Artificial boundary conditions for linearized stationary incompressible viscous flow around rotating and translating body
Paul Deuring, Stanislav Kracmar, Sarka Necasova

TL;DR
This paper develops and analyzes artificial boundary conditions for linearized and nonlinear stationary incompressible viscous flow around rotating and translating bodies, providing pressure estimates and error bounds for truncated computational domains.
Contribution
It introduces artificial boundary conditions for exterior flow problems and derives error estimates comparing truncated and full domain solutions.
Findings
Pressure pointwise estimates for both linearized and nonlinear flows.
Error bounds for solutions in truncated domains with artificial boundary conditions.
Comparison results between truncated and full domain solutions.
Abstract
We consider the linearized and nonlinear stationary incompressible flow around rotating and translating body in the exterior domain B with Lipschitz boundary. We derive the pointwise estimates for the pressure in both cases. Moreover, we consider the linearized problem in a truncation domain B_R of the exterior domain B under certain artificial boundary conditions on the truncating boundary and then compare this solution with the solution in the exterior domain B to get the truncation error estimate.
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.
Artificial boundary conditions for linearized
stationary incompressible viscous flow around rotating and translating body
P. Deuring 1, S. Kračmar 2,3, Š. Nečasová4
Abstract
We consider the linearized and nonlinear stationary incompressible flow around rotating and translating body in the exterior domain , where \mbox{\mathcal{D}}\subset\mathbb{R}^{3} is open and bounded, with Lipschitz boundary. We derive the pointwise estimates for the pressure in both cases. Moreover, we consider the linearized problem in a truncation domain of the exterior domain under certain artificial boundary conditions on the truncating boundary , and then compare this solution with the solution in the exterior domain to get the truncation error estimate.
1 Univ. Littoral Côte d’Opale, Laboratoire de mathématiques
pures et appliquées Joseph Liouville
e-mail: [email protected]
2 Department of Technical Mathematics, Czech Technical University
3 Institute of Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
e-mail: [email protected]
4 Institute of Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
e-mail: [email protected]
1 Introduction
We consider the systems of equations
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where \mbox{\mathcal{D}}\subset\mathbb{R}^{3} is open and bounded, with Lipschitz boundary. Problems (1.1) and (1.2) together with some boundary conditions on constitute mathematical models (linear and non-linear, respectively) describing stationary flow of a viscous incompressible fluid around a rigid body which moves at a constant velocity and rotates at a constant angular velocity, where we consider that the rotation is parallel to the velocity at the infinity. For details concerning of deriving the model, see [11, 15]. The description and the analysis in the case when the rotation is not parallel to the velocity at infinity can be find in the following works, see [13, 17].
The aim of this paper is two folds:
First, we would like to derive the pointwise estimates for the pressure in the linear and also in the non-linear cases in order to complete the pointwise estimates for the velocity and its gradient from [8, 9] by the pointwise estimates of the pressure in order to get complete decay information of all parts of solutions to systems (1.1), (1.2). Let us mention that the decay of pressure was also investigated in the work of Galdi, Kyed [16] and in case of pure rotation see [12].
Second, to solve the linear system (1.2) in a truncation of the exterior domain under certain artificial boundary conditions on the truncating boundary , and then compare this solution with the solution of (1.2) in the exterior domain, i.e. to get some sort of error estimates of the method of an artificial boundary condition. For this aim we use pointwise estimates of the velocity and of the pressure.
Mathematical analysis of the problem of the Navier-Stokes equations with artificial boundary condition was performed by many authors but without considering the rotation of body, see e.g. [1, 2, 4, 5]. The article can be seen as a first result in the case of motion of viscous fluids around rotating and translating body with artificial boundary condition.
The paper is organized as follows: In the rest of this section we introduce notation and give some auxiliary results. The next section 2 deals with pointwise estimates of the pressure of the linear system (1.2). In Section 3 we consider the linear system (1.2) with artificial boundary conditions. The error estimate of the velocity is derived comparing to the solution to the system given in the exterior domain. First let us introduce notation:
Definitions and notation related to the rotational system
Define for ,
,
,
where for such that
So, is the truncation of the exterior domain by the ball . The boundary consists of parts and , the later we call the truncating boundary.
Fix , , and put ,
so that \color[rgb]{0,0,0}\Omega\cdot z=\rho e_{1}\times z\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\ for .
For open, , , put
[TABLE]
Put
[TABLE]
For , , put
[TABLE]
see [7, Lemma 3.1]. We will use the space
equipped with the norm , where means the trace of on .
For define as the space of all pairs of functions such that u\in W^{2,p}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3},\;\pi\in W^{1,p}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c}),
[TABLE]
for some with \overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}\subset B_{R}.
We write for generic constants. It should be clear from context which are the parameters these constants depend on. In order to lift possible ambiguities, we sometimes use the notation in order to indicate that the constant in question depends in particular on , for some . But the relevant constant may depend on other parameters as well.
Auxiliary results to asymptotic behavior of the pressure
Lemma 1.1
(Weyl’s lemma).* Let , open, with for . Then and .*
Proof: An elementary proof is given in [19, Appendix]
For , , put
[TABLE]
For , , put
[TABLE]
For , , put
[TABLE]
Note that is a vector-valued function with being scalar, whereas is a scalar function with being vector-valued.
Lemma 1.2
Let , . Then , . If , then .
Let , . Then If , then . If , then .
Let , . Then
[TABLE]
Proof: The assertion of the Lemma 1.2 follows from well known Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, Calderon-Zygmund inequality, and density arguments.
Lemma 1.3
[18, Lemma 2.2]** Let Then
[TABLE]
for with if and if .
2 Decay estimates
In first part of this section we recall some known results from [7] and [9] about the decay of the velocity part of the solution of the system (1.2), and in order to get the full decay characterization of the solution we derive the decay of the pressure part of solution of (1.2). In the second part of this section we extend the result for the pressure to the non-linear case of (1.1).
Decay estimates in the linear case
Our starting point is a decay result from [9] for the velocity part of a solution to (1.2).
Theorem 2.1
([9, Theorem 3.12])* Suppose that is -bounded. Let , . Put . Suppose there are numbers , , such that ,*
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for , where function is given by
[TABLE]
The requirements should be interpreted as decay conditions on .
It may be deduced from Theorem 2.1 that inequalities (2.1) and (2.2) hold under assumptions weaker than those stated in that theorem. We specify this more general situation in the ensuing corollary, which in addition indicates some properties of that will be useful in the following.
Corollary 2.2
Let with \overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}\subset B_{S_{1}},\;S_{1}<S,\;A\in[2,\infty),\;B\in\mathbb{R} with . Let F:\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c}\mapsto\mathbb{R}^{3} be measurable with F|\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{S_{1}}\in L^{p}(\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{S_{1}})^{3} and
Let u\in W^{1,p}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3} with , , ,
[TABLE]
Then inequalities (2.1) and (2.2) hold for .
Moreover F\in L^{q}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3} for . If the function may be considered as a bounded linear functional on \mbox{\mathcal{D}}^{1,2}_{0}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}, in the usual sense.
Let \pi\in L^{p}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c}) with
[TABLE]
Fix some number with \overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}\cup{\rm supp}({\rm div}\,u)\subset B_{S_{0}}. Then the relations and hold.
Proof: For , we have
[TABLE]
Thus for with Lemma 1.3,
[TABLE]
It follows that F\in L^{q}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3} for . According to [14, Theorem II.6.1], the inequality holds for v\in\color[rgb]{0,0,0}D^{1,2}_{0}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}\color[rgb]{0,0,0}. Thus, if , hence F\in L^{6/5}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}, this function may be considered as a linear bounded functional on \mbox{\mathcal{D}}^{1,2}_{0}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}. The -integrability of and the assumptions on imply that the function
[TABLE]
belongs to L^{p}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}.
The choice of (see at the end of Corollary 2.2) means in particular that This equation, (2.4), the relation G\in L^{p}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3} and interior regularity of solutions to the Stokes system (see [14, Theorem IV.4.1] for example) imply the claims in the last sentence of Corollary 2.2.
Put for Then and for so , with in the role of . Note that Thus the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 are satisfied with replaced by . As a consequence inequalities (2.1) and (2.2) hold.
Remark 2.3
*Solutions as considered in Corollary 2.2 exist if, for example, Dirichlet boundary conditions are prescribed on . In fact, as stated in [14, Theorem VIII.1.2], if is a bounded linear functional on the space , and if then there is a function such that and satisfies the equations (2.3) and (weak form of (1.2)), as well as the boundary conditions u|\partial\mbox{\mathcal{D}}=b.
Existence of a pressure with (2.4) holds according to [14, Lemma VIII.1.1].*
The main result of this section, dealing with the asymptotics of the pressure, is stated in
Theorem 2.4
*Let be given as in Corollary 2.2, but with the stronger assumptions on and .
Let \pi\in L^{p}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c}) such that (2.4) holds
Then there is such that*
[TABLE]
Proof:
By Corollary 2.2 we have for . Fix some number with \overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}\cup{\rm supp}({\rm div}\,u)\subset B_{S_{0}}. Then again by Corollary 2.2, the relations and hold.
Note that . Take with
[TABLE]
and put , , with to be considered as functions in . By the choice of and the properties of and , we get , for , , . Put
[TABLE]
for , , and set . Then
[TABLE]
in particular , \color[rgb]{0,0,0}\gamma\in W^{2,q}(\mathbb{R}^{3}),\color[rgb]{0,0,0} for . Let , with , where . Since , , it follows from [9, Theorem 3.11] with replaced by that
[TABLE]
Since this is true for any , with , it follows that
[TABLE]
But for by Lemma 1.2, so from (2.8)
[TABLE]
This relation and [7, (3.11) and the
inequality
following (3.15)] imply
[TABLE]
Let . Due to (2.9), we may apply Fubini’s theorem, to obtain
[TABLE]
But for with ,
[TABLE]
hence with [7, Lemma 2.10],
[TABLE]
Therefore from (2.10)
[TABLE]
Since , we may choose , such that
[TABLE]
Thus we get from [6, Theorem 4.3]
with replaced by , , , respectively,
and with , that
[TABLE]
for . Since this is true for any , with , the preceding equation holds for any . It follows from (2.11)
[TABLE]
Again recalling that for , we get with Lemma 1.2 that
[TABLE]
Put , and note that , .
Thus, by Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 1.2,
[TABLE]
As a consequence, we may apply Fubini’s theorem to deduce from (2.13) that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Since this is true for any , we have found that
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by (2.8) and (2.7)
[TABLE]
By subtracting this equation from (2.15), we get
[TABLE]
Next we consider the term {\rm div}\bigl{(}\,L\mathcal{S}(\gamma)\,\bigr{)}. Recall that
and for (see (2.7)),
so by Lemma 1.2
[TABLE]
Since and because of the equation in (2.17), we may conclude that
[TABLE]
Moreover, for , ,
[TABLE]
Put for Then with (2.19), the equation in (2.17), and the second and third equation in (2.18),
[TABLE]
Let . Then it follows that
[TABLE]
Obviously, again with (2.17),
[TABLE]
and similarly,
[TABLE]
Combining these equations, we get
[TABLE]
Now from (2.16)
[TABLE]
Since for and
due to (2.7)),
it follows that for q, so we may consider . Lemma 1.2 yields
[TABLE]
Therefore from (2.20)
[TABLE]
Lemma 1.1 now yields
[TABLE]
Now we again apply Lemma 1.2. Since , we have
[TABLE]
Moreover , so
[TABLE]
Since and in view of our remarks at the beginning of this proof we know that and . By the choice of in Corollary 2.2, we have .
Therefore
[9, Theorem 2.1] yields there is such that
[TABLE]
But by (2.21),
[TABLE]
where and . We may conclude that
[TABLE]
Let , and let be the usual Friedrich’s mollifier of associated with .
Due to (2.21), (2.22) and by standard properties Friedrich’s mollifier, the function is bounded and . Now Liouville’s theorem yields . Since this is true for any
and because
we may conclude that , that is,
[TABLE]
hence
[TABLE]
where we used that and . Since , we have
[TABLE]
Due to the assumptions and because and , we get by [10, Theorem 3.2] or [18, Theorem 3.4] that
[TABLE]
Note that according to [18, Theorem 3.4 (iii)], a logarithmic factor should be added on the right-hand side of (2.25) in the case . But this factor is superfluous. In fact, if the relation is valid with it holds in the case too. But then [18, Theorem 3.4 (i), (iii)] yields that (2.25) holds as it is, without additional factor.
Define , for . Then ,
[TABLE]
It follows with Lemma 1.2 that
[TABLE]
Similarly, since , for ,
[TABLE]
Together
[TABLE]
Since supp, we may conclude that
[TABLE]
Inequality (2.6) follows from (2.23)–(2.26).
We remark that Theorem 2.4 remains valid if the assumptions on and are replaced by the conditions , which are weaker than those in Corollary 2.2. This observation is made precise by the ensuing corollary. Its proof is obvious, but this modified version of Theorem 2.4 still is interesting because its requirements on and are closer to the ones in Corollary 2.2 than those stated in Theorem 2.4.
Corollary 2.5
Let be given as in Corollary 2.2, but with the stronger assumptions on and . Let \pi\in L^{p}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c}) such that (2.4) holds. Then there is such that inequality (2.6) is valid.
Proof: Put . Since , we have Moreover, since , we find for
that
[TABLE]
Thus the assumptions of Theorem 2.4 are satisfied with replaced by and with a modified parameter . This implies the conclusion of Theorem 2.4.
Decay estimates in the non-linear case
Let us assume now the non-linear case, i.e. the system (1.1). First, recall the result about the decay properties of the velocity in this non-linear case:
Theorem 2.6
[8, Theorem 1.1]** Let with . Take measurable with ,
[TABLE]
Let with and
[TABLE]
for Let Then
[TABLE]
Now, using Theorems 2.4 and 2.6, we are in the position to prove the result on the decay of the pressure in the non-linear case:
Theorem 2.7
Consider the situation in Theorem 2.6. Suppose in addition that . Then there is such that inequality (2.6) holds.
Proof: Observe that (u\cdot\nabla)u\in L^{3/2}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}. Thus, putting we get . Put . Since , we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by Theorem 2.6 with in the place of ,
[TABLE]
for In this way we get for .
We further note that . This is obvious in the case . If , we have . Due to the assumption in Theorem 2.6, we thus get . (The requirement in Theorem 2.6 even yields , but if this requirement is weakened in a suitable way, pointwise decay of and could still be proved. However, this point is not elaborated in [8], and therefore is not reflected in Theorem 2.6. But we still take account of it here by avoiding to use the assumption .)
We further have u\in W^{1,p}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3},\;\pi\in\color[rgb]{0,0,0}L^{p}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})\color[rgb]{0,0,0}, and equation (2.4) holds with replaced by . Since in addition and we see that the assumptions of Theorem 2.4 are satisfied with as defined above and with in the role of and , respectively. Thus Theorem 2.4 implies the conclusion of Theorem 2.7.
3 Formulation of the problem with artificial boundary conditions
Recall that we defined . We introduce the subspace of denoting
[TABLE]
where means the trace of on
Lemma 3.1
([3, Lemma 4.1])
The estimate*
[TABLE]
holds for with and for .
We introduce an inner product in by defining
[TABLE]
The space equipped with this inner product is a Hilbert space. The norm generated by this scalar product is denoted by , that is
[TABLE]
We define the bilinear forms
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.2
Let with . Then
[TABLE]
for .
Proof: The proof of Lemma 3.2 is based on use of Lemma 3.1.
The key observation in this section is stated in the following lemma, which is the basis of the theory presented in this section.
Lemma 3.3
Let with , and let . Then the equation holds.
Proof: Using the definitions , we get
[TABLE]
We applied that
[TABLE]
As in [4], we obtain that the bilinear form is stable:
Theorem 3.4
([4, Corollary 4.3])* Let with . Then*
[TABLE]
We note that functions from with -integrable gradient are -integrable on truncated exterior domains:
Lemma 3.5** ([14, Lemma II.6.1])**
Let with , and let with Then In particular the trace of on is well defined.
The preceding lemma is implicitly used in the ensuing theorem, where we introduce an extension operator \mbox{\mathfrak{E}}:H^{1/2}(\partial\mathcal{D})^{3}\mapsto W^{1,1}_{loc}(\overline{\mathcal{D}}^{c})^{3} such that \mbox{div}\,\mbox{\mathfrak{E}}(b)=0.
Theorem 3.6** ([14, Exercise III.3.8])**
There is an operator from into satisfying the relations \nabla\mbox{\mathfrak{E}}(b)\in L^{2}(\overline{\mathcal{D}}^{c})^{9},\;\mbox{\mathfrak{E}}(b)|{\partial\mathcal{D}}=b and {\rm div}\,\mbox{\mathfrak{E}}(b)=0 for
In view of Lemma 3.2 and 3.3 and Theorem 3.6 and 3.4, the theory of mixed variational problems yields
Theorem 3.7
Let with Then there is a uniquely determined pair of functions (\widetilde{V},P)=\bigl{(}\,\widetilde{V}(R,F,b),\,P(R,F,b)\,\bigr{)}\in W_{R}\times L^{2}(\mathcal{D}_{R}) such that
[TABLE]
where the operator was introduced in Theorem 3.6.
Let us interpret variational problem (3.1), (3.2) as a boundary value problem. Define the expression used in the boundary condition on the artificial boundary
[TABLE]
for with \overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}\subset B_{R},\;\color[rgb]{0,0,0}u\in W^{2,\,6/5}(\mathcal{D}_{R})^{3},\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\ \pi\in W^{1,\,6/5}(\mathcal{D}_{R}).
Lemma 3.8
Assume that is -bounded. Let \color[rgb]{0,0,0}S\in(0,\infty)\color[rgb]{0,0,0} with \overline{\mathcal{D}}\subset B_{S},\;\color[rgb]{0,0,0}R\in[2S,\infty),\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\;F\in L^{6/5}(\mathcal{D}_{R})^{3} and Put , with from Theorem 3.7 and \mbox{\mathfrak{E}}(b) from Theorem 3.6. Suppose that and , with also introduced in Theorem 3.7. Then
[TABLE]
for and
The proof of Lemma 3.8 is obvious. This lemma means that a solution of variational problem (3.1), (3.2) may be considered as a weak solution of the modified Oseen system with rotation in , under the Dirichlet boundary condition on and under the artificial boundary condition on . The solution of (3.1), (3.2) will be now compared to the exterior modified Oseen flow introduced in Corollary 2.2:
Theorem 3.9
Suppose that is -bounded. Let with with . Let be measurable with and .
Let b\in W^{7/6,\,6/5}(\partial\mbox{\mathcal{D}})^{3},\;u\in W^{1,1}_{loc}(\overline{\mathcal{D}}^{c})^{3}\cap L^{6}(\overline{\mathcal{D}}^{c})^{3} such that \nabla u\in L^{2}(\overline{\mathcal{D}}^{c})^{9},\;{\rm div}\,u=0,\;u|\partial\mbox{\mathcal{D}}=b and equation (2.3) is satisfied.
For put V_{R}:=\widetilde{V}(R,F,b)+\mbox{\mathfrak{E}}(b), with \mbox{\mathfrak{E}}(b) from Theorem 3.6, and from Theorem 3.7. Then
[TABLE]
We note that since W^{2,\,6/5}(\mbox{\mathcal{D}})\subset H^{1}(\mbox{\mathcal{D}}) by a Sobolev inequality, we have W^{7/6,\,6/5}(\partial\mbox{\mathcal{D}})\subset H^{1/2}(\partial\mbox{\mathcal{D}}), as follows with the usual
lifting and trace properties.
As a consequence, b\in H^{1/2}(\partial\mbox{\mathcal{D}})^{3}, so the term \mbox{\mathfrak{E}}(b) is well defined. We further remark that by Corollary 2.2 with , the function may be considered as a bounded linear functional on \mbox{\mathcal{D}}^{1,2}_{0}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}. Therefore, as explained in Remark 2.3, a function with properties as stated in Theorem 3.9 does in fact exist.
Proof of Theorem 3.9: All conditions in Corollary 2.2 are verified if are given as in Theorem 3.9, and if and Note in this respect that the conditions on in Theorem 3.9 obviously imply u\in W^{1,\,6/5}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}. Corollary 2.2 now yields that F\in L^{6/5}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3} and that the function satisfies inequalities (2.1) and (2.2) with .
On the other hand, since u\in W^{1,\,6/5}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}, the function already considered in the proof of Corollary 2.2 (see (2.5)) belongs to L^{6/5}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}. Therefore, by interior regularity of solutions to the Stokes system (see [14, Theorem IV.4.1]), we may deduce from the equations (2.3) and that u\in W^{2,\,6/5}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3} and that there is \pi\in W^{1,\,6/5}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3} with . In particular the pair verifies (2.4). In view of our assumptions on and , we thus see that the requirements in Corollary 2.5 are fulfilled for as in Theorem 3.9 and for and . As a consequence, Corollary 2.5 yields that there is such that (2.6) holds with .
Take Since u\in W^{2,6/5}_{loc}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}, we have \color[rgb]{0,0,0}u|\partial B_{R}\in W^{7/5,\,6/5}(\partial B_{R})^{3}\color[rgb]{0,0,0}. Combining this relation with the assumption \color[rgb]{0,0,0}b\in W^{7/5,\,6/5}(\partial\mbox{\mathcal{D}})^{3}\color[rgb]{0,0,0} and the boundary condition u|\partial\mbox{\mathcal{D}}=b, we get u|\partial\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{R}\in W^{7/5,\,6/5}(\partial\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{R})^{3}. Moreover our requirements on yield that u|\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{R}\in W^{1,\,6/5}(\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{R})^{3}. Since F\in L^{6/5}(\overline{\mbox{\mathcal{D}}}^{c})^{3}, as already mentioned, we get G|\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{R}\in L^{6/5}(\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{R})^{3}, with from (2.5). Recalling that is supposed to be -bounded, we may now apply the result in [14, Lemma IV.6.1] on boundary regularity of solutions to the Stokes system. This reference yields that u|\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{R}\in W^{2,\,6/5}(\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{R})^{3},\;\pi|\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{R}\in W^{1,\,6/5}(\mbox{\mathcal{D}}_{R}) and that the pair solves (1.2).
Let be given as in Theorem 3.7, and put , and let . Note that by Theorem 3.7, we have
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Since the pair solves (1.2), we now get
[TABLE]
Let be an arbitrary constant. For we get with Lemma 3.3 that
[TABLE]
because by the assumptions on and Theorem 3.6 and 3.7,
[TABLE]
where denotes the outward unit normal to
Let be the constant introduced above as part of estimate (2.6). Because
[TABLE]
we get from (3.5)
[TABLE]
The last step is estimation: .
We start by observing that
[TABLE]
As explained above, inequalities (2.1), (2.2) and (2.6) are valid with . According to (2.1) and (2.6), we have and for . Inequality (2.2) yields |\nabla u(x)|\leq C\,|x|^{\color[rgb]{0,0,0}-3/2\color[rgb]{0,0,0}}s(x)^{-B^{\prime}} for as before, with . If , we recall that , getting hence . On the other hand, if , then \color[rgb]{0,0,0}\min\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\{1,B\}=B, so that the assumption A+\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\min\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\{1,B\}>3 becomes , hence . Thus we get in any case that . In view of these observations, and with Lemma 1.3, we obtain
[TABLE]
This completes the proof of Theorem 3.9.
Acknowledgements: * The works of S.K. and Š. N. were supported by Grant No. 16-03230S of GAČR in the framework of RVO 67985840, S.K. is supported by RVO 12000. Final version was supported by Grant No. 19-04243S of GAČR.*
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] F. Boyer, P. Fabrie: Outflow boundary conditions for the incompressible non-homogeneous Navier–Stokes equations. DCDS – Series B 7 (2007), 219–250.
- 2[2] M. Braack, P.B. Mucha: Directional do-nothing condition for the Navier–Stokes equations. J. Comp. Math. 32 (2014), 507–521.
- 3[3] P. Deuring: Finite element methods for the Stokes system in three-dimensional exterior domains. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 20 (1997), 245-269.
- 4[4] P. Deuring, S. Kračmar: Artificial boundary conditions for the Oseen system in 3D exterior domains. Analysis 20 (2000), 65–90.
- 5[5] P. Deuring, S. Kračmar: Exterior stationary Navier-Stokes flows in 3D with non-zero velocity at infinity: approximation by flows in bounded domains. Math. Nachr. 269/270 (2004), 86–115.
- 6[6] P. Deuring, S. Kračmar, Š. Nečasová: A representation formula for linearized stationary incompressible viscous flows around rotating and translating bodies. DCDS Ser. S 3 (2010), 237–253.
- 7[7] P. Deuring, S. Kračmar, Š. Nečasová: On pointwise decay of linearized stationary incompressible viscous flow around rotating and translating bodies. SIMA 43 (2011), 705–738.
- 8[8] P. Deuring, S. Kračmar, Š. Nečasová: Pointwise decay of stationary rotational viscous incompressible flows with nonzero velocity at infinity. J. Differential Equations. 255 (2013), 1576–1606.
