Skip to main content
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Mar 4;21(2):2195–2211. doi: 10.1007/s00028-021-00678-2

Regularity results and asymptotic behavior for a noncoercive parabolic problem

Lucio Boccardo 1, Luigi Orsina 2,, Maria Michaela Porzio 2
PMCID: PMC7932183  PMID: 33688301

Abstract

In this paper we study the regularity and the behavior in time of the solutions to a quasilinear class of noncoercive problems whose prototype is

ut-div(a(x,t,u)u)=-div(uE(x,t))inΩ×(0,T),u(x,t)=0onΩ×(0,T),u(x,0)=u0(x)inΩ.

In particular we show that under suitable conditions on the vector field E, even if the problem is noncoercive and although the initial datum u0 is only an L1(Ω) function, there exist solutions that immediately improve their regularity and belong to every Lebesgue space. We also prove that solutions may become immediately bounded. Finally, we study the behavior in time of such regular solutions and we prove estimates that allow to describe their blow-up for t near zero.

Keywords: Linear and quasilinear parabolic equations, Asymptotic behavior, Regularity of solutions, Noncoercive problems

Introduction

Let us consider the following parabolic problem

ut(x,t)-div(a(x,t,u(x,t))u(x,t))=-div(u(x,t)E(x,t))inQTΩ×(0,T),u(x,t)=0onΩ×(0,T),u(x,0)=u0(x)inΩ, 1.1

where Ω is an open bounded subset of RN, N>2, and T>0. We assume that a(x,t,s):QT×RR is a Carathéodory function (i.e., measurable in (xt) for every s in R, and continuous in s for almost every (xt) in QT) such that

0<αa(x,t,s)β, 1.2

for almost every (xt) in QT and for every s in R, where α and β are positive constants. On the initial datum we assume

u0L1(Ω). 1.3

The main difficulty in studying this problem is the presence of the lower order term -div(uE(x,t)) which makes the problem noncoercive. In addition, the initial datum has a very low regularity, so that the study of such an equation is more complicated.

In the stationary case this problem was studied in the sixties by Stampacchia (see [14, 15]) when E “is not too large”, and then by several authors until nowadays (see for example [2, 3, 6, 8] and the references therein).

In the evolution case existence and regularity results can be found in [4] (see also [9]).

We recall that if E is zero then a very surprising phenomenon appears: even if u0 is only a summable function, there exists a solution u of (1.1) that becomes immediately (i.e., for every t>0) bounded and satisfies the same decay (or ultracontractive estimate) of the solution of the heat equation, i.e.,

u(t)L(Ω)C(N,α)u0L1(Ω)tN2foreveryt(0,T), 1.4

(see [5, 12, 16]).

The aim of this paper is to understand what happens when E is a nonzero measurable vector field; in particular, we want to understand if an immediate improvement in the regularity of the solutions appears or not. We will prove (see Sect. 2) that if E satisfies

|E(x,t)|γ|B(x)|BLN(Ω), 1.5

for almost every (xt) in QT, then there is an immediate regularization since there exists a solution u of (1.1) which belongs to L(t0,T;Lq(Ω)) for every 1<q<+ and t0 in (0, T). Besides, we will derive quantitative estimates “near t=0” (see Sect. 2.1) and for t large (see Sect. 2.2).

Moreover, we show that under stronger assumptions on E solutions become immediately bounded (see Sect. 3); furthermore, near “t=0” the same behavior (1.4) of the solution of the heat equation holds true, but in this case the constant c in (1.4) depends also on E.

Finally, in Sect. 4 we study the less regular case of a vector field E such that

|E(x,t)|γ|x|,γ>0,

which may not belong to L(0,T;LN(Ω)) if 0 belongs to Ω.

Remark 1.1

We would like to thank the referee of the paper for pointing out that in the autonomous case, i.e., for the equation

ut-div(A(x)u)=-div(uE(x)), 1.6

with E in L(Ω), the following holds:

  • the operator
    A(u)=-div(A(x)u)+div(uE(x))
    is quasi accretive in Lq(Ω) spaces (for every 1q), and quasi m-accretive in Lq(Ω) spaces (for every 1q<);
  • every mild solution u of (1.6) satisfies an L1L estimate similar to (1.4) thanks to Theorem 1.2 of [7].

An improvement of regularity

In this section we will show that even if the initial datum u0 is only assumed to be a summable function, if E satisfies (1.5) there exists a solution of (1.1) which belongs to every Lebesgue space L(t0,T;Lq(Ω)) for every 1<q<+ and t0(0,T) (see Theorem 2.1 in Sect. 2.1 below). Moreover, we describe the blow-up of the Lq(Ω)-norm of u(t) as t tends to zero and the behavior of the solution for t large.

We recall that here by a solution of (1.1) we mean a function u in L(0,T;L1(Ω)) and L1(0,T;W01,1(Ω)) such that

QT[-uφt+a(x,t,u)uφ]=QTuEφ+Ωu0φ(0),

for every φ in W1,(0,T;L(Ω))L(0,T;W01,(Ω)) such that φ(T)=0.

We recall that, thanks to the results of [4], under assumptions (1.3) and (1.5) there exists a solution u of (1.1), with u in L(0,T;L1(Ω))Lq(0,T;W01,q(Ω)), with q=N+2N+1 (see Lemma 3.2 of [4]). Furthermore, if |E| belongs to L(QT) and u0 belongs to L(Ω), there exists a bounded solution u of (1.1) such that (see Lemma 3.1 of [4])

u(t)L1(Ω)u0L1(Ω)for almosteveryt(0,T). 2.1

Behaviour near zero

Theorem 2.1

Assume (1.2), (1.3) and (1.5). Then there exists a solution u of (1.1) satisfying

uL(t0,T;Lq(Ω))foreveryt0in(0,T),andforevery1<q<+. 2.2

Furthermore, the following estimate holds:

uL(t0,T;Lq(Ω))c0u0L1(Ω) 2.3

where c0 is a constant depending only on t0, q, N, α, T and B. Moreover, for every q2 and t0>0 it results

||u|q2-1u|L2(t0,T;L2(Ω)),|u|L2(t0,T;L2(Ω)).

Finally,

u(t)Lq(Ω)c1u0L1(Ω)tN21-1qforalmosteverytin(0,T), 2.4

where c1 is a constant depending only on N, q, α, γ, T and B (see formula (2.21)).

Proof

In [4] it is proved the existence of a solution u of (1.1), obtained as the almost everywhere limit of a sequence of weak solutions un in L2(0,T;W01,2(Ω))C([0,T];L2(Ω)) of the following problems:

(un)t-div(a(x,t,un)un)=-div(Tn(un)En(x,t))inQTΩ×(0,T),un(x,t)=0onΩ×(0,T),un(x,0)=Tn(u0(x))inΩ, 2.5

where Tn is the usual truncating function

Tn(s)=min{n,max{-n,s}},sR,

and

En(x,t)=E(x,t)1+1n|E(x,t)|. 2.6

Notice that since Tn(un)En(x,t) belongs to L(QT) then un also belongs L(QT) by the results of [1]. We fix q>1, t>0, choose as test function in (2.5) vn=|un|q-2un, and integrate on Ω. We obtain, using (1.2), and the fact that |Tn(s)||s|,

1qddtΩ|un(t)|q+α(q-1)Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2(q-1)ΩTn(un(t))En·un(t)|un(t)|q-2(q-1)Ω|E||un(t)||un(t)|q-1. 2.7

We now work with the right hand side; using Young inequality, as well as (1.5), we have

Ω|E||un(t)||un(t)|q-1γΩ|un(t)||B(x)||un(t)|q-1α2Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2+C1Ω|B(x)|2|un(t)|q,

where C1=γ22α. Therefore, part of the right hand side can be absorbed in the left hand one, to obtain

1qddtΩ|un(t)|q+α(q-1)2Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2C2Ω|B(x)|2|un(t)|q, 2.8

where C2=C2(q)=C1(q-1). We continue to work on the right hand side; we have, for some ρ>0, and thanks to Hölder inequality,

Ω|B(x)|2|un(t)|q={|B(x)|ρ}|B(x)|2|un(t)|q+{|B(x)|>ρ}|B(x)|2|un(t)|qρ2Ω|un(t)|q+{|B(x)|>ρ}|B(x)|2|un(t)|qρ2Ω|un(t)|q+({|B(x)|>ρ}|B(x)|N)2N(Ω|un(t)|22q)22, 2.9

where, as usual, 2=2NN-2 is the Sobolev embedding exponent. Since, by Sobolev embedding, we have

(Ω|un(t)|2q2)22SΩ|[|un(t)|q2sign(un)]|2=q2S4Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2,

we therefore have that

C2Ω|B(x)|2|un(t)|qC2ρ2Ω|un(t)|q+C2q2S4({|B(x)|>ρ}|B(x)|N)2NΩ|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2.

We now choose ρ in such a way that

C2q2S4({|B(x)|>ρ}|B(x)|N)2Nα(q-1)4. 2.10

Such a choice is possible since B belongs to LN(Ω). Note that ρ does not depend on t. We therefore have that

C2Ω|B(x)|2|un(t)|qC3Ω|un(t)|q+α(q-1)4Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2, 2.11

where C3 is a constant depending only on α, q, γ, S and B. Substituting this inequality in (2.8) we obtain, after simplifying equal terms,

1qddtΩ|un(t)|q+α(q-1)4Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2C3Ω|un(t)|q. 2.12

Writing |un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2=4q2|[|un(t)|q2sign(un)]|2, and using Sobolev embedding, we arrive at

1qddtΩ|un(t)|q+α(q-1)q2S(Ω|un(t)|22q)22C3Ω|un(t)|q. 2.13

Since 1<q<22q, we can interpolate, to obtain

Ω|un(t)|q(Ω|un(t)|)q(1-θ)(Ω|un(t)|22q)22θ, 2.14

where θ in (0, 1) is such that

1q=(1-θ)11+θ22q.

We recall now (see the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [4]) that (2.1) holds true for un, so that

un(t)L1(Ω)Tn(u0)L1(Ω),foreverytin(0,T).

Hence, from (2.14) it follows that

Ω|un(t)|q(Ω|Tn(u0)|)q(1-θ)(Ω|un(t)|22q)22θ(Ω|u0|)q(1-θ)(Ω|un(t)|22q)22θ.

Therefore,

(Ω|un(t)|22q)22θ1u0L1(Ω)q(1-θ)Ω|un(t)|q, 2.15

where we have assumed that u00 (otherwise there is nothing to prove). Inserting (2.15) into (2.13), we obtain

ddtΩ|un(t)|q+A(Ω|un(t)|q)1θC3qΩ|un(t)|q,

where

A=α(q-1)qSu0L1(Ω)q(1-θ)θ.

Since

1θ=1+δ,withδ=2N(q-1),

we thus have

ddtΩ|un(t)|q+A(Ω|un(t)|q)1+δCΩ|un(t)|q, 2.16

where to simplify the notation we have set C=C3q. Define now

y(t)=Ω|un(t)|q.

From (2.16) we have that y(t) is such that

y(t)+Ay(t)1+δCy(t),

where A and C are as above. Multiplying by e-Ct, we have

e-Cty(t)-Ce-Cty(t)+Ae-Cty(t)1+δ0,

that is,

[e-Cty(t)]+Ae-Cty(t)1+δ0.

Define z(t)=e-Cty(t), so that we have

z(t)+Ae-Ct[eCtz(t)]1+δ0,

that is

z(t)+AeCδtz(t)1+δ0.

Dividing by z(t)1+δ, we have

z(t)z(t)1+δ+AeCδt0,

which can be rewritten as

[-1δz(t)δ+AeCδtCδ]0,

so that the function

tAeCδtCδ-1δz(t)δisdecreasing,

or, simplifying δ, that the function

tAeCδt-Cz(t)-δisdecreasing, 2.17

Thanks to (2.17), we have that, for every 0<t<T,

AeCδt-Cz(t)-δA-Cz(0)-δA,

and thus,

z(t)-δAC-1(eCδt-1)foreveryt(0,T),

that is,

z(t)1[AC-1(eCδt-1)]1δforeveryt(0,T),

Recalling the definition of z(t), we thus have that

y(t)eCt[AC-1(eCδt-1)]1δforeveryt(0,T).

that is

Ω|un(t)|qeCt[AC-1(eCδt-1)]1δforeveryt(0,T).

Hence, passing to the limit on n we deduce that, for almost every t in (0, T) we have

Ω|u(t)|qeCt[AC-1(eCδt-1)]1δ=1(AC-1)1δeCt(eCδt-1)1δ. 2.18

Recalling the value of A, we thus have

Ω|u(t)|qC4u0L1(Ω)q(1-θ)δθeCt(eCδt-1)1δforalmosteveryt(0,T),

where C4=qSCα(q-1)1δ. Since

δ=1θ-1=1-θθ=2N(q-1),

we finally have that, for almost every t in (0, T)

Ω|u(t)|qC4u0L1(Ω)qeCt(eCδt-1)1δ. 2.19

Recalling that eCδt-1Cδt for every t (since teCδt is convex), we therefore have that

u(t)Lq(Ω)C1u0L1(Ω)t1δqforalmosteverytin(0,T), 2.20

where

c1=C4eCT(Cδ)1δ1q 2.21

and hence (2.4) is proved.

To conclude the proof we observe that by (2.19) it follows that even if u0L1(Ω) it results

uL(t0,T;Lq(Ω))foreveryt0in(0,T),andforevery1<q<+. 2.22

Moreover, it results

uL(t0,T;Lq(Ω))c0u0L1(Ω), 2.23

where c0 is a constant depending only on t0, q, N, α, T and B.

Finally, using the previous regularity in (2.12) we deduce that for every q2

||u|q2-1u|L2(t0,T;L2(Ω)),|u|L2(t0,T;L2(Ω))foreveryt0in(0,T).

Behaviour for t large

We show here that our problem admits a global solution u (defined in all the set Ω×(0,+)) and we study its behavior for t large. To this aim, we recall that by a global solution of (1.1) we mean a function u which solves (1.1) for every T>0.

Theorem 2.2

Assume (1.3) and that (1.2) and (1.5) hold true in Ω×(0,+). Let u be the solution of (1.1) given by Theorem 2.1. Then u can be extended to a global solution defined in Ω×(0,+) (that we denote again u) satisfying

uL(t0,+;Lq(Ω))foreveryt0>0,andforevery1<q<+, 2.24
uL(t0,+;Lq(Ω))u0L1(Ω), 2.25

where c0 is as in (2.3) a constant depending only on t0, q, N, α and B, and such that for every q2 and t0>0 we have

||u|q2-1u|Lloc2(t0,+;L2(Ω)),|u|Lloc2(t0,+;L2(Ω)). 2.26

Moreover, if for some t0>0 it results

|E(x,t)|b(t)|B(x)|,wherebL2(t0,+)andB(x)LN(Ω), 2.27

or more generally, if

|E(x,t)|L2(t0,+;Lr(Ω)),forsomer>2, 2.28

then

limt+u(t)Lq(Ω)=0forevery1<q<+. 2.29

Proof

Let T>0 be arbitrarily fixed and let u be the solution of (1.1) given by Theorem 2.1. Hence u is obtained as the almost everywhere limit in QT of a sequence un in L2(0,T;W01,2(Ω))C([0,T];L2(Ω)) of weak solutions of (2.5). Notice that each un can be extended to a global solution of (2.5), that we denote again un. Hence un belongs to Lloc2([0,+);W01,2(Ω))Cloc([0,+);L2(Ω)), and solves (2.5) in every set QT for every T>0 arbitrarily fixed. We show now that we can extend the solution u of (1.1) in QT to a global solution. To this aim let us denote with un(1) the subsequence of un that converges almost everywhere in Q2T to a weak solution u(2) of (1.1) in Q2T. By construction u=u(2) in QT. Now, let us denote with un(2) the subsequence of un(1) that converges almost everywhere in Q3T to a weak solution u(3) of (1.1) in Q3T. By construction u(2)=u(3) in Q2T. Iterating this procedure, the function u(x,t)u(n)(x,t) in QnT (for every integer n) is well defined and is a global solution of (1.1) which, by construction and thanks to Theorem 2.1, satisfies (2.24)–(2.26).

We show now that the global solution u constructed above, under further assumptions on E, satisfies the other estimates enounced in Theorem 2.2.

To this aim, proceeding as in the proof of (2.8), and integrating in time, we deduce that for every 0<t0<t1<t2

Ω|un(t2)|q-Ω|un(t1)|q+qα(q-1)2t1t2Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2q(q-1)2αt1t2Ω|E(x,t)|2|un(t)|q. 2.30

Now, thanks to the Poincaré inequality we deduce

Ω|un(t2)|q-Ω|un(t1)|q+2α(q-1)CPqt1t2Ω|un(t)|qq(q-1)2αt1t2Ω|E(x,t)|2|un(t)|q, 2.31

where CP is the Poincaré constant. We can rewrite the previous estimate in the following way

Ω|un(t2)|q-Ω|un(t1)|q+Mt1t2Ω|un(t)|qt1t2gn(t)dt. 2.32

where we have set

M=2α(q-1)CPqandgn(t)=q(q-1)2αΩ|E(x,t)|2|un(t)|q.

Applying Proposition 3.2 in [11] we obtain

Ω|un(t)|qΩ|un(t0)|qe-Mt+t0tgn(s)ds,

and if gnL1(t0,+) (again by Proposition 3.2) we get for every t>t0

Ω|un(t)|qΛne-M2t+t2tgn(s)ds, 2.33

where

Λn=Ω|un(t0)|q+gnL1(t0,+).

Notice that thanks to (2.25) it results

ΛnΛ1c0qu0L1(Ω)q+gnL1(t0,+). 2.34

Suppose now that

|E(x,t)|b(t)|B(x)|,bL2(t0,+). 2.35

Then

gnL1(t0,+)ct0+Ωb(t)2|B(x)|2|un|qct0+Ωb2|B(x)|N+|un|NqN-2ct0+b2Ω|B|N+unL(t0,+;LNqN-2(Ω))NqN-2Ct0+b2Ω|B|N+u0L1(Ω)NqN-2,

and

t2tgn(s)dsC(t2tb2)Ω|B|N+u0L1(Ω)NqN-2.

If instead one assumes that

EL2(t0,+;Lr(Ω)),forsomer>2, 2.36

then it results

gnL1(t0,+)ct0+Ω|E(x,t)|2|un|qct0+Ω|E(x,t)|r2rΩ|un|qrr-21-2rct0+Ω|E(x,t)|r2runL(t0,+;Lqrr-2(Ω))qCt0+Ω|E(x,t)|r2ru0L1(Ω)q,

and

t2tgn(s)dsCt2tΩ|E(x,t)|r2ru0L1(Ω)q.

Under either assumption (2.35) or (2.36) one therefore has that

gnL1(t0,+)C,limt+t2tgn(s)ds=0,uniformlywithrespectton.

Thus,

limt+Ω|un(t)|q=0uniformly with respect ton, 2.37

so that (recalling that the solution u of (1.1) is the limit of un)

limt+Ω|u(t)|q=0.

L-regularity

In this section we prove the following result.

Theorem 3.1

Assume (1.2), (1.3), (1.5) and

|E|Ls(0,T;Lr(Ω))withr>2ands1suchthatN2r+1s<12. 3.1

Then there exists a solution u of (1.1) satisfying

uL(Ω×(t0,T))for everyt0(0,T). 3.2

Moreover,

u(t)L(Ω)cu0L1(Ω)tN2,foreveryt(0,T), 3.3

where c depends only on α, β, N, T and E.

Finally, if (1.2) and (1.5) hold true in Ω×(0,+) then u can be extended to a global solution (that we denote again u) defined in all Ω×(0,+); this extension coincides with the one given by Theorem 2.2; if |E| belongs to Llocs(0,+;Lr(Ω)) and (2.37) holds true (for example if (2.35) or (2.36) holds true) then it results

limt+u(t)L(Ω)=0. 3.4

Proof

We recall that under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 (see Sect. 2.1) there exists a solution u of (1.1) satisfying the regularity property (2.2) and estimate (2.3). Hence, if we assume that

|E|Ls(0,T;Lr(Ω)))withr>2ands1suchthatN2r+1s<12, 3.5

then there exist s¯>1 and r¯ (depending on r and s) such that it results

|F|=def|E(x,t)u|Ls¯(t0,T;Lr¯(Ω)))withr¯>2suchthatN2r¯+1s¯<12,for everyt0>0. 3.6

Notice that (3.5) is satisfied if for example |E|L(0,T;Lr(Ω)) with r>N.

Thus, if we assume (3.5) we can apply Theorem 8.1 at page 192 of [10] to the solution u of (1.1) constructed in Theorem 2.1 to conclude that

uL(Ω×(t0,T))foreveryt0(0,T). 3.7

Moreover it is also possible to estimate the L-norm of u in dependence of the data and of the L2-norm of u.

Now to complete the proof of the theorem we need to show the behavior of the L-norm of u near zero and for t large.

To this aim, we recall that applying Theorem 2 at page 18 of [1] we obtain the following estimate

uL(Q(ρ))Cρ-N+22uL2(Q(3ρ))+ρθ|uE|s¯,r¯,Q(3ρ) 3.8

where C is a constant depending only on the data (i.e. on α, β, θ and N) Q(ρ)=R(ρ)×(t0-ρ2,t0), R(ρ) is the open cube in RN of edge lenght ρ centered in x0Ω, ρ>0 such that Q(3ρ)QT, ·s0,r0,Q(3ρ) denotes the norm ·Ls0(t0-(3ρ)2,t0;Lr0(K(3ρ))) and θ(0,1) is defined as follows

θ1-N2r¯+1s¯andθ1-1r. 3.9

We conclude the proof distinguishing the two cases of t near zero and t large.

Case 1: t near zero. We observe that it results

uL2(Q(3ρ))3ρuL(t0-(3ρ)2,t0;L2(K(3ρ))) 3.10

which implies

ρ-N+22uL2(Q(3ρ))3ρ-N2uL(t0-(3ρ)2,t0;L2(K(3ρ))) 3.11

Hence, choosing (3ρ)2=t02 and t arbitrarily in (1718t0,t0) (hence t=θ0t0 with θ0(1718,1)) and using estimate (2.4) we deduce

ρ-N+22uL2(Q(3ρ))Ct-N4u0L1(Ω)tN4=Cu0L1(Ω)tN2. 3.12

Here with C or c we denote positive constants, depending only on the data in the structure conditions and on E, which can vary from line to line. Notice that with such a choice of ρ the left hand side of (3.8) is greater then u(t)L(K(ρ)). Hence, it remains to estimate the last term in the right hand side of (3.8).

Let us consider the particular case when |E|L(0,T;Lr(Ω)) with r>N (i.e. (3.5) with s=+). Then |uE|L(t0,T;Lr¯(Ω)) for every N<r¯<r for every t0>0, and we have

|uE|,r¯,Q(3ρ)|E|,r,Q(3ρ)u,r¯rr-r¯,Q(3ρ) 3.13

Hence, by (3.13) and (2.4) we deduce that

ρθ|uE|s¯,r¯,Q(3ρ)ctθ2u0L1(Ω)tN21-r-r¯r¯r 3.14

which implies, since θ>0 and being possible any choice of r¯ satisfying N<r¯<r, the following estimate

ρθ|uE|s¯,r¯,Q(3ρ)cu0L1(Ω)tN2. 3.15

Now, by (3.15), (3.12) and (3.8) we can conclude that for t in (0, T) it results

u(t)L(K(ρ))cu0L1(Ω)tN2,

which implies, thanks to the arbitrariness of K(ρ),

u(t)L(Ω)cu0L1(Ω)tN2. 3.16

We conclude the proof considering the general case when |E| satisfies (3.5) with s+. In this case we estimate the last term in (3.8) as follows

ρθ|uE|s¯,r¯,Q(3ρ)ρθ|E|s,r,Q(3ρ)|u|s¯ss-s¯,r¯rr-r¯,Q(3ρ)ρθ+2s-s¯s¯s|E|s,r,Q(3ρ)|u|,r¯rr-r¯,Q(3ρ),

for every s¯<s and r¯<r satisfying (3.6). Hence, by the previous estimate and (2.4) we deduce, for every t in (0, T), that

ρθ|uE|s¯,r¯,Q(3ρ)ctθ2+s-s¯s¯su0L1(Ω)tN21-r-r¯r¯r 3.17

which implies (thanks to the arbitrariness of s¯<s and r¯<r) that (3.15) holds true and hence estimate (3.16) is true also in this more general case.

Case 2: t large. To study the solution for t large we need to assume further structure assumptions to guarantee the existence of a solution defined for every value of t. Hence, let us assume that (1.2) and (1.5) hold true in Ω×(0,+). Thus, by Theorem 2.2u can be extended to a global solution (that we denote again u) defined in all Ω×(0,+). Moreover, assuming also that |E|Llocs(0,+;Lr(Ω)) we obtain that estimate (3.8) holds true for every Q(3ρ)Ω×(0,+).

Hence, if (2.37) holds true (for example if (2.35) or (2.36) holds true) then by (3.8) we deduce that also

limt+u(t)L(K(ρ))=0 3.18

and hence, thanks to the arbitrariness of K(ρ), we conclude that

limt+u(t)L(Ω)=0 3.19

E does not belong to L(0,T;LN(Ω))

We consider here a particular case when EL(0,T;LN(Ω)). We have the following result.

Theorem 4.1

Assume that 0 belongs to Ω, that (1.2), (1.3) hold, and that

|E(x,t)|γ|x|withγ<α(N-2). 4.1

Then there exists a solution u of (1.1) satisfying the following estimate for every 1q<(N-2)αγ and for a.e. t(0,T)

u(t)Lq(Ω)cu0L1(Ω)tN21q, 4.2

where c=c(N,q,α,γ).

Proof

Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 2.1 we deduce that (2.8) holds true with B(x)=γ|x|, i.e.

1qddtΩ|un(t)|q+α(q-1)2Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2(q-1)2αγ2Ω|un(t)|q|x|2.

Recalling Hardy inequality, we thus have that

1qddtΩ|un(t)|q+α(q-1)2Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2(q-1)2αγ2H2Ω|[|un(t)|q2-1un]|2=(q-1)2αγ2q24H2Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-2,

that is

1qddtΩ|un(t)|q+12α(q-1)(1-1α2γ2q24H2)Ω|un(t)|2|un(t)|q-20 4.3

We observe that, since H=N-22, it results

γq<2Hαq<(N-2)αγ. 4.4

Since we need to have q1, by (4.4) we deduce that under the following assumption

γ<α(N-2) 4.5

estimate (4.3) holds true for every 1q<(N-2)αγ. By Sobolev inequality and (4.3) it follows for every 0<t1<t2T

Ω|un(t2)|q-Ω|un(t1)|q+c1t1t2un22qq0 4.6

where c1=12α(q-1)(1-1α2γ2q24H2)4q2S. We recall that since EL2(QT) it results

un(t)L1(Ω)u0L1(Ω)

(see the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [4], or (2.1)). Hence, we can apply Theorem 2.1 in [13] (since the exponents in the integral inequality (4.6) satisfy all the needed requirements) and we can conclude that if (4.5) is satisfied then for every 1q<(N-2)αγ it results

un(t)Lq(Ω)c3u0L1(Ω)tN21q, 4.7

where c3=N(q-1)2c1N21q, from which the result follows (since the solution u of (1.1) is the limit of un).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Google and its Google Meet software for supporting all the discussions (both preliminary and final) which generated the present paper during the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Lucio Boccardo, Email: boccardo@mat.uniroma1.it.

Luigi Orsina, Email: orsina@mat.uniroma1.it.

Maria Michaela Porzio, Email: mariamichaela.porzio@uniroma1.it.

References

  • 1.Aronson DG, Serrin J. Local behavior of solutions of quasilinear parabolic equations. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 1967;25:81–122. doi: 10.1007/BF00281291. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.L. Boccardo. Some developments on Dirichlet problems with discontinuous coefficients. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. (9), 2 (2009), 285–297.
  • 3.Boccardo L, Buccheri S, Cirmi GR. Two linear noncoercive Dirichlet problems in duality. Milan J. Math. 2018;86:97–104. doi: 10.1007/s00032-018-0281-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Boccardo L, Orsina L, Porretta A. Some noncoercive parabolic equations with lower order terms in divergence form. J. Evol. Equ. 2003;3:407–418. doi: 10.1007/s00028-003-0109-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cipriani F, Grillo G. Uniform bounds for solutions to quasilinear parabolic equations. J. Differ. Equ. 2001;177:209–234. doi: 10.1006/jdeq.2000.3985. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.R.G. Cirmi, S. D’Asero, S. Leonardi, M.M. Porzio. Local regularity results for solutions of linear elliptic equations with drift term. Adv. Calc. Var. 10.1515/acv-2019-0048(to appear).
  • 7.T. Coulhon, D. Hauer. Functional inequalities and regularizing effect of nonlinear semigroups—theory and application. In: SMAI—Mathématiques et Applications (2020), pp. 1–195.
  • 8.Del Vecchio T, Posteraro MR. Existence and regularity results for nonlinear elliptic equations with measure data. Adv. Differ. Equ. 1996;1:899–917. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Farroni F, Moscariello G. A nonlinear parabolic equation with drift term. Nonlinear Anal. 2018;177:397–412. doi: 10.1016/j.na.2018.04.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.O. A. Ladyženskaja, V. A. Solonnikov, N. N. Ural’ceva. Linear and quasilinear equations of parabolic type. Translations of the American Mathematical Society, American Mathematical Society, Providence (1968), xi+648.
  • 11.Moscariello G, Porzio MM. Quantitative asymptotic estimates for evolution problems. Nonlinear Anal. 2017;154:225–240. doi: 10.1016/j.na.2016.06.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Porzio MM. On decay estimates. J. Evol. Equ. 2009;9:561–591. doi: 10.1007/s00028-009-0024-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Porzio MM. On uniform and decay estimates for unbounded solutions of partial differential equations. J. Differ. Equ. 2015;259:6960–7011. doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2015.08.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Stampacchia G. Le problème de Dirichlet pour les équations elliptiques du second ordre à coefficients discontinus. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 1965;15:189–258. doi: 10.5802/aif.204. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Stampacchia G. Équations elliptiques du second ordre à coefficients discontinus. Montreal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal; 1966. p. 326. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.L. Véron. Effets régularisants de semi-groupes non linéaires dans des espaces de Banach. Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (5), 1 (1979), 171–200.

Articles from Journal of Evolution Equations are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES