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
In particular we show that under suitable conditions on the vector field E, even if the problem is noncoercive and although the initial datum is only an 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
| 1.1 |
where is an open bounded subset of , , and . We assume that is a Carathéodory function (i.e., measurable in (x, t) for every s in , and continuous in s for almost every (x, t) in ) such that
| 1.2 |
for almost every (x, t) in and for every s in , where and are positive constants. On the initial datum we assume
| 1.3 |
The main difficulty in studying this problem is the presence of the lower order term 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 is only a summable function, there exists a solution u of (1.1) that becomes immediately (i.e., for every ) bounded and satisfies the same decay (or ultracontractive estimate) of the solution of the heat equation, i.e.,
| 1.4 |
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
| 1.5 |
for almost every (x, t) in , then there is an immediate regularization since there exists a solution u of (1.1) which belongs to for every and in (0, T). Besides, we will derive quantitative estimates “near ” (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 “” 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
which may not belong to if 0 belongs to .
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
| 1.6 |
with E in , the following holds:
An improvement of regularity
In this section we will show that even if the initial datum 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 for every and (see Theorem 2.1 in Sect. 2.1 below). Moreover, we describe the blow-up of the -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 and such that
for every in such that .
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 , with (see Lemma 3.2 of [4]). Furthermore, if |E| belongs to and belongs to , there exists a bounded solution u of (1.1) such that (see Lemma 3.1 of [4])
| 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
| 2.2 |
Furthermore, the following estimate holds:
| 2.3 |
where is a constant depending only on , q, N, , T and B. Moreover, for every and it results
Finally,
| 2.4 |
where is a constant depending only on N, q, , , 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 in of the following problems:
| 2.5 |
where is the usual truncating function
and
| 2.6 |
Notice that since belongs to then also belongs by the results of [1]. We fix , , choose as test function in (2.5) , and integrate on . We obtain, using (1.2), and the fact that ,
| 2.7 |
We now work with the right hand side; using Young inequality, as well as (1.5), we have
where . Therefore, part of the right hand side can be absorbed in the left hand one, to obtain
| 2.8 |
where . We continue to work on the right hand side; we have, for some , and thanks to Hölder inequality,
| 2.9 |
where, as usual, is the Sobolev embedding exponent. Since, by Sobolev embedding, we have
we therefore have that
We now choose in such a way that
| 2.10 |
Such a choice is possible since B belongs to . Note that does not depend on t. We therefore have that
| 2.11 |
where is a constant depending only on , q, , and B. Substituting this inequality in (2.8) we obtain, after simplifying equal terms,
| 2.12 |
Writing , and using Sobolev embedding, we arrive at
| 2.13 |
Since , we can interpolate, to obtain
| 2.14 |
where in (0, 1) is such that
We recall now (see the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [4]) that (2.1) holds true for , so that
Hence, from (2.14) it follows that
Therefore,
| 2.15 |
where we have assumed that (otherwise there is nothing to prove). Inserting (2.15) into (2.13), we obtain
where
Since
we thus have
| 2.16 |
where to simplify the notation we have set . Define now
From (2.16) we have that y(t) is such that
where A and C are as above. Multiplying by , we have
that is,
Define , so that we have
that is
Dividing by , we have
which can be rewritten as
so that the function
or, simplifying , that the function
| 2.17 |
Thanks to (2.17), we have that, for every ,
and thus,
that is,
Recalling the definition of z(t), we thus have that
that is
Hence, passing to the limit on n we deduce that, for almost every t in (0, T) we have
| 2.18 |
Recalling the value of A, we thus have
where . Since
we finally have that, for almost every t in (0, T)
| 2.19 |
Recalling that for every t (since is convex), we therefore have that
| 2.20 |
where
| 2.21 |
and hence (2.4) is proved.
To conclude the proof we observe that by (2.19) it follows that even if it results
| 2.22 |
Moreover, it results
| 2.23 |
where is a constant depending only on , q, N, , T and B.
Finally, using the previous regularity in (2.12) we deduce that for every
Behaviour for t large
We show here that our problem admits a global solution u (defined in all the set ) 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 .
Theorem 2.2
Assume (1.3) and that (1.2) and (1.5) hold true in . Let u be the solution of (1.1) given by Theorem 2.1. Then u can be extended to a global solution defined in (that we denote again u) satisfying
| 2.24 |
| 2.25 |
where is as in (2.3) a constant depending only on , q, N, and B, and such that for every and we have
| 2.26 |
Moreover, if for some it results
| 2.27 |
or more generally, if
| 2.28 |
then
| 2.29 |
Proof
Let 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 of a sequence in of weak solutions of (2.5). Notice that each can be extended to a global solution of (2.5), that we denote again . Hence belongs to , and solves (2.5) in every set for every arbitrarily fixed. We show now that we can extend the solution u of (1.1) in to a global solution. To this aim let us denote with the subsequence of that converges almost everywhere in to a weak solution of (1.1) in . By construction in . Now, let us denote with the subsequence of that converges almost everywhere in to a weak solution of (1.1) in . By construction in . Iterating this procedure, the function in (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
| 2.30 |
Now, thanks to the Poincaré inequality we deduce
| 2.31 |
where is the Poincaré constant. We can rewrite the previous estimate in the following way
| 2.32 |
where we have set
Applying Proposition 3.2 in [11] we obtain
and if (again by Proposition 3.2) we get for every
| 2.33 |
where
Notice that thanks to (2.25) it results
| 2.34 |
Suppose now that
| 2.35 |
Then
and
If instead one assumes that
| 2.36 |
then it results
and
Under either assumption (2.35) or (2.36) one therefore has that
Thus,
| 2.37 |
so that (recalling that the solution u of (1.1) is the limit of )
-regularity
In this section we prove the following result.
Theorem 3.1
Assume (1.2), (1.3), (1.5) and
| 3.1 |
Then there exists a solution u of (1.1) satisfying
| 3.2 |
Moreover,
| 3.3 |
where c depends only on , , N, T and E.
Finally, if (1.2) and (1.5) hold true in then u can be extended to a global solution (that we denote again u) defined in all ; this extension coincides with the one given by Theorem 2.2; if |E| belongs to and (2.37) holds true (for example if (2.35) or (2.36) holds true) then it results
| 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
| 3.5 |
then there exist and (depending on r and s) such that it results
| 3.6 |
Notice that (3.5) is satisfied if for example with .
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
| 3.7 |
Moreover it is also possible to estimate the -norm of u in dependence of the data and of the -norm of u.
Now to complete the proof of the theorem we need to show the behavior of the -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
| 3.8 |
where C is a constant depending only on the data (i.e. on , , and N) , is the open cube in of edge lenght centered in , such that , denotes the norm and is defined as follows
| 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
| 3.10 |
which implies
| 3.11 |
Hence, choosing and t arbitrarily in (hence with ) and using estimate (2.4) we deduce
| 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 the left hand side of (3.8) is greater then . Hence, it remains to estimate the last term in the right hand side of (3.8).
Let us consider the particular case when with (i.e. (3.5) with ). Then for every for every , and we have
| 3.13 |
Hence, by (3.13) and (2.4) we deduce that
| 3.14 |
which implies, since and being possible any choice of satisfying , the following estimate
| 3.15 |
Now, by (3.15), (3.12) and (3.8) we can conclude that for t in (0, T) it results
which implies, thanks to the arbitrariness of ,
| 3.16 |
We conclude the proof considering the general case when |E| satisfies (3.5) with . In this case we estimate the last term in (3.8) as follows
for every and satisfying (3.6). Hence, by the previous estimate and (2.4) we deduce, for every t in (0, T), that
| 3.17 |
which implies (thanks to the arbitrariness of and ) 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 . Thus, by Theorem 2.2u can be extended to a global solution (that we denote again u) defined in all . Moreover, assuming also that we obtain that estimate (3.8) holds true for every .
Hence, if (2.37) holds true (for example if (2.35) or (2.36) holds true) then by (3.8) we deduce that also
| 3.18 |
and hence, thanks to the arbitrariness of , we conclude that
| 3.19 |
E does not belong to
We consider here a particular case when . We have the following result.
Theorem 4.1
Assume that 0 belongs to , that (1.2), (1.3) hold, and that
| 4.1 |
Then there exists a solution u of (1.1) satisfying the following estimate for every and for a.e.
| 4.2 |
where .
Proof
Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 2.1 we deduce that (2.8) holds true with , i.e.
Recalling Hardy inequality, we thus have that
that is
| 4.3 |
We observe that, since , it results
| 4.4 |
Since we need to have , by (4.4) we deduce that under the following assumption
| 4.5 |
estimate (4.3) holds true for every . By Sobolev inequality and (4.3) it follows for every
| 4.6 |
where . We recall that since it results
(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 it results
| 4.7 |
where , from which the result follows (since the solution u of (1.1) is the limit of ).
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.
