
- (c)
for all , , a.e. with .
is linear and continuous.
is bounded, Lipschitz continuous and for all with .
, , .
In the following sections we will study a system of parabolic hemivariational inequalities which is a weak formulation of problem (4)–(11). With a slight abuse of notation, we will denote an operator and the Nemytskii operator associated to it by the same letter.
4 Variational formulation
In this section we provide the variational formulation of problem (4)–(11) and deliver a result on its solvability.
Assume that , and are sufficiently smooth functions which solve (4)–(11). Let . By the Green formula of Theorem 2 applied to the relation (12) and by the incompressibility condition (5), we have
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
Next, using equation (4) and definitions of operators and , we find
[TABLE]
for all , a.e. . Since , by the orthogonality relation on and conditions (9), we get
[TABLE]
for all , a.e. . Using again Green’s formula, we have for
[TABLE]
The relation (11) implies
[TABLE]
for a.e. . Summarizing, we arrive at the following system of inequalities which represents the variational formulation of problem (4)–(11).
Problem 4**.**
Find and such that
[TABLE]
Theorem 5**.**
Under hypotheses , , Problem 4 has at least one solution.
Proof. Proof of the theorem will be done in a few steps.
Step 1. In order to show the existence of solution we associate with Problem 4 an operator evolution inclusion. To this end we define the functional by
[TABLE]
Under hypothesis , the functional is locally Lipschitz and satisfies the following inequality (cf. Lemma 3 in [21])
[TABLE]
where and denote the generalized directional derivative of and , respectively. We also define the functional by
[TABLE]
Then, by the functional is locally Lipschitz and enjoys the property
[TABLE]
Consider the following system of inclusions associated with Problem 4: find and such that
[TABLE]
A solution of (21)–(23) is understood is the sense that there exist and such that
[TABLE]
We observe that every solution to (21)–(23) is also a solution to Problem 4. Therefore, in order to complete the proof, it is enough to establish the existence of a solution to problem (21)–(23).
Step 2. In this step, we introduce an auxiliary problem to (24)–(28). To this end, we define spaces , , and the operator by
[TABLE]
In the following we use the notation: for a function defined everywhere on , where is a reflexive Banach space, we write
[TABLE]
for . We observe that
[TABLE]
Indeed, we have
[TABLE]
Fix . We introduce the regularized and time retarded problem.
Problem 6**.**
Find with such that
[TABLE]
The method used here to obtain Problem 6 is called time–retardation (cf. [16]). The idea is to divide the time interval into finite number of intervals of length and do the backward translation in time. We then observe that on any such interval all elements with subscript are known. This allows to treat the two problems (31)–(33) and (34)–(36) separately and show existence of solution for each of them indepenently. The role of the operator given by (29) and the space is to consider a regularized problem to (26)–(28) and use an abstract result on the existence of solution, cf. Theorem 5 of [19], to problem (34)–(36).
Step 3. In this step, we show that under assumptions of the theorem, there exists a solution to Problem 6.
First, we observe that there exists a solution to (31)-(36) on interval . Indeed, on , the functions and are given, since we have , for all . Therefore, on we can solve (31)–(33) and (34)–(36) independently. For (31)–(33), we use the Galerkin method and for the moment we skip the superscript , to restore it later.
In order to solve (31)–(33) we formulate the regularized problem as follows. Let be the mollifier such that on , and . We define for . Then for all . Consider functions defined by
[TABLE]
We observe that for all , so reduces to a single element, and we write for all , where represents the derivative of . Moreover, it is easy to observe that satisfies the growth condition .
Using the fact that is a separable Banach space, we denote by a basis of . We also define for . Let for be such that in as .
For a fixed we consider following regularized system of equations is finite dimensional space, corresponding to (31)–(33).
Problem 7**.**
Find such that and
[TABLE]
where for all . We show that Problem 7 has a solution. Substituting in (37) gives a system of first order ordinary differential equations for the coefficients . Its solvability follows from the Carathéodory theorem.
Now we show the a priori estimates for Problem 7. To this end, choose as test function in (37). Using the Young inequality and coercivity of operator , we have
[TABLE]
for a.e. . Integrating over , for , we obtain
[TABLE]
for a.e. . Exploiting the growth condition of , following the proof of Theorem 1 in [23], we get
[TABLE]
for a.e. . Hence
[TABLE]
with and . Consequently, we have
[TABLE]
for all . Therefore, from (38), (40) and hypothesis , we deduce that remains bounded in . By definition (1) and Lemma 3.4 in [31], we have
[TABLE]
with independent of . Up to a subsequence we may assume that
[TABLE]
From (37), (41), (42) and boundedness of , we find that is bounded in . Thus, the sequence is bounded in a reflexive Banach space , and therefore, we see that
[TABLE]
with . Since by Lemma 3 the embedding is compact, from (42) and (43), we have
[TABLE]
By the compactness of the trace operator from into , where by a slight abuse of notation we denote again by the Nemytskii coresponding to , it follows
[TABLE]
and subsequently, by passing to a subsequence, if necessary, we have
[TABLE]
Next, applying Lemma 3 to the evolution triple of spaces , from (42) and (43), we obtain
[TABLE]
Hence, by Lemma 3.2 in [31], we have
[TABLE]
Since is a linear and continuous operator, so is its Nemytskii operator. Therefore, we find that weakly in . On the other hand, by (39), we may suppose that
[TABLE]
with Using convergences (44) and (45) and applying the Aubin–Cellina convergence theorem (see [2], Theorem 7.2.1) to the inclusion for a.e. , we get that for a.e. , where denotes the closure of the convex hull of a set. Since the mapping is linear and continuous, from (42) and (43), we have weakly in , which together with in entails . Thus, we have proved that is a solution to (31)–(33).
Now we pass to the problem (34)–(36). Since the operator can be shown to be –pseudomonotone, coercive and bounded, the existence of a solution with to (34)–(36) is guaranteed by Theorem 5 in [19]. Hence, we have solved the system (31)–(36) on the interval .
On the interval functions and are again known, so we apply the method described above to find a solution on the interval . Observe that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
therefore and obtained as solution on now make sense as intial conditions in and , respectively, for the problem on . We continue this process to obtain a solution and with to Problem 6 on the whole interval .
Step 4. We now show the a priori estimates for Problem 6. Multiply (31) by and integrate over , , use the hypotheses , and properties of , to get
[TABLE]
where is sufficiently small and is indepentent of . Next, we multiply (32) by , integrate over , , use hypothesis , , properties of operators , and we find
[TABLE]
We choose small enough and adjust the constants. Putting (47) in (46) and using (30), we have
[TABLE]
for , where is independent of . From (48), we can easily see that and are bounded in and , respectively. Therefore, we conclude
[TABLE]
From (51), (52) and Lemma 3, we get that
[TABLE]
where with . Using (30), we have
[TABLE]
The first term on the right hand side of (56) converges to zero from (55) and the second from the continuity of translations in (see [16], p. 325).
Step 5. In this step we introduce a function and show that the sequence obtained in Step 3 converges to in .
Let be the function obtained in (55). We define to be a solution to the following problem. Find such that
[TABLE]
The existence of a solution to (57)–(59) follows from the Galerkin method, see Step 3. Now, we show that
[TABLE]
where is a solution to Problem 6 and is a solution to (57)–(59).
To show (60), we subtract (31) from (57), and integrate over , where , use and the coercivity of to get
[TABLE]
for small and independent of . Using the Gronwall inequality, we obtain
[TABLE]
Since , we put (62) into (61) and using (56), we obtain (60).
Observe, that similarly to (56), using (60) we can show that
Step 6. In this part of the proof, we show the convergence of all elements in (34)–(36). Then we pass to the limit in (34)–(36) to show the existence of solution to Problem 4. The following convergences hold
[TABLE]
as . To prove (63), we observe that
[TABLE]
The first integral on the right hand side of (67) converges to zero, by the boundedness of and convergence weakly in , obtained from (51). For the second integral, we use Lipschitz continuity of and the Lebesgue diminated convergence theorem. Hence, (63) follows.
For the proof of (64), we use the Vitali convergence theorem. We can easily deduce from (49) and (51), the pointwise convergence
[TABLE]
We calculate
[TABLE]
This estimate together with pointwise convergence (68) allows to use the Vitali theorem and so the convergence (64) holds.
The convergece (65) follows from (48) and the estimate
[TABLE]
Finally, the convergence (66) follows from (54) and Aubin–Celina Theorem (see Theorem 7.2.1 in [2]) applied to the inclusion for a.e. . Namely, by the compactness of the trace operator we have
[TABLE]
and by (54) we have weakly in for some . Using the Aubin–Celina Theorem, we have for a.e. , which finishes the proof of (66).
Now we show the convergence of the initial condition. By the compactness of the embedding
[TABLE]
(see [29], Corollary 4), we have . Since the mapping is linear and continuous, by (51)–(52), we have weakly in . This together with in implies .
Hence, passing to the limit in (34)–(36), by (63)–(66), we conclude that the following system has a solution with
[TABLE]
where is a solution to (57)–(59). To show existence of a solution to the original Problem 4, we need to show additionally that is more regular, that is . It now follows easily from (49)–(52), since
[TABLE]
for , , solutions to (57)–(59) and (70)–(72), with . Therefore, we have shown the existence of a solution to the following system: find , such that
[TABLE]
Finally, we observe that existence of a solution to (24)–(28) is equivalent to the existence of solution to (73)–(78). Since every solution to the problem (24)–(28) is a solution to Problem 4, we have proved the thesis.
Remark 8**.**
In a standard way we can recover the pressure in the original problem (4)–(11). It follows from Proposition I.1.2 in [31] that for a.e. .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1]
- 2[2] J.-P. Aubin, A. Cellina, Differential Inclusions. Set-Valued Maps and Viability Theory , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York, Tokyo, 1984.
- 3[3] H. Brezis, Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations , Springer, 2011.
- 4[4] J. Boussinesq, Theorie Analitique de la Chaleur, vol. 2 , Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1903.
- 5[5] F. H. Clarke, Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis , Wiley, Interscience, New York, 1983.
- 6[6] J.I. Diaz, G. Galiano, Existence and uniqueness of solutions of the Boussinesq system with nonlinear thermal diffusion, Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis 11 (1998), 59–82.
- 7[7] D. Dutykh, F. Dias Dissipative Boussinesq equations, Comptes Rendus Mécanique 335 (2007), 559-583. Volume 335, n° 9-10 pages 559-583
- 8[8] M. Frémond, K. L. Kuttler, M. Shillor, Existence and uniqueness of solutions for a dynamic one-dimensional damage model, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 299 (1999), 271–294.
