Processing math: 100%
Research article

Stability properties of Radon measure-valued solutions for a class of nonlinear parabolic equations under Neumann boundary conditions

  • Received: 13 June 2021 Accepted: 19 August 2021 Published: 24 August 2021
  • MSC : 35K65, 35K61, 35B40, 28A33, 35R06, 28A50

  • In this paper, we address the existence, uniqueness, decay estimates, and the large-time behavior of the Radon measure-valued solutions for a class of nonlinear strongly degenerate parabolic equations involving a source term under Neumann boundary conditions with bounded Radon measure as initial data.

    {ut=Δψ(u)+h(t)f(x,t)  in  Ω×(0,T),ψ(u)η=g(u)  on  Ω×(0,T),u(x,0)=u0(x)  in  Ω,

    where T>0, ΩRN(N2) is an open bounded domain with smooth boundary Ω, η is an outward normal vector on Ω. The initial value data u0 is a nonnegative bounded Radon measure on Ω, the function f is a solution of the linear inhomogeneous heat equation under Neumann boundary conditions with measure data, and the functions ψ, g and h satisfy the suitable assumptions.

    Citation: Quincy Stévène Nkombo, Fengquan Li, Christian Tathy. Stability properties of Radon measure-valued solutions for a class of nonlinear parabolic equations under Neumann boundary conditions[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(11): 12182-12224. doi: 10.3934/math.2021707

    Related Papers:

    [1] Andrey Muravnik . Wiener Tauberian theorem and half-space problems for parabolic and elliptic equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 8174-8191. doi: 10.3934/math.2024397
    [2] Zhanwei Gou, Jincheng Shi . Blow-up phenomena and global existence for nonlinear parabolic problems under nonlinear boundary conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 11822-11836. doi: 10.3934/math.2023598
    [3] Apassara Suechoei, Parinya Sa Ngiamsunthorn . Extremal solutions of φCaputo fractional evolution equations involving integral kernels. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 4734-4757. doi: 10.3934/math.2021278
    [4] Yanyan Cui, Chaojun Wang . Dirichlet and Neumann boundary value problems for bi-polyanalytic functions on the bicylinder. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 4792-4818. doi: 10.3934/math.2025220
    [5] Hao-Yue Liu, Wei Zhang . Neumann gradient estimate for nonlinear heat equation under integral Ricci curvature bounds. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 3881-3894. doi: 10.3934/math.2024191
    [6] Nataliya Gol’dman . Nonlinear boundary value problems for a parabolic equation with an unknown source function. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(5): 1508-1522. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.5.1508
    [7] Yonghui Zou, Xin Xu, An Gao . Local well-posedness to the thermal boundary layer equations in Sobolev space. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 9933-9964. doi: 10.3934/math.2023503
    [8] Hongmei Li . Convergence of smooth solutions to parabolic equations with an oblique derivative boundary condition. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 2824-2853. doi: 10.3934/math.2024140
    [9] Heping Jiang . Complex dynamics induced by harvesting rate and delay in a diffusive Leslie-Gower predator-prey model. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 20718-20730. doi: 10.3934/math.20231056
    [10] Fan Wan, Xiping Liu, Mei Jia . Ulam-Hyers stability for conformable fractional integro-differential impulsive equations with the antiperiodic boundary conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 6066-6083. doi: 10.3934/math.2022338
  • In this paper, we address the existence, uniqueness, decay estimates, and the large-time behavior of the Radon measure-valued solutions for a class of nonlinear strongly degenerate parabolic equations involving a source term under Neumann boundary conditions with bounded Radon measure as initial data.

    {ut=Δψ(u)+h(t)f(x,t)  in  Ω×(0,T),ψ(u)η=g(u)  on  Ω×(0,T),u(x,0)=u0(x)  in  Ω,

    where T>0, ΩRN(N2) is an open bounded domain with smooth boundary Ω, η is an outward normal vector on Ω. The initial value data u0 is a nonnegative bounded Radon measure on Ω, the function f is a solution of the linear inhomogeneous heat equation under Neumann boundary conditions with measure data, and the functions ψ, g and h satisfy the suitable assumptions.



    In this paper, we study the existence, uniqueness, decay estimates, and the large-time behavior of the solutions for a class of the nonlinear strongly degenerate parabolic equations involving the linear inhomogeneous heat equation solution as a source term under Neumann boundary conditions with bounded Radon measure as initial data. This problem is described as follows:

    {ut=Δψ(u)+h(t)f(x,t)  in  Q:=Ω×(0,T),ψ(u)η=g(u)  on  S:=Ω×(0,T),u(x,0)=u0(x)  in  Ω, (P)

    where T>0, ΩRN(N2) is an open bounded domain with smooth boundary Ω, η is an unit outward normal vector. The initial value data u0 is a nonnegative bounded Radon measure on Ω. The functions ψ and g fulfill the following assumptions

    {(i)ψL(R+)C2(R+),  ψ(0)=0,  ψ>0  in  R+,(ii)ψ,ψL(R+)  and  ψ(s)0ass+,(iii)ψ(s)γass+,(iv)ψψκinR+,for someκR+, (I)

    and

    {(i)gL(R+)C1(R+),  g<0  in  R+  and  g>0  in  R+,(ii)gL(R+)andg(s)0ass+, (A)

    where R+[0,+), R+(0,+) and γR+. By ψ and ψ we denote the first and second derivatives of the function ψ. The assumption (I)-(iii) stem from (I)-(i), hence we extend the function ψ in [0,+] defining ψ(+)=γ.

    The typical example of the functions ψ and g are given

    ψ(s)=γ[1e1(1+s)m]andg(s)=e1(1+s)m. (1.1)

    where 0<m1.

    The function h satisfies the following hypothesis

    hC1(R+)L1(R+),h(0)=0,h>0inR+. (J)

    The function f is a solution of the linear inhomogeneous heat equation under Neumann boundary conditions with measure data

    {ft=Δf+μ  in  Q:=Ω×(0,T),fη=g(f)  on  S:=Ω×(0,T),f(x,0)=u0(x)  in  Ω, (H)

    where μ is a nonnegative bounded Radon measure on Q and g fulfills the assumption (A).

    Throughout this paper, we consider solutions of the problem (P) as maps from (0, T) to the cone of nonnegative finite Radon measure on Ω, which satisfy (P) in the following sense: For a suitable class of test functions ξ there holds

    T0ur(,t),ξt(,t)Ωdt+T0h(t)f(,t),ξ(,t)Ωdt+u0,ξ(,0)+
    +T0g(ur(,t)),ξΩdt=T0ψ(ur)(,t),ξ(,t)Ωdt (1.2)

    (see Definition 2.1). Here the measure u(,t) is defined for almost every t(0,T), urL1(Q).

    The type of the problem (P) has been intensively studied by many authors for instance (see [5,18,19,20,27,28,30]) few to mention. For the general form of the problem (P), we consider the following problem studied in [18],

    {ut=div(ϕ(x,t,u)+h(x,t,u))+F(x,t,u)  in  ΩT,(ϕ(x,t,u)+h(x,t,u))η=r(x,t,u)  on  T,u(x,0)=u0  in  (Ω)T¯Ω×{0}, (A.1)

    where ΩT=Ω×(0,T), T=×(0,T), (Ω)T=(Ω)×(0,T) with is a relative open subset of Ω, ¯ and Ω are C2 surface with boundary which meet in C2 manifold dimension N2 and 0u0L((Ω)T¯Ω×{0}). The author in [18], proved the local existence, uniqueness and the blow-up at the finite time of the degenerate parabolic equations (A.1). Furthermore, the existence and regularity of the solutions to the quasilinear parabolic systems under nonlinear boundary conditions is discussed in detail by the studies [28,29]

    {ut+A(t,u)u=F(t,u)  in  Ω×(s,T),β(t,u)u=r(t,u)  in  Ω×(s,T],u(s)=u0  on  Ω, (A.2)

    where s<tT and u0Wτ,p(Ω,RN)(τ[0,)) and the definition of the operators A(t,u)u and β(t,u)u are in [28]. Similarly, studies in [19,20] showed the existence and regularity of the degenerate parabolic equations with nonlinear boundary conditions and u0L2(Ω) as an initial datum. Thus, we point out that the difference between the previous works (A.1), (A.2) and our work is on the following points; firstly, the initial value u0M+(Ω) (the nonnegative bounded Radon measure on Ω), secondly, the assumptions of the functions ψ, g given by (I) and (A). Finally, the source term f is a solution to the linear inhomogeneous heat equation under Neumann boundary conditions with measure data.

    Furthermore, the study of the degenerate parabolic problem with forcing term has been intensively investigated by many authors (see [31,32,33]). In particular, [31] deals with existence solutions in the sense distributions of the nonlinear inhomogeneous porous medium type equations

    utdivA(x,t,u,Du)=μinQ:=Ω×(0,T) (A.3)

    where μ is a nonnegative Radon measure on Q with μ(Q)< and μ|RN+1Q=0. In last decade, some authors studied the existence, uniqueness and qualitative properties of the Radon measure-valued solutions to the nonlinear parabolic equations under zero Dirichlet or zero Neumann boundary conditions with bounded Radon measure as initial data (e.g. [1,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,15,25] and references therein). Specially, [6] discuss the existence, uniqueness and the regularity of the Radon measure-valued solutions for a class of nonlinear degenerate parabolic equations

    {ut=Δθ(u)  in  Q,θ(u)=0  on  S,u0(x,0)=u0  on  Ω, (A.4)

    where u0M+(Ω) and the function θ fulfills the assumptions expressed in [6]. The difference between the abovementioned studies and the problem (P) is the presence of the nonzero-Neumann boundary conditions and the source term which is a solution of the linear inhomogeneous heat equations under Neumann boundary conditions with measure data.

    In general, the study of the partial differential equations through numerical methods is investigated by several authors (e.g. [47,48,49,50]). In particular, there are some authors who deal with the computation of the measure-valued solutions of the incompressible or compressible Euler equations (see [47,48]). Mostly, the authors employ the numerical experiment corresponding to initial data of the partial differential equations and prove that the resulting approximation converge to a weak solution. For instance, in [50], the authors study numerical experiment to prove that the convergence of the solution to the nonlinear degenerate parabolic equations is measure-valued. Similarly, [49] employs the numerical method to show that the resulting approximation of a non-coercive elliptic equations with measure data converges to a weak solution. Hence, the numerical experiments represent the straightforward application of the theoretical study of the type of the problem (P).

    To address the large-time behavior of the Radon measure-valued solutions of the problem (P), we construct the steady-state problem as a nonlinear strongly degenerate elliptic equations given as follows

    {Δψ(U)+U=u0  in  Ω,ψ(U)η=g(U)  on  Ω, (E)

    where u0M+(Ω) and the function ψ and g satisfy the hypotheses (I) and (A) respectively.

    We consider solutions of the problem (E) as maps from Ω to the cone of nonnegative bounded Radon measure on Ω which satisfies (E) in the following sense: For a suitable class of test function φ, there holds

    Ωψ(Ur)φdx+ΩUφdx=Ωφdu0(x)+Ωg(Ur)φdH(x)

    (see Definition 2.6), where UrL1(Ω) denotes the density of the absolutely continuous part of U with respect to the Lebesgue measure.

    The nonlinear elliptic equations under Neumann boundary conditions with absorption term and a source term has been intensively studied by several authors [26,34,38,39,40]. In these studies, the authors dealt with the existence, uniqueness and regularity of the solutions. Furthermore, in [34], the following problem is considered

    {LU+B(U)=f2  in  Ω,Uη+C(U)=g2  on  Ω, (A.5)

    where B(U)L1(Ω), C(U)L1(Ω), f2L1(Ω), g2L1(Ω) and the expression of the differential operator L in [34, Section 2]. The authors proved the existence, uniqueness and regularity of the solutions UW1,1(Ω) to the problem (A.5) (see [34, Section 4, Theorem 22 and Corollary 21). The difference between the previous studies mentioned above and (A.5) is that we study the nonlinear strongly degenerate elliptic equations and the solutions obtained are Radon measure-valued. However, the existence, uniqueness, and regularity of the Radon measure-valued solutions of the quasilinear degenerate elliptic equations under zero Dirichlet boundary conditions are discussed in detail [13] by considering the following problem

    {div(A(x,U)U)+U(x)=¯μ  in  Ω,U(x)=0  on  Ω, (A.6)

    where ¯μM(Ω) and A(x,U) satisfies the hypothesis in [13]. In this case, the difference between the problem (E) and (A.4) is a boundary conditions with the assumptions on ψ.

    In this paper, we study a class of nonlinear parabolic problems involving a forcing term and initial data is a nonnegative Radon measure. In the recent years, there are different papers that investigate these kind of problems in the setting in which the solution is a Radon measure for positive time. This type of study was done for parabolic and hyperbolic equations. One of the main tool is to search a solution by an approximation of the initial data and then try to pass to the limit in a very weak topology. The innovative part of this work is mainly the study of the large time behavior of the solutions. In my opinion, it is essential to highlight that the explicit examples of equations study in this work have not already been dealt with in literature and the novelties of the techniques that they introduced in the work. Finally, the study of the asymptotic behavior is a novelty.

    The main difficulty to study the problem (P) is due to the presence of the forcing term which depends on the property solutions of the inhomogeneous heat equation (H).

    The main motivation of this study comes from the desire to deal with parabolic equations in which the forcing term can be either Radon measure or Lp(Q)(1p<) functions. Whence, the idea to consider the linear inhomogeneous heat equation solution with measure data as a forcing term.

    To deal with the existence and the uniqueness of the weak solutions to the problem (P), we use the definition of the Radon measure-valued solutions of the parabolic equations and the natural approximation method. In particular, to show the uniqueness of the problem (P), we will distinguish two cases for the forcing term f, either the function is in L2((0,T),H1(Ω)) or the Radon measure on Q. Notice that when the linear inhomogeneous heat equation (H) does not admit an unique solution, the problem (P) has no unique solution as well.

    Furthermore, we prove the necessary and sufficient condition between measure data and capacity in order to deal with the existence of the weak solutions to the problem (P).

    To establish the decay estimates of the Radon measure-valued solutions to the problem (P), we construct the suitable function and we use it as a test function in the approximation of the problem (P). Then we easily infer the decay estimates after the use of some measure properties.

    To address the large-time behavior of the Radon measure-valued solutions of the problem (P), we first show that the problem (E) has a Radon measure-valued solutions in Ω.

    To the best of our knowledge no existing result of decay estimates and large-time behavior of Radon measure-valued solutions obtained as limit of the approximation of the problem (P) are known in the literature. Hence, this interesting case will be discussed in this paper. This paper is organized as follows: In the next section, we state the main results, while in Section 3, we present important preliminaries. In Section 4, we study the existence and uniqueness of the heat equation (H). Finally, we prove the main results in the Sections 5-8.

    To study the weak solution of the problem (P), we refer to the following definition.

    Definition 2.1. For any u0M+(Ω) and μM+(Q), a measure u is called a weak solution of problem (P), if uM+(Q) such that

    (i) uL((0,T),M+(Ω)),

    (ii) ψ(ur)L2((0,T),H1(Ω)),

    (iii) g(ur)L1(S),

    (iv) for every ξC1((0,T),C1(Ω)), ξ(,T)=0 in Ω, u satisfies the identity

    T0u(,t),ξt(,t)Ωdt+T0h(t)f(,t),ξ(,t)Ωdt+u0,ξ(,0)Ω+
    +T0g(ur(,t)),ξΩdt=T0ψ(ur),ξΩdxdt (2.1)

    where ur is the nonnegative density of the absolutely continuous part of Radon-measure with respect to the Lebesgue measure such that urL((0,T),L1(Ω)) and the function f is the solution of the problem (H).

    Throughout this paper, we assume that Ω is a strong C1,1 open subset of RN. Also, we assume that there exists a finite open cover (Bj) such that the set ΩBj epigraph of a C1,1 function ζ:RN1R that is

    ΩBj={xBj/xN>ζ(¯x)}andΩBj={xBj/xN=ζ(¯x)}

    where x=(¯x,xN), the local coordinates with ¯x=(x1,x2,,xN1). We denote ϑ={¯x,xΩBj}RN1, the projection of ΩBj onto the (N1) first components, and ϑς={¯x,xsupp(ς)Ω}.

    If a function ϕ is defined on S, we denote ϕS the function defined on (BjQ)×[0,T] by ξS(x,t)=ξ(¯x,ζ(¯x),t). Notice that the restriction of ξS to [0,T)×ϑ.

    The next definition of the trace is corresponding to the problem (P) adapts to the context of [36, Theorem 2.1].

    Definition 2.2 Let F[L2(Q)]N+1 be such that divF is a bounded Radon measure on Q. Then there exists a linear functional Tη on W12,2(S)C(S) which represents the normal traces Fν on S in the sense that the following Gauss-green formula holds:

    (i) For all ξCc(¯Q),

    Tν,ξ=QξdivF+QξF

    where Tν,ξ depends only on ξS.

    (ii) If (Bj,ς,f) is an above subsequence localization near boundary, then for all ξCc([0,T)ׯΩ) there holds

    Tν,ξ=lims01s{Tsϑζ(¯x)+sζ(¯x)F(ζ(¯x)10)ξσdxNd¯xdt}lims01ss0ΩF(001)ξσdxdt (2.2)

    where the divergence of the fields,

    F(x,t)=(u(x,t)ψ(ur(x,t)))

    is a bounded Radon measure on Q.

    The following result states the existence of the trace of the boundary condition to the problem (P).

    Lemma 2.1 Let Ω is a strong C1,1 open subset of RN. Then there exists an unique trace Tη:W1,1(Ω)L1(Ω) such that

    Tη,ξ=Sg(ur)ξdH(x)dt (2.3)

    where the function g(ur)L1(S) and ξCc([0,T)ׯΩ).

    To prove the uniqueness of the solution to the problem (P), we define the notion very weak solution of the problem (P) as follows.

    Definition 2.3. For any μM+(Q) and u0M+d,2(Ω), a measure u is called a very weak solution to problem (P) if uL((0,T),M+(Ω)) such that

    T0u(,t),ξt(,t)Ωdt+Qψ(ur)Δξdxdt+Qh(t)f(x,t)ξdxdt+Sg(u)ξdHdt+u0,ξ(0)Ω=0 (2.4)

    for every ξC2,1(¯Q), which vanishes on Ω×[0,T], for t=T.

    To prove the uniqueness of the problem (P) when f lies in M+(Q), we consider the following every weak solution gives below:

    Definition 2.4 Let u0M+d,2(Ω) and μM+(Q) such that

    u0=f0divG0,f0L1(Ω)andG0[L2(Ω)]N.

    A function u is called a very weak solutions obtained as limit of approximation, if

    unuinM+(Q) (2.5)

    where {un}L(Q)L2((0,T),H1(Ω)) is the sequences of weak solutions to problem (Pn) satisfies

    {u0n=f0nF0nCc(Ω),F0ndivG0in(H1(Ω)),f0nf0inL1(Ω). (2.6)

    We denote (H1(Ω)) the dual space of H1(Ω) and the embedding H1(Ω)L2(Ω)(H1(Ω)) holds.

    Definition 2.5 Let u0M+d,2(Ω) and μM+d,2(Q) such that

    u0=f0divG0,f0L1(Ω)andG0[L2(Ω)]N.
    μ=f1divG+φt,f1L1(Q),G[L2(Q)]NandφL2((0,T),H1(Ω)).

    A measure f is called a very weak solutions obtained as limit of approximation, if

    fnfinM+(Q) (2.7)

    where {un} and {fn}L(Q)L2((0,T),H1(Ω)) are the sequences of weak solutions to problem (Pn) and (Hn) respectively satisfy

    {μn=f1nFn+gntCc(Q),u0n=f0nF0nCc(Ω),f1nf1inL1(Q),FndivGinL2((0,T),(H1(Ω))),φnφinL2((0,T),H1(Ω)),F0ndivG0in(H1(Ω)),f0nf0inL1(Ω). (2.8)

    Then, the function u is very weak solutions of the problem (P) obtained as limit of approximation if the function f is a very weak solutions of the problem (H) obtained as limit of approximation.

    Notice that

    unuinM+(Q),μnμinM+(Q)andu0nu0inM+(Ω).

    M+d,2(Ω) denotes the set of nonnegative measures on Ω which are diffuse with respect to the Newtonian capacity and the definition of the diffuse measure with respect to the parabolic capacity M+d,2(Q) will be recalled in the Section 3.

    Before dealing with the existence of the problem (P), we first prove the existence and uniqueness of the solutions to the problem (H) given by the following result.

    Theorem 2.1. Assume that u0M+(Ω) and μM+(Q) hold.

    (i) Then, there exists a nonnegative Radon measure-valued solution to the problem (H) in the space L((0,T),M+(Ω)) such that

    f(x,t)=ΩGN(xy,t)du0(y)+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)dμ(y,σ)+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)g(f(y,σ))dH(y)dσ (2.9)

    for almost every t(0,T). Furthermore, the Radon measure-valued solution f satisfies the following estimate

    f(,t)M+(Ω)eCt(μM+(Q)+u0M+(Ω)) (2.10)

    for any C=C(T) a positive constant.

    (ii) Suppose that u0M+d,2(Ω), μM+d,2(Q) and g(f)=¯K almost everywhere on S (¯K is a positive constant) are satisfied. Then, the nonnegative weak Radon measure-valued solution to the problem (H) obtained as limit of the approximation is unique in L((0,T),M+(Ω)).

    We denote by GN(xy,ts) as the Green function of the heat equation under homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions. By [4], the Green function satisfies the following properties

    GN(xy,ts)0,x,yΩ,0s<t<T, (2.11)
    ΩGN(xy,ts)dx=1,yΩ,0s<t<T. (2.12)

    There exist two positive constants τ1 and τ2 such that

    |GN(xy,ts)1Ω|τ1eτ2(ts),x,yΩ,1+s<t. (2.13)
    limtsΩGN(xy,ts)ϕ(y)dy=ϕ(x) (2.14)

    for any ϕCc(Ω) and Ω is a Lebesgue measure of the set Ω.

    Remark 2.1 (i) For any test function ξC1((0,T),C1(Ω)) such that ξ(,T)=0 in Ω and ξη=0 on S, the inner product f(,t),ξ(,t)Ω in (2.1) is given by the following expression

    f(,t),ξ(,t)Ω=ΩΩG(xy,t)ξ(y,0)du0(y)dx+
    +Ωt0ΩGN(xy,tσ)(fξσ2fξfΔξ)dydσdx+
    +Ωt0ΩGN(xy,tσ)ξ(y,σ)dμ(y,σ)dx+
    +Ωt0ΩGN(xy,tσ)ξ(y,σ)g(f(y,σ))dH(y)dσdx (2.15)

    where ξσ is a first derivative order of ξ with respect σ.

    (ii) By the regularity properties of the Green function GN(xy,tσ) in [42], the solution of the problem (H) given by (2.9), fL2((0,T),H1(Ω)).

    (iii) By virtue of the assumptions (J), (2.11) and (2.12), the term h(t)f(x,t) is well-defined at t=0. Indeed, the function tΩGN(xy,tσ)h(σ)dμ(y,σ), tΩGN(xy,tσ)h(σ)g(f(y,σ))dH(y) and tΩGN(xy,tσ)f(y,σ)h(σ)dy are continuous in R+. Then there holds

    limt0+h(t)f(x,t)=limt0+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)f(y,σ)h(σ)dydσ+
    +limt0+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)h(σ)g(f)dH(y)dσ+limt0+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)h(σ)dμ(y,σ)=0.

    Hence we extend the function h(t)f(x,t) in [0, T] defining h(0)f(x,0)=0. Furthermore, the presence of the function h is to well-defined the forcing term of the nonlinear parabolic problem (P).

    In order to study the existence and uniqueness of the solutions to the problem (P), we give the necessary and sufficient condition on the measures μ and u0 for the existence of the weak solutions to the problem (P) with respect to the parabolic and Newtonian capacity respectively. This result is given by the following theorem.

    Theorem 2.2. Suppose that the hypotheses (I), (A), μM+(Q) and u0M+(Ω) hold. For any function h satisfying (J), there exists t(0,T) such that t0h(σ)dσ=1 and u is a weak solution to the problem (P). Then μ and u0 are absolutely continuous measures with respect to the parabolic capacity.

    Notice that Newtonian and parabolic capacity are equivalent, then μ and u0 are absolutely continuous measures with respect to C2-capacity as well.

    In the next theorem, we present the result of the existence Radon measure-valued solutions to the problem (P).

    Theorem 2.3 Suppose that the assumptions (I), (J), (A) μM+(Q) and u0M+(Ω) are satisfied. Then there exists a weak solution u to problem (P) obtained as a limiting point of the sequence {un} of solutions to problems (Pn) such that for every t(0,T)H, there holds

    u(,t)M+(Ω)C(μM+(Q)+u0M+(Ω)). (2.16)

    The result of the uniqueness of the problem (P) is given by the following theorem:

    Theorem 2.4 Assume that the hypotheses (I), (J) and (A), μM+d,2(Q) and u0M+d,2(Ω) hold. Then there exists a unique very weak solution obtained as the limit of approximation u of the problem (P), if g(ur)=L almost everywhere in S, whenever L is a positive constant.

    To establish the decay estimate of the solution to the problem (P), we recall two particular problems of the problem (P). Now we consider the following problem.

    {vt=Δϑ(v)  in  Q,ϑ(v)η=g1(v)  on  S,v(x,0)=u0  in  Ω, (P0)

    The functions ψ and g satisfy the assumption (I) and (A) respectively and have the same properties with the functions ϑ and g1 given as follows

    ϑ(s)=γ[11(1+s)m](m>0)andg1(s)=1(1+s)m (2.17)

    where m>0 and s>0. Therefore, by Theorem 2.3, the problem (P0) possesses a solution in the space L((0,T),M+(Ω)), such that

    v(,t)M+(Ω)Cu0M+(Ω)

    for almost every t(0,T).

    Similarly, we consider the following problem

    {wt=Δψ(w)+h(t)f(x,t)  in  Q,ψ(w)η=g(w)  on  S,w(x,0)=0  in  Ω, (P1)

    By Theorem 2.3, the problem (P1) admits a solution in L((0,T),M+(Ω)), such that

    w(,t)M+(Ω)CμM+(Ω)

    for almost every t(0,T).

    Now we state the decay estimates in the next theorem:

    Theorem 2.5 Suppose that (I), (J), (A), μM+(Q) and u0M+(Ω) are satisfied. The measure u is the weak solution to the problem (P). According to Theorem 2.3, v is the weak solution to the problem (P0) and w is the weak solution to the problem (P1). Then for every t(0,T)H with H∣=0, there holds

    u(,t)v(,t)M+(Ω)C(Tt)α(μM+(Q)+u0M+(Ω)), (2.18)
    u(,t)w(,t)M+(Ω)Cu0M+(Ω)(Tt)α, (2.19)

    and

    u(,t)M+(Ω)Ctα(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)) (2.20)

    for any positive constant C and α>1.

    To deal with the large-time behavior of the Radon measure-valued solutions to the problem (P), we first extend (0,T) to (0,+), then we assume that the hypothesis

    lim supt+u(,t)M+(Ω)C (2.21)

    where C is a positive constant.

    To analyze the large-time behavior of the Radon measure-valued solutions, we first study the existence of the Radon measure-valued solutions corresponding to the steady state problem (E) by considering the following definition.

    Definition 2.6 Assume that the hypotheses (I), (A) and u0M+(Ω) are satisfied. A measure U is a solution of the problem (E), if UM+(Ω) such that

    (i) ψ(Ur)W1,1(Ω),

    (ii) g(Ur)L1(Ω),

    (iii) for every φC1(Ω), the following assertion

    Ωψ(Ur(x))φ(x)dx+ΩU(x)φ(x)dx=Ωφ(x)du0(x)+Ωg(U(x))φ(x)dH(x) (2.22)

    holds true.

    The existence result of the problem (E) is given by the following theorem:

    Theorem 2.6 Suppose that the hypotheses (I), (A) and u0M+(Ω) are satisfied. Then there exists a weak solution UM+(Ω) of the problem (E) obtained as a limiting point of the sequence {Un} of solutions to the approximation problem (En) such that

    UM+(Ω)Cu0M+(Ω) (2.23)

    where C>0 is a constant.

    The result of the large-time behavior of the Radon measure-valued solutions of the problem (P) is given by the following theorem

    Theorem 2.7. Suppose that the assumption (I), (A), (J), u0M+(Ω) and μM+(Q). U is a Radon measure-valued solutions of the steady-state problem (E) in sense of Theorem 2.6 and u is a Radon measure-valued solutions in the sense of Theorem 2.3 such that (2.21) holds. Then there holds

    u(,t)UinM+(Ω)ast (2.24)

    In the following section, we define the truncation function for k>0 and sR,

    Tk(s)=min{s,k}sign(s).

    To prove the main results from the previous section, we need to recall the preliminaries about capacity and measure collected in [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Likewise, we recall some important notations as follows:

    For any Borel set EΩ, the C2-capacity of E in Ω is defined as

    C2(E)=inf{Ω(u2+u2)dx/uZEΩ}

    where ZEΩ denotes the set of u which belongs to H1(Ω) such that 0u1 almost everywhere in Ω, and u=1 almost everywhere in a neighborhood E.

    Let W={uL2((0,T),H1(Ω))andutL2((0,T),(H1(Ω)))} endowed with its natural norm uW=∥uL2((0,T),H1(Ω))+utL2((0,T),(H1(Ω))) a Banach space. For any open set UQ, we define the parabolic capacity as

    Cap(U)=inf{uW/uVUQ}

    where VUQ denotes the set of u belongs to W such that 0u1 almost everywhere in Q, and u=1 almost everywhere in a neighborhood U.

    Let M(B) be the space of bounded Radon measures on B, and M+(B)M(B) the cone of nonnegative bounded Radon measures on B. For any μM(B) a bounded Radon measure on B, we set

    μM(Ω):=∣μ(B)

    where μ stands for the total variation of μ.

    The duality map ,B between the space M(B) and Cc(B) is defined by

    μ,φB=Bφdμ.

    M+s(B) denotes the set of nonnegative measures singular with respect to the Lebesgue measure, namely

    M+s(B):={μM+(Ω)/ a Borel setFBsuch thatF∣=0,μ=μB}

    we will consider either . the Lebesgue measure on RN or RN+1. Similarly, M+ac(B) the set of nonnegative measures absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure, namely

    M+ac(B):={μM+(Ω)/μ(F)=0, for every Borel setFBsuch thatF∣=0}

    Let M+c,2(B) be the set of nonnegative measures on B which are concentrated with respect to the Newtonian capacity

    M+c,2(B):={μM+(B)/ a Borel setFB,such thatμ=μFandC(F)=0}

    M+d,2(B) denotes the set of nonnegative measures on B which are diffuse with respect to the Newtonian capacity

    M+d,2(B):={μM+(B)/μ(F)=0, for every Borel setFBsuch thatC(F)=0}.

    It is known that a measure ¯μd,2M+d,2(Ω) (resp. μd,2M+d,2(Q)) if there exist f0L1(Ω) and G0[L2(B)]N (resp. if μd,2M+d,2(Q), there exist fL1(Q), gL2((0,T),H1(Ω)) and G[L2(Q)]N) such that

    ¯μd,2=f0divG0inD(Ω)(resp.μd,2=fdivG+gtinD(Q)). (3.1)

    For any λM+(B), if there exists a unique couple λd,2M+d,2(B), λc,2M+c,2(B) such that

    λ=λd,2+λc,2. (3.2)

    On the other hand, there exists a unique couple λacM+ac(B),λsM+s(B) such that

    λ=λac+λs (3.3)

    where either B=Ω, C(F)=C2(E) or B=Q, C(F)=Cap(U).

    By L((0,T),M+(Ω)), the set of nonnegative Radon measures uM+(¯Q) such that for every t(0,T), there exists a measure u(,t)M+(Ω) such that

    (i) for every ξC(¯Q) the map

    tu(,t),ξ(,t)Ωis Lebesgue measurable

    and

    u(,t),ξ(,t)Ω=T0u(,t),ξ(,t)Ωdt

    (ii) there exists a constant C>0 such that

    esssupt(0,T)u(,t)M+(Ω)C

    with the norm denotes

    uL((0,T),M+(Ω))=esssupt(0,T)u(,t)M+(Ω). (3.4)

    In the literature, many authors dealt with the existence, uniqueness, blow-up at finite and infinite time, decay estimates, stability properties and asymptotic behavior of the solutions to the heat equation under Neumann boundary conditions with a source term and initial data, such as (see [2,3,4,5,42,43] and references therein). Moreover, most of the authors employed the maximum principle theorem through the monotonicity technique and semi-group method to show the existence, blow-up, stability properties and asymptotic behavior of these solutions. Meanwhile, in this section we prove the existence and uniqueness of the linear inhomogeneous heat equation (H) by using the fundamental solution of the heat equation (see [2,3,4,42]). Also, we use the definition of the Radon measure-valued solutions in [9] and some properties of the Radon measure provided in [24,44]. Moreover, we consider for every nN, the approximation of problem (H) such that

    {fnt=Δfn+μn  in  Q,fnη=g(fn)  on  S,fn(x,0)=u0n(x)  in  Ω, (Hn)

    Since u0M+(Ω), the approximation of the Radon measure u0 is given by [9, Lemma 4.1] such that {u0n}Cc(Ω) satisfies the following assumptions

    {u0nu0inM+Ω),u0nu0ra.e inΩ,u0nL1(Ω)≤∥u0M+(Ω). (4.1)

    Moreover μM+(Q), the approximation of the Radon measure μ is given by [15] such that {μn}Cc(Q) fulfills the following hypotheses

    {μnμinM+(Q),μnμra.e inQ,μnL1(Q)≤∥μM+(Q), (4.2)

    for every nN. By [21,22,43], the approximation problem (Hn) has a unique solution fn in C1((0,T),L2(Ω))L2((0,T),H1(Ω))L(Q).

    In the next proposition, we establish the relationship between the approximation solution fn and any test function in (Pn).

    Proposition 4.1. Suppose that ξC1c(Q) such that ξη=0 on S, the test function in (Hn) and fn the approximation solution of the problem (Hn). Then, the following expression holds

    fn(x,t)ξ(x,t)=ΩGN(xy,t)ξ(y,0)u0n(y)dy+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ){fnξσ2fnξfnΔξ}dydσ+
    +t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)ξ(y,σ)μn(y,σ)dydσ+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)ξ(y,σ)g(f(y,σ))dH(y)dσ (4.3)

    where ξσ is first-order derivative order of ξ with respect to σ.

    Remark 4.2. Assume that the test function ξ=ρC2c(Ω), then we obtain

    fn(x,t)ρ(x)=ΩGN(xy,t)ρ(y)u0n(y)dyt0ΩGN(xy,tσ){2fnρ+fnΔρ}dydσ+
    +t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)ρ(y)μn(y,σ)dydσ+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)ρ(y)g(f(y,σ))dH(y)dσ. (4.4)

    On the other hand, we suppose that the test function ξ=θ(t)C1(0,T) then (4.3) reads

    fn(x,t)θ(t)=ΩGN(xy,t)θ(0)u0n(y)dy+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)fn(y,σ)θ(σ)dydσ+
    +t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)θ(σ)μn(y,σ)dydσ+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)θ(σ)g(f(y,σ))dH(y)dσ. (4.5)

    Proof of Proposition 4.1. Assume that ξC1((0,T),C2c(Ω)) such that ξη=0 on S, a test function in (Hn), then the following equation

    {(fnξ)t=Δ(fnξ)+fnξt2fnξfnΔξ+μnξ  in  Ω×(0,T),(fnξ)η=g(fn)ξ  on  Ω×(0,T),fn(x,0)ξ(x,0)=u0nξ(x,0)  in  Ω, (Hξ)

    is well-defined. By [35, Chapter 20, Section 20.2], the problem (Hξ) admits a unique solution fnξ expressed in (4.3).

    Proof of Theorem 2.1 (i) We argue this proof into two steps:

    Step 1. We show that {fn(,t)} is a Cauchy sequence in L1(Ω) a.e in (0,T). To attain this, we use the expression (4.3) to prove the Cauchy sequence. Indeed, for any m,nN there holds

    fn(x,t)fm(x,t)=ΩGN(xy,t)[u0n(y)u0m(y)]dy+
    +t0ΩGN(xξ,tσ)[μn(ξ,σ)μm(y,σ))]dyds+
    +t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)[g(fn(ξ,σ))g(fm(ξ,s))]dH(y)ds. (4.6)

    From the assumption (2.12), the Eq (4.6) yields

    Ωfn(x,t)fm(x,t)dxΩu0n(y)u0m(y)dy+t0Ωμn(y)μm(y)dydσ
    +t0ΩGN(xξ,ts)dH(ξ)(Ωg(fn(x,s))g(fm(x,s))dx)ds. (4.7)

    Furthermore, by using the mean value theorem, we find that there exists a function θ(x,s) which is continuous in ¯QT1 such that α1<θ(x,s)<α2, g(fn(x,s))g(fm(x,s))=g(θ(x,s))(fn(x,s)fm(x,s)), where g(θ(x,s))L(R+)(see assumption (I)-(i)) and 0<α1<α2 are constants, therefore we obtain

    Ωfn(x,t)fm(x,t)dxΩu0n(y)u0m(y)dy+T0Ωμn(y)μm(y)dy+
    +C(T1)t0Ωfn(x,σ)fm(x,σ)dxdσ, (4.8)

    whenever C(T1)=sup(ξ,σ)¯QT1ΩGN(xξ,T1)g(θ(x,s))dH(ξ)>0. By the property (2.13) of the Green function GN(xξ,tσ) of the heat equation with nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary and the fact that g(θ(x,s))L(R+), then C(T1) is a constant depending on T1. From the Gronwall's inquality, the inequality (4.8) yields

    Ωfn(x,t)fm(x,t)dxC(T,T1)Ωu0n(y)u0m(y)dy+
    +C(T,T1)Ωμn(y,σ)μm(y,σ)dydσ (4.9)

    for a.e 0t<T1<T and C(T,T1)=1+C(T1)TeC(T1)T>0 a constant.

    Since the sequences {u0n} and {u0m} are satisfying the assumption (4.1) and {μn} and {μm} are verifying the assumption (4.2), then by passing to the limit as n and m go to infinity, there holds

    limn,m+Ωfn(x,t)fm(x,t)dxC(T,T1)lim supn+Ωu0n(y)u0r(y)dy+
    +C(T,T1)lim supm+Ωu0m(y)u0r(y)dy+
    +C(T,T1)lim supn+Ωμn(y,σ)μr(y,σ)dydσ+
    +C(T,T1)lim supm+Ωμm(y,σ)μr(y,σ)dydσ0. (4.10)

    Hence the sequence {fn(,t)} is Cauchy in L1(Ω) for almost every t(0,T).

    Step 2. We show that fn(,t)f(,t) in M+(Ω) a.e in (0,T).

    Since the function fn(x,t) is a solution of the approximation problem (Hn) and μn(x)0 in Q, u0n(x)0 in Ω, g>0 in R+, then we apply the maximum principal theorem in [22,43] and then the solution of the approximation problem (Hn) is nonnegative in ¯Q. Likewise, we assume that ξ(x,t)1, then we obtain

    fn(x,t)=ΩGN(xy,tσ)u0n(y)dy+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)μn(y,σ)dydσ+
    +t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)g(f(y,σ))dH(y)dσ. (4.11)

    By the assumptions (A), (2.12), (2.13), (4.1) and (4.2), we infer that

    Ωfn(x,t)dx≤∥u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)+Ct0Ωfn(x,σ)dxdσ. (4.12)

    By Gronwall's inequality, we deduce that

    fn(,t)L1(Ω)eCt(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)), (4.13)

    for almost every t(0,T).

    By Step 1, the sequence {fn(,t)} is Cauchy in L1(Ω), then we infer that fn(,t)f(,t) a.e in (0,T). Hereby we argue as in [9, Proposition 5.3], one proves that f(,t)M+(Ω) and the following convergence

    fn(,t)f(,t)inM+(Ω) (4.14)

    for almost every t(0,T) holds.

    From [44, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1, Theorem 1], the estimate (4.13) yields

    f(,t)M+(Ω)lim infn+Ωfn(,t)dxeCt(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)).

    The estimate (2.10) is achieved.

    (ii) Now we show the uniqueness solutions to the problem (H).

    To attain this, we consider f1 and f2 two every weak solutions of the problem (H) in sense of Definition 2.5 with initial data u01 and u02 respectively.

    Let {f1n},{f2n}L(Q)L2((0,T),H1(Ω)) be two weak solutions given by the proof (i) of Theorem 2.1. Assume that {u01n},{u02n}{μ1n},{μ2n} are approximating Radon measures in sense of Definition 2.4 and f1n, f2n in (4.11) hold. Since we have assumed that g(f)=¯K almost everywhere in S, thus g(f1n)=g(f2n)=¯K on S. For any ξC1c(Q) such that ξη=0 on S, there holds

    T0[f1n(y,t)f2n(y,t)]ξ(y,t)dt=Q[f1n(x,t)f2n(x,t)]δy(x)ξ(x,t)dxdt
    =T0ΩGN(0,t)(u01n(y)u02n(y))ξ(y,t)dydt+
    +T0t0ΩGN(0,tσ)(μ1n(y,σ)μ2n(y,σ))ξ(y,t)dydσ=:I1+I2. (4.15)

    Let us evaluate the limit of I1 and I2 when n. To attain this, we begin with the expression I1:

    I1=[Ω(u01n(y)u01n(y))ξ(y,t)dy][T0GN(0,t)dt].

    Taking ξ(y,t)=ρ(y)˜h(t) with ρC2(Ω) such that ρη=0 on Ω and ˜hCc(0,T), then we have

    I1=T0˜h(t)GN(0,t)dtΩ(u01n(y)u02n(y))ρ(y)dy
    =T0˜h(t)G(0,t)dt[Ω(f01n(y)f02n(y))ρ(y)dyΩ(F01n(y)F02n(y))ρ(y)dy].

    Passing to the limit when n, there holds

    limnI1=0. (4.16)

    Now we consider the expression I2,

    I2=[T0Ω(μ1n(y,t)μ2n(y,t))ξ(y,t)dydt][t0G(0,tσ)dσ].

    According to Definition 2.4, it is worth observing that

    I2=[t0G(0,tσ)dσ][Q(f11n(y,t)f12n(y,t))ξ(y,t)dydt]
    [t0G(0,tσ)dσ][Q(F1n(y,t)F2n(y,t))ξ(y,t)dydt]+
    +[t0G(0,tσ)dσ][Q(φ1n(y,t)φ2n(y,t))ξt(y,t)dydt]+
    +[t0G(0,tσ)dσ][Ω(φ1n(y,0)φ2n(y,0))ξ(y,0)dy].

    We pass to the limit when n goes to infinity, therefore

    limnI2=0. (4.17)

    By (4.16), (4.17) and Dominated Convergence theorem, we obtain

    Q(f1(x,t)f2(x,t))ξ(x,t)dxdt=0, (4.18)

    which leads to

    f1nf1M+(Q)andf2nf2M+(Q).

    Hence f1=f2 holds.

    Remark 4.1 (i) Since fM+(Q), then it is worthy observing that fn in (4.11) is a sequence of the approximation Radon measure f satisfying the following properties

    {fnfinM+(Q),fnfa.e inQ,fnL1(Q)C(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)),fis given in(2.9), (4.19)

    for every nN and C>0 is a constant.

    (ii) By (2.11)-(2.13) and the assumption (A), we deduce from the compactness theorem in [23] the approximation problem (Hn) possesses a weak solution f in L2((0,T),H1(Ω)) such that the properties

    {fn=Tn(f),fnfa.e inQ,fn∣≤∣f, (4.20)

    hold true.

    Proof of Lemma 2.1. To prove this result, we use Definition 2.2 and we recall the Gauss-green formula given by the functional

    Tν,ξ=QξdivF+QξF (5.1)

    Since there exists a linear continuous functional Tν on W12,2(S)C(S) which stands for Fν, then we define a notion of the normal trace of the flux ψ(ur)ν such that

    Tη,ξ=Tν,ξ+Ωξ(x,0)du0(x)+Qh(t)f(x,t)ξdxdt. (5.2)

    The definition make sense because of the definition of the weak solution when we assume that the value of the initial data

    lims01ss0Ωu(x,t)ξ(x,t)dxdt=Ωξ(x,0)du0 (5.3)

    holds, for any stsχ(0,s)(t)ϕ as a test function in (2.1). In particular Tν,ξσ depends only on ξS and from (2.2), we infer the formula

    Tν,ξ=lims01sTsϑζ(¯x)+sζ(¯x)ψ(ur)(ζ(¯x)1)ξςdxNd¯xdt (5.4)

    for any ξCc([0,T)ׯΩ). We denote {vδ} a boundary-layer sequence of C2(Ω)C(¯Ω) such that

    limδ0+vδ=1a.e in Ω,0vδ1,vδ=0onΩ. (5.5)

    For more properties concerning the boundary-layer sequence {vδ} (see [37, Lemma 5.5 and Lemma 5.7]). If ξ(H1(Ω))N, then

    limδ0+Ωςξvδ=limδ0+Ωdiv(ςξ)vδ=Ωdiv(ςξ)=ΩςξηdH(x) (5.6)

    The previous statement (5.6) explains that for any function-valued F:ΩRN, then Fvδ approaches the normal trace Fη. Let ξCc([0,T)ׯΩ) and ξ=ξ(1vδ) on S, it implies that Tν,ξς=Tν,ςξ(1vδ). By Definition 2.2 and the equation (5.2), the Gauss-Green formula yields

    Tη,ςξ=Tν,ςξ(1vδ)+Ωξ(x,0)ς(1vδ)du0+Qh(t)f(x,t)ξ(x,t)ς(1vδ)dxdt
    =Qξς(1vδ)divF+Q(ξς(1vδ))F+Ωξ(x,0)ς(1vδ)du0+
    +Qh(t)f(x,t)ξ(x,t)ς(1vδ)dxdt.

    Since 0vδ1 and vδ1 a.e in Ω as δ0+, then Dominated Convergence Theorem ensures that

    limδ0+Qξς(1vδ)divF=0andTη,ξς=limδ0+Qξ(ur)vδξςdxdt (5.7)

    On the other hand, we consider ξς(1vδ) as a test function in the problem (P) then the following expression holds

    Ωϕ(x,0)ς(1vδ)du0+Ωu(x,T)ξ(x,T)ς(1vδ)dxQu(x,t)ξt(x,t)ς(1vδ)dxdt
    =Qψ(ur)(ξς)(1vδ)dxdt+Qψ(ur)vδξςdxdt+Sg(ur)ξςdH(x)dt+.
    +Qh(t)f(x,t)ξ(x,t)ς(1vδ)dxdt.

    Since 0vδ1 and vδ1 a.e in Ω as δ0+, then Dominated Convergence Theorem yields

    Sg(ur)ξςdH(x)dt=limδ0+Qψ(ur)vδξςdxdt. (5.8)

    By combining the assertions (5.7) with (5.8), the statement (2.3) is satisfied.

    Proof of Theorem 2.2. Assume that for any compact set K=K0×[0,T]Ω×(0,T)RN×R+ (resp. for any compact set K0ΩRN) such that μ(K)=0 (resp. u0(K0)=0) and Cap(K)=0 (resp. C2(K0)=0). To show that μ and u0 are absolutely continuous measures with respect to the parabolic capacity, it is enough to prove that μ+(K)=0 (resp. u+0(K0)=0). To this purpose Cap(K)=0 (resp. C2(K0)=0), there exists a sequence {φn(t)}Cc(RN×R+) (resp. {φn(0)}Cc(RN)) such that 0φn(t)1 in Q (resp. 0φn(0)1 in Ω), φn(t)1 in K (resp. φn(0)1 in K0) and φn(t)0 in W as n (resp. φn(0)0 in H1(Ω) as n). In particular Δφn(t)L1(Q)0 as n.

    Let us consider the nonnegative function φn(t)Cc(RN×R+) such that φn(T)=0 in Ω and φn(t)η=0 in S as a test function in the problem (P), then there holds

    Ωφn(0)du0+Quφnt(t)dxdt=Qψ(ur)Δφn(t)dxdtQh(t)f(x,t)φn(t)dxdt
    Sg(ur)φn(t)dH(x)dt. (5.9)

    By (4.3)(Probably n is large enough), the following statement holds

    Qf(x,t)h(t)φn(t)dxdt=Qt0ΩGN(xy,tσ)f(y,σ)(h(σ)φn(σ))σdydσdxdt
    Qt0ΩGN(xy,tσ)[2f(h(σ)φn(σ))+fΔ(h(σ)φn(σ))]dydσdxdt+
    +Qt0ΩGN(xy,tσ)h(σ)φn(σ)dμ(y,σ)dxdt+
    +Qt0ΩGN(xy,tσ)h(σ)φn(σ)g(f(y,σ))dH(y)dσdxdt. (5.10)

    Combining the Eq (5.9) with (5.10), we obtain

    QΩt0GN(xy,tσ)h(σ)φn(σ)dμ(y,σ)dxdt+Ωφn(0)du0=
    =Qt0Ωh(σ)GN(xy,tσ)[2fφn(σ)+fΔφn(σ)]dydσdxdt
    Qt0ΩGN(xy,tσ)f(y,σ)(h(σ)φn(σ))σdydσdxdt
    Qt0ΩGN(xy,tσ)h(σ)φn(σ)g(f(y,σ))dH(y)dσdxdt
    Sφn(t)g(ur)dH(x)dtQψ(ur)Δφn(t)dxdtQuφnt(t)dxdt. (5.11)

    By (2.14), fL2((0,T),H1(Ω)) (see Remark 4.1-(ii)) and letting σt, t0h(σ)dσ=1 and dropping down the nonnegative terms on the left hand-side of the previous equation. Therefore (5.11) yields

    Qφn(t)dμ(x,t)+Ωφn(0)du0(x)≤∥uL2((0,T),H1(Ω))φn(t)W+
    C(γ)QΔφn(t)dxdt+fL2((0,T),H1(Ω))φn(t)W. (5.12)

    Since the following assertions are valid, then

    μ+(K)Qφn(t)dμ(x,t)+Qφn(t)dμ(x,t) (5.13)

    where μ+(K)=μ(K)+μ(K) and

    u+0(K0)Ωφn(0)du0(x)+Ωφn(0)du0(x) (5.14)

    with u+0(K0)=u0(K0)+u0(K0). In view of (5.13) and (5.14), the inequality (5.12) reads as

    μ+(K)+u+0(K0)≤∥uL2((0,T),H1(Ω))φn(t)W+C(γ)QΔφn(t)dxdt+
    +fL2((0,T),H1(Ω))φn(t)W+Qφn(t)dμ(x,t)+Ωφn(0)du0(x). (5.15)

    Since μ(K)=0 (resp. u0(K0)=0), then for any ϵ>0 one has

    Qφn(t)dμ(x,t)<ϵ2(resp.Ωφn(0)du0(x)<ϵ2). (5.16)

    Then, the limit in (5.16) as n, the following holds μ+(K)+u+0(K0)ϵ. Therefore, μ+(K)=0 for any compact set KQ (resp. u+0(K0)=0 for any compact set K0Ω).

    To prove the existence and decay estimates of the solutions, we consider the following problem

    {unt=Δψn(un)+h(t)fn(x,t)  in  Q,ψn(un)η=g(un)  on  S,un(x,0)=u0n  in  Ω, (Pn)

    where the sequence {u0n}Cc(Ω) satisfies the assumption (4.1) and the sequence {fn}Cc(¯Q) fulfills the hypothesis (4.19). We set

    ψn(s)=ψ(s)+1n (5.17)

    By [8,18,21,22], the approximating problem (Pn) has a solution un in C((0,T),L1(Ω))L(Q). Then, the definition of the weak solution {un}C(¯Q) of (Pn) satisfies the following expression

    T0un(,t),ξt(,t)Ωdt+T0h(t)fn(,t),ξ(,t)Ωdt+u0n,ξ(,0)Ω+
    +T0g(un),ξΩdt=T0ψn(un),ξΩdxdt (5.18)

    for every ξ in C1(¯Q) such that ξ(,T)=0 in Ω and ξη=0 on S.

    Now we establish some technical estimates which will be used in the proof of the existing solution.

    Lemma 5.2 Assume that (I), (J), (A), μM+(Q) and u0M+(Ω) are satisfied. Let un be the solution of the approximation problem (Pn), then

    un(,t)L1(Ω)C(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)). (5.19)
    ψn(un)L2(Q)+ψn(un)L2(Q)C(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)). (5.20)

    for almost every t(0,T) and C is a positive constant.

    The sequence {[ψn(un)]t} is bounded in L2((0,T),(H1(Ω)))+L1(¯Q).

    Proof of Lemma 5.2. To prove the estimate (5.19), we consider the approximation problem (Pn) such that

    {uns=Δψn(un)+h(s)fn(x,s)inΩ×(τ,τ+t),ψn(un)η=g(un)onΩ×(τ,τ+t),un(x,τ)=u0n(x)inΩ×{τ}, (5.21)

    where τ+tT and τ, t(0,T).

    Let us consider ξC1,2(¯Ω×[τ,τ+t]) such that ξη=0 on Ω×(τ,τ+t) and ξ(,τ+t)=0 in Ω as a test function in the above approximation problem (5.21), then we have

    Ω×(τ,τ+t)unξsdxds+Ω×(τ,τ+t)ψn(un)Δξdxds+Ω×(τ,τ+t)g(un)ξdH(x)ds+
    +Ω×(τ,τ+t)h(s)fn(x,s)ξ(x,s)dxds+Ωμn(x)ξ(x,τ)dx=0. (5.22)

    By the mean value theorem and the assumption (I), the Eq (5.22) yields

    Ω×(τ,τ+t)un(ξs+θnΔξ)dxds+Ω×(τ,τ+t)g(un)ξdH(x)ds+
    +Ω×(τ,τ+t)h(s)fn(x,s)dxds+Ωμn(x)ξ(x,τ)dx=0, (5.23)

    where θn(x,t)=10ψun(αun)dα.

    On the other hand, we consider the following backward parabolic equations

    {ϕsθϵΔϕ=1τinQτ=Ω×(τ,τ+t),ϕη=0onSτ=Ω×(τ,τ+t),ϕ(,τ+t)=0inΩ×{τ+t}, (5.24)

    has an unique solution ϕ in C1,2(¯Qτ)C(Qτ) and 0<ϕC for any τ,t(0,T) (see [18, Lemma 4.2]). Then for ξ=ϕ, there holds

    1ττ+tτΩun(x,s)dxds=Ωμn(x)ϕ(x,τ)dx+τ+tτΩg(un)ϕdH(x)ds+
    +τ+tτΩh(s)fn(x,s)ϕdxds (5.25)

    By the assumptions (A), (J), (4.19) and (4.1), there exists a positive constant C such that the expression below is satisfied

    1ττ+tτΩun(x,s)dxdsC(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)). (5.26)

    By letting τ0+, we obtain the estimate (5.19). Where C=C(h(T),g(un)L(R+),S)>0. To prove the estimate (5.20), we consider Tγ+1(ψn(un)) as a test function in the approximation problem (Pn), then we have

    {(x,t)QT/ψn(un)γ+1}ψn(un)2dxdt=Ω(u0n(x)0Tγ+1(ψn(s))ds)dx
    Ω(un(x,T)0Tγ+1(ψn(s))ds)dx+T0Ωg(un)Tγ+1(ψn(un))dH(x)dt+
    +T0ΩTγ+1(ψn(un))h(t)fn(x,t)dxdt (5.27)

    where Tλ(s)=min{λ,s}. It follows that there exists a positive constant C such that

    {(x,t)QT/ψn(un)γ+1}ψn(un)2dxdt
    (γ+1)Ωμn(x)dx+C(γ+1)g(un)L(R+)+h(T)Qfn(x,t)dxdt.

    For the suitable positive constant C=C(h(T),γ,g(un)L(R+),μM+(Ω),u0M+(Ω),S)>0, the following estimate holds

    {(x,t)QT/ψn(un)γ+1}ψn(un)2dxdtC. (5.28)

    On the other hand, we assume that Gλ(s)=max{λ,s} and we choose Gγ+1(ψn(un)) as a test function in the approximation problem (Pn), then we have

    {(x,t)QT/ψn(un)>γ+1}ψn(un)2dxdt=Ω(u0n(x)0Gγ+1(ψn(s)))ds)dx
    Ω(un(x,T)0Gγ+1(ψn(s))ds)dx+T0Ωg(un)Gγ+1(ψn(un))dH(x)dt+
    +T0Ωh(t)fn(x,t)Gγ+1(ψn(un))dH(x)dt. (5.29)

    It implies that

    {(x,t)Q/ψn(un)>γ+1}ψn(un)2dxdt
    (γ+1)Ωμn(x)dx+(γ+1)Mg(un)L(R+)+h(T)Qfn(x,t)dxdt

    It follows that

    {(x,t)Q/ψn(un)>γ+1}ψn(un)2dxdtC. (5.30)

    Combining the inequality (5.28) with (5.30), we deduce that

    Qψn(un)2dxdtC (5.31)

    By the assumption (I), then ψn(un)L2(Q), whence the estimate (5.20) holds.

    To end the proof of this Lemma, we consider that for every ξC1c(Q) such that if we choose ϕ=ψn(un)ξ arbitrary as a test function in problem (Pn), then the following stands true

    Qξt[ψn(un)]dxdt=Qξψn(un)div(ψn(un))dxdtQh(t)fn(x,t)ψn(un)ξdxdt (5.32)

    It follows that

    Qξt[ψn(un)]dxdt=Qψn(un)ψn(un)ξdxdtQh(t)fn(x,t)ϕdxdt
    Sg(un)ψn(un)ξdH(x)dt+Qψn(un)ψn(un)ψn(un)2ξdxdt. (5.33)

    Now we estimate each term in the right hand side of (5.33), we obtain

    |Qψn(un)ψn(un)ξdxdt|≤∥ψnL(R+)Qξ∣∣ψn(un)dxdt. (5.34)

    From Hölder's inequality and (5.31), the inequality (5.34) reads as

    |Qψn(un)ψn(un)ξdxdt|CξL2(Q). (5.35)

    By the assumption (J) and (4.19), we deduce the estimate

    |Qh(t)fn(x,t)ξdxdt|CξL(Q) (5.36)

    where C=C(h(T),μM+(Ω),u0M+(Ω))>0 is a constant.

    By the assumptions (A) and (I), there exists a positive constant C=C(g(un)L(R+),ψn(un)L(R+))>0 such that

    Sg(un)ψn(un)ξdH(x)dtCξL(S). (5.37)

    Furthermore, one has

    |Qψn(un)ψn(un)ψn(un)2ξdxdt|κξL(Q)Qψn(un)2dxdt.

    In view of (5.28), the expression below holds true

    |Qψn(un)ψn(un)ψn(un)2ξdxdt|CξL(Q) (5.38)

    where C=C(κ,u0M+(Ω),μM+(Q))>0. By (5.35)-(5.38) and (5.33), we infer that the sequence {[ψn(un)]t} is bounded in L2((0,T),(H1(Ω)))+L1(¯Q).

    Now we study the limit points of the sequences {un} and ψn(un) as n.

    Proposition 5.1 Suppose that the assumptions (I), (A) and (J) are satisfied. Let un be the solution of the approximation problem (Pn). Then there exists a subsequence {unk}{un} and vL2((0,T),H1(Ω))L(Q) such that

    ψnk(unk)vinL(Q). (5.39)
    ψnk(unk)vinL2((0,T),H1(Ω)). (5.40)
    [ψnk(unk)]tvtinL2((0,T),(H1(Ω))). (5.41)
    ψnk(unk)va.e inQ, (5.42)

    where vtL1(Q) and vγ.

    Proof of Proposition 5.1. The convergences (5.39) and (5.40) are the consequence of assumption (I)-(i) and estimate (5.20) respectively. By Lemma 5.1, the sequence {[ψn(un)]t} is bounded in L2((0,T),(H1(Ω)))+L1(¯Q). By [45], there exists a subsequence {unk}{un} and vL2((0,T),H1(Ω))L(¯Q) such that

    ψnk(unk)va.e inQ.

    Furthermore, by [9, Proposition 5.1] and (5.41) holds true and we have

    ψnk(unk)va.e inQ

    with v=v which leads to (5.42) be satisfied. In view of the assumptions (I)-(i) and (5.17), we get

    ψnk(unk)ψ(unk)L(Q)=1nk.

    Therefore the following convergence ψ(unk)vinL(Q) holds true.

    Remark 5.1 For any subsequence {unk}{un} and v the function given in Proposition 5.1, the following assertions

    ψ1(v)L((0,T),L1(Ω)), unkψ1(v)a.e in Q and unkg1(v)a.e in S hold.

    Proposition 5.2 Assume that the hypotheses (I), (J), (A), μM+(Q) and u0M+(Ω) are satisfied. Let {unk} be the subsequence and v the function mentioned in Proposition 5.1. Then there exist a subsequence {unk(,t)}{un(,t)} and ua,u(,t),ub(,t)M+(Ω) such that

    unk(,t)u(,t):=ua(,t)+ub(,t)inM+(Ω), (5.43)
    ψnk(unk)(,t)ψ(ub)(,t)inM+(Ω), (5.44)
    g(unk)(,t)g(ub)(,t)inL(Ω). (5.45)

    Moreover, there hold

    ub(,t)=ur(,t)a.e inΩandua(,t)=us(,t)inM+(Ω) (5.46)

    for almost every t(0,T). Furthermore uL((0,T),M+(Ω)) and for almost every t(0,T), there holds

    u(,t)M+(Ω)C(μM+(Q)+u0M+(Ω)). (5.47)

    Proof. By the assumption (I)-(i), ψnk(unk)L(Q) and using Hölder's inequality, we have

    Qψnk(unk)dxdt[Qψnk(unk)2(1+ψnk(unk))2dxdt]12[Q(1+ψnk(unk))2dxdt]12
    C[Qψnk(unk)2dxdt]12.

    From the estimate (5.20), there exists a positive constant C=C(ψnk(unk)L(R+),μM+(Q),u0M+(Ω))>0 such that

    Qψnk(unk)dxdtC. (5.48)

    According to Lemma 5.1, the assumption (I) and (5.48), we infer that

    ψnk(unk)BV(Q)=∥ψnk(unk)L1(Q)+ψnk(unk)L1(Q)+[ψnk(unk)]tL1(Q)C. (5.49)

    By Fatou's Lebesgue Lemma, we obtain

    T0lim infkΩ{ψnk(unk)+ψnk(unk)+[ψnk(unk)]t}C. (5.50)

    Then there exists zero Lebesgue measure set N1(0,T) such that

    lim infkΩ{ψnk(unk)+ψnk(unk)+[ψnk(unk)]t}(x,t)C (5.51)

    for every t(0,T)N1. In view of (5.51), the sequence {ψnk(uk)(,t)}BV(Ω) for every t(0,T)N1. By [44, Chapter IV, Section 1.1, Proposition 5], there exists a subsequence {ψnk(unk)(,t)} and v(,t)M+(Ω) a.e in (0,T) such that the convergence

    ψnk(unk)(,t)v(,t)inM+(Ω) (5.52)

    holds true. Furthermore, from the assertions (5.19), (5.52) and the Prohorov Theorem (see [44, Chapter II, Section 2.6, Theorem 1] or [25, Proposition A.2] or [17, Proposition 1]), there exists a sequence {˜τnk} of the Young measures associated with the sequence {unk}{un} converges narrowly over ¯Q×R to a Young measure ˜τ which the disintegration ¯μ(,t) is the Dirac mass concentrated at the point ψ1(v(,t)) for a.e in Ω (see [17]). By [25, Proposition A.4], there exist sequences of measure sets AkΩ, AkAk+1 and Ak∣→0, such that

    ukj(,t)χΩAkub(,t):=[0,+)λd¯μ(,t)(λ)inL1(Ω), (5.53)

    where ubL((0,T),L1(Ω)), ub0 is a barycenter of the limiting Young measure ¯μ(,t) associated with the subsequence {unk(,t)} and supp¯μ(,t)[0,+) for almost every t(0,T).

    By (5.19) and the compactness result, the sequence {unkχΩAj} is uniformly bounded in L1(Ω). Therefore, there exists a Radon measure ua(,t)M+(Ω) such that unk(,t)u(,t) in M+(Ω). Finally, the sequence unk is of unk(,t)=unk(,t)χAk+unk(,t)χΩAkua(,t)+ub(,t) in M+(Ω). Hence u(,t):=ua(,t)+ub(,t) in M+(Ω) and the statement (5.43) is completed. By the assumption (I)-(iii), there holds

    lims+ψnk(s)s=0. (5.54)

    By the assertion (5.54) and [45, Proposition 5.2] or [25], we obtain

    ψnk(uk)(,t)ψ(,t)inM+(Ω) (5.55)

    where ψ(,t)L1(Ω) and

    ψ(,t)=[0,+)ψ(λ)d¯μ(,t)(λ). (5.56)

    Furthermore, we also obtain the next result via (5.55)

    ψ(,t)=[0,+)ψ(λ)d¯μ(,t)(λ)=ψ([0,+)λd¯μ(,t)(λ))=ψ(ub)(,t).

    By combining the assertion (5.53) and the previous equality, we conclude that ψ(ub)(,t)=v(,t) a.e in (0,T), when the convergence (5.44) is satisfied.

    By virtue of the convergence (5.53), the next convergence result

    g(unk)g(ψ1(v)):=g(ub)a.e inS (5.57)

    holds true. Since the function g(unk)L(R+) (see assumption (H)-(i)) and from Fatou's Lebesgue Lemma, then there exists a positive constant C such that

    T0lim infk+Ωg(unk)dxdtC. (5.58)

    Therefore, there exists a zero Lebesgue measure set N2(0,T) such that

    lim infk+Ωg(unk)(x,t)dxC (5.59)

    for every t(0,T)N2. In view of (5.59) and (5.57), there exists a function z(,t):=g(ub)(,t)L(Ω) such that the convergence (5.45) is achieved.

    To show (5.46), we consider the functions F,G:R+R+ defined by setting

    Fϵ(s)={0  if   s1ϵ,(ϵs1)22ϵ2  if  1ϵs1ϵ+1,s1ϵ12  if  s1ϵ+1,

    and Gϵ(s)=sFϵ(s) for every ϵ>0. It is worthy observing that Fϵ(s)0 in R+ and 0Fϵ(s)χ{s1ϵ}(s). According to the above results, there exists a subsequence {unk} in Lemma 5.1 and Proposition 5.1. For any nonnegative function ρC2(¯Ω), we choose Fϵ(unk)ρ(x) as a test function in the approximation problem (Pn), then we obtain the following identity

    ΩFϵ(unk)(,τ)ρ(x)dxΩFϵ(u0nk)ρ(x)dxτ0ΩFϵ(unk)ψnk(unk)ρ(x)dxdt+
    +τ0Ωg(unk)Fϵ(unk)ρ(x)dH(x)dt+τ0Ωh(t)fnk(x,t)Fϵ(unk)ρ(x)dxdt (5.60)

    where τ(0,T). Since the sequence {Fϵ(unk)} is uniformly bounded in L(Q), then Fϵ(unk)0 as ϵ0+ and Fϵ(unk)0 as ϵ0+. By Lemma 5.1 and Proposition 5.1, and by applying the Dominated Convergence Theorem, results to

    limk+τ0ΩFϵ(unk)ψnk(unk)ρ(x)dxdt=τ0ΩFϵ(ψ1(v))vρ(x)dxdt. (5.61)

    Similary, we get

    limk+τ0Ωg(unk)Fϵ(unk)ρ(x)dH(x)dydt=τ0Ωg(ψ1(v))Fϵ(ψ1(v))ρ(x)dH(x)dt, (5.62)

    By the statement (4.19) and Proposition 5.1, we have

    limk+τ0Ωh(t)fnk(x,t)Fϵ(unk)ρ(x)dxdt=τ0Ωh(t)f(x,t)Fϵ(ψ1(v))ρ(x)dH(x)dt. (5.63)

    Given the properties of the sequence {Fϵ(unk)} and passing to limit in (5.61), (5.62) and (5.63) when ϵ0+, then the following holds

    limϵ0+limk+τ0ΩFϵ(unk)ψnk(unk)ρ(x)dxdt=0. (5.64)

    Similarly we obtain

    limϵ0+limk+τ0Ωg(unk)Fϵ(unk)ρ(x)dH(x)dt=0. (5.65)

    And

    limϵ0+limk+τ0Ωh(t)fnk(x,t)Fϵ(unk)ρ(x)dxdt=0. (5.66)

    On the other hand, we have

    Fϵ(u0nk)=u0nkGϵ(u0nk)=u0rnk+u0snkGϵ(u0nk).

    Since u0rnku0r in L1(Ω), u0snku0s in M+(Ω) and the sequence {Gϵ(u0nk)} is uniformly bounded in L(Ω), then we deduce that

    u0rnkGϵ(u0nk)u0rGϵ(u0r):=Fϵ(u0r)inL1(Ω). (5.67)

    According to the convergence statement (5.43), we have

    Fϵ(unk)(,t)=unk(,t)Gϵ(unk)(,t)ua(,t)+ψ1(v)Gϵ(ψ1(v))(,t)inM+(Ω) (5.68)

    where Fϵ(ψ1(v))(,t):=ψ1(v)(,t)Gϵ(ψ1(v))(,t).

    Furthermore, from the Eqs (5.43) and (5.66) we obtain the following

    limϵ0+limk+ΩFϵ(unk)(,t)ρ(x)dx=ua(,t),ρΩ+limϵ0+ΩFϵ(ψ1(v))(,t)ρ(x)dx. (5.69)

    It follows that

    limϵ0+limk+ΩFϵ(unk)(,t)ρ(x)dx=ua(,t),ρΩ. (5.70)

    Likewise, from (5.67) one has

    limϵ0+limk+ΩFϵ(u0nk)(,t)ρ(x)dx=u0s,ρΩ+limϵ0+ΩFϵ(u0r)ρ(x)dx.

    It implies that

    limϵ0+limk+ΩFϵ(u0nk)ρ(x)dx=u0s,ρΩ. (5.71)

    Combining the statements (5.64)-(5.66), (5.70), (5, 71) with (5.60) yields

    ua(,t),ρΩu0s,ρΩ.

    Since ua(,t) is a singular measure with respect to the Lebesgue measure ua(,t)=[ua(,t)]s=us(,¯t) for a suitable ¯t(0,T)H, where H is zero Lebesgue measure in (0,T). Hence the assertion (5.46) is obtained.

    From [44, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1, Theorem 1], the estimate (5.19) yields

    u(,t)M+(Ω)lim infk+Ωunk(,t)dxC(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)). (5.72)

    The estimate (5.47) is completed.

    Proof of Theorem 2.2. By Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 5.2, we have ψ(ur)=v a.e in Q. Hence the problem (P) has a weak Radon measure-valued solution u in L((0,T),M+(Ω)).

    Remark 5.1 By Theorem 2.2, the result holds

    [u(,t)]su0sinM+(Ω) (5.73)

    for almost every t(0,T). By (5.73), there exists zero Lebesgue measure set N3(0,T) such that

    [u(,t)]c,2(E)[u0]c,2(E)inM+(Ω) (5.74)

    for all Borel sets EΩ, with C2(E)=0 and t(0,T)N3.

    Proposition 5.3. Suppose that the assumptions (I) and (A) are fulfilled. Let {unk} be the subsequence and v the function given in Proposition 5.1. Then the following sets

    S={(x,t)¯Qψ(ur)(x,t)=γ}andN={(x,t)¯Qg(ur)(x,t)=0}

    have zero Lebesgue measure. Moreover SN and B=SN has zero Lebesgue measure.

    Proof of Proposition 5.3. By [9, Proposition 5.2], the set S has zero Lebesgue measure. Assume that

    Aj={(x,t)¯Qv(x,t)1j}.

    Then, it is worth observing that

    Aj+1Aj,N=j=1Aj,N∣=limj+Aj (5.75)

    To prove that N∣=0, it is enough to show that Aj∣→0 as j+.

    Since the function g<0 in R+ (see the assumption (A)-(i)), then we have

    g(unk)2junkg1(2j)((x,t)¯Q). (5.76)

    It follows that

    g1(2j){(x,t)¯Qv(x,t)1j}χ{g(unk)2j}dxdtQunk(x,t)dxdt. (5.77)

    By the estimate (5.19), we have

    g1(2j)Aj∣≤CTμM+(Ω). (5.78)

    Since g1(2j)+ as j+, then (3.62) yields Aj∣→0 as j+.

    Assume that (x0,t0)S, then ψ(ur(x0,t0))=γ for every γ(0,+). Since g(ur(x0,t0))=ψ(ur)η(x0,t0)=η(γ)=0. Therefore, (x0,t0))N, that is SN holds true. The fact that SN, then B=N. Consequently, B is zero Lebesgue measure set.

    Proposition 6.1. Under assumptions (I), (A) and (J). Let u be a very weak Radon measure-valued solution to the problem (P) and for every ρC2(¯Ω) such that ρη=0 on Ω, there holds

    esslimt0+u(,t),ρΩ=u0,ρΩ (6.1)

    Proof of Proposition 6.1 Let us consider that for every τ>0, the smooth function ητC1c(0,T), 0ητ1 such that

    ητ(t)={0if0tt1τ,1τ(t+τt1)ift1τtt1,1ift1tt2,1τ(t+τ+t2)ift2tt2+τ,0ift2+τtT. (6.2)

    Let us choose ρj(x)ητ(t) as a test function in (P), there holds

    T0Ω{uρj(x)ητ(t)ψ(ur)ητ(t)Δρj(x)}dxdt=
    T0Ωg(ur)ρj(x)ητ(t)dH(x)dt+T0Ωh(t)fητ(t)ρj(x)dxdt. (6.3)

    It is worth observing that the first term on the left hand side of the equality (6.3) gives

    T0Ωuρj(x)ητ(t)dxdt=1τt1t1τΩu(x,t)ρj(x)dxdt+
    +1τt2+τt2Ωu(x,t)ρj(x)dxdt. (6.4)

    Let us consider a zero Lebesgue measure set Dj in (0,T) such that for any t1,t2(0,T)Dj, one has

    limτ0T0Ωuρj(x)ητ(t)dxdt=Ωu(x,t1)ρj(x)dx+Ωu(x,t2)ρj(x)dx. (6.5)

    We assume that a sequence {ρj(x)} of test functions in Ω such that

    ρC2(Ω),ρj(x)ρ(x)withρ(x)C2(Ω)

    and

    Δρj(x)Δρ(x)uniformly in Ω.

    Then for every t(0,T)Dj, there holds

    Ωu(x,t)ρj(x)dxΩu0ρj(x)dx=t0Ωψ(ur)Δρj(x)dxds+
    +t0Ωg(ur)ρj(x)dH(x)dt+t0Ωh(t)fρj(x)dxdt. (6.6)

    By Dominated Convergence Theorem, we obtain

    Ωu(x,t)ρ(x)dxΩu0ρ(x)dx=t0Ωψ(ur)Δρ(x)dxds+
    +t0Ωg(ur)ρ(x)dH(x)dt+t0Ωh(t)fρ(x)dxdt (6.7)

    for every t(0,T)D with D=j0Dj

    Since ψ(ur)L(Q), for every ρC2(Ω) and for every sequence {tj}(0,T)D, tj0+ as j such that

    Ωu(x,tj)ρ(x)dxΩu0ρ(x)dx=tj0Ωψ(ur)Δρ(x)dxds+
    +tj0Ωg(ur)ρ(x)dH(x)dt+tj0Ωh(t)fρ(x)dxdt (6.8)

    holds true.

    Since uL((0,T),M+(Ω)), then we have

    supju(,tj)M+(Ω)C. (6.9)

    So that there exists a subsequence {tjm}{tj} and a Radon measure μ0M+(Ω) such that

    u(,tjm)μ0inM+(Ω)asjm. (6.10)

    By the standard density arguments, one has

    esslimjmu(,tjm),ρΩ=u0,ρΩ (6.11)

    where μ0=u0, hence (6.1) is obtained.

    Proof of Theorem 2.4 Let u1,u2 be two very weak solutions obtained as limit of approximation of (P) with initial data u01n and u02n respectively. Let {u1n}, {u2n}L(Q)L2((0,T),H1(Ω)) be two approximating sequence solutions to the problem (Pn). We consider a test function ξC2,1(Q) such that ξ(,T)=0 in Ω and ξη=0 on Ω×(0,T) in the approximation problem (Pn) in the sense of the Definition 2.3, then there holds

    Q(u1nu2n)ξtdxdt=Q(ψn(u1n)ψn(u2n))Δξdxdt
    Qh(t)(f1nf2n)ξdxdtS(g1ng2n)ξdH(x)dt
    Ω(u01nu02n)ξ(x,0)dx, (6.12)

    where {f1n}, {f2n}, {u01n}, and {u02n} are two approximating functions.

    By the assumption g(ur)=L a.e in S, then for any sequences {u1n}, {u2n} one has g(u1n=g(u2n)=L on S. Consequently the third term on the right hand-side of the equation (6.12) vanishes.

    For almost every (x,t)Q, we consider the function an(x,t) defined as

    an(x,t)={ψn(u1n(x,t))ψn(u2n(x,t))u1n(x,t)u2n(x,t)ifu1n(x,t)u2n(x,t),ψn(u1n(x,t))ifu1n(x,t)=u2n(x,t). (6.13)

    Obviously anL(Q) and for every nN there exists a positive constant Cn such that

    essinf(x,t)Qan(x,t)Cn>0. (6.14)

    This ensures that for every zC2c(Q), the problem

    {ξnt+anΔξn+z=0inQ,ξnη=0onS,ξn(,T)=0inΩ, (6.15)

    has a unique solution ξnL((0,T),H2(Ω))L2((0,T),H1(Ω)) with ξntL2(Q) (see [18,21]).

    Moreover, it can be seen that

    ξn(x,t)∣≤(Tt)zL(Q). (6.16)

    Let us consider the function β such that for any t1+1<t2 and t1,t2(0,T)

    β(t)={0if0tt1,tt1ift1<t<t2,t2t1iftt2. (6.17)

    Choosing βΔξn as a test function in (6.15), then we obtain

    Qξntβ(t)Δξndxdt+Qβ(t)an(x,t)[Δξn]2dxdt+Qzβ(t)Δξndxdt=0. (6.18)

    It follows that

    12Qξn2dxdt+Qan(x,t)[Δξn]2dxdtC0(T,z) (6.19)

    holds, for some constant C0(T,z) independent on n.

    From (6.16) and (6.19), there exists a constant C1(T,z) such that

    ξnL2((0,T),H1(Ω))+anΔξnL2(Q)C1(T,z). (6.20)

    On the other hand, multiplying (6.15) by Δξn and we obtain

    Qξnξnt+Qan[Δξn]2dxdt=QξnΔzdxdt

    which leads to

    12Ωξn2(x,0)dx+Qan[Δξn]2dxdtC2(T,z), (6.21)

    where C2(T,z)=C(ξnL(Q),zC2(¯Q))>0. Therefore, we get

    ξn(,0)H1(Ω)+anΔξnL2(Q)C2(T,z). (6.22)

    By standard density arguments, we can choose ξ=ξn as a test function in (6.15). It implies that (6.12) yields

    Q(u1nu2n)zdxdt=Qh(t)(f1nf2n)ξn(x,t)dxdt+
    +Ω(u01nu02n)ξn(x,0)dx. (6.23)

    Letting n to infinity in (6.23). Then it enough to observe from (6.20), there exists ξnL((0,T),H2(Ω))L2((0,T),H1(Ω)) which is obtained by extracting the subsequence of the {ξn} such that

    ξn(x,t)ξ(x,t)inL(Q). (6.24)
    ξn(x,t)ξ(x,t)inL2((0,T),H1(Ω)). (6.25)

    Since ξntL2(Q) and the compactness theorem states in [21], we deduce that

    ξnt(x,t)ξt(x,t)inL2((0,T),(H1(Ω))), (6.26)
    ξn(x,t)ξ(x,t)a.e inQ. (6.27)

    By (6.16) and (6.22), there exists ξ(,0)L(Ω)H1(Ω) such that the following statements

    ξn(x,0)ξ(x,0)inL(Ω), (6.28)
    ξn(x,0)ξ(x,0)inH1(Ω) (6.29)

    holds true. By Theorem 2.1, the solutions of the problem (H) are unique in M+(Q). Therefore f1nf in M+(Q) and f2nf in M+(Q). Furthermore, the sequences {u01n} and {u02n} satisfy the assumption (2.6). By combining the above assumptions and Dominated Convergence Theorem, the Eq (6.23) reads

    Q(u1u2)z(x,t)dxdt=limn+Q[h(t)(f1nf2n)]ξ(x,t)dxdt+
    +limnΩ(f01nf02n)ξ(x,0)dxdtlimnΩ(F01nF02n)ξ(x,0)dx=0

    It follows that u1=u2 in M+(Q).

    In this section, we prove the result of decay estimate solutions.

    Proof of Theorem 2.5. We consider un and vn two solutions of the approximation problems (Pn) and (P0n) respectively. For any ξC1((0,T),C1(Ω)) such that ξ(,T)=0 in Ω and ξη=0 on S as a test function of the approximation problem (Pn)(P0n), then there holds

    Q(unvn)ξt(x,t)dxdt=Q[ψ(un)ϑ(vn)]ξdxdtQh(t)fn(x,t)ξdxdt
    S(g(un)g1(vn))ξdH(x)dt. (7.1)

    For every ϵ>0, we consider {zϵ} be a sequence of smooth functions such that zϵL1(0,T)C and zϵ(t)δt in M+(0,T). Let us choose ξ(x,t)=sign(un(x,t)vn(x,t))Ttzϵ(s)(Ts)αds(α>1) into the Eq (7.1), then (7.1) reads

    [T0zϵ(t)(Tt)αdt][Ωun(,t)vn(,t)dx]
    =[Tth(t)(T0zϵ(s)(Ts)αds)dt][Ωfnsign(un(x,t)vn(x,t))dx]
    [Tt(T0zϵ(s)(Ts)αds)dt][Ω(g(un)g1(un))sign(un(x,t)vn(x,t))dH(x)] (7.2)

    Letting ϵ0+ in the previous equation and using the properties of the Dirac mass at t, then we have the following expression

    (Tt)αΩun(,t)vn(,t)dxCQfn(x,t)(Tt)αdxdt (7.3)

    for any t(0,T)H with H∣=0 and C=C(S,g(un)L(R+),g1(vn)L(R+),Tα)>0 is a constant. On the other hand, by (4.5) we have

    fn(x,t)(Tt)α=TαΩGN(xy,t)u0n(y)dy+t0ΩGN(xy,tσ)g(fn)(Tσ)αdydσ+
    +t0ΩGN(xy,tσ){αfn(Tσ)α1+μn(Tσ)α}dydσ.

    By (2.11)-(2.13) and the properties of the Green function GN, we get the following result

    Qfn(x,t)(Tt)αdxdtTα+1Ωu0n(y)dy+αt0Qfn(y,σ)(Tσ)αdydσdt+
    +t0Qμn(Tσ)αdydσdt+T0Sg(fn)(Tσ)αdydσdt.

    By the assumptions (A), (4.1) and (4.2), there exists a positive constant C=C(Tα+1,g(fn)L(R+),S)>0 such that

    Qfn(x,t)(Tt)αdxdtC(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Ω))+αt0(Qfn(x,σ)(Tσ)αdxdt)dσ. (7.4)

    By Gronwall's inequality, (7.4) yields

    Qfn(x,t)(Tt)αdxdtCeαT(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Ω)) (7.5)

    where C=C(Tα+1,g(fn)L(R+),S,eαT)>0 is a constant. Combining (7.3) with (7.5), we deduce that

    (Tt)αΩun(,t)vn(,t)dxC(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)). (7.6)

    By [24, Chapter V, Section 5.2.1, Theorem 1], the semi-continuity of the total variation yields,

    (Tt)αu(,t)v(,t)M+(Ω)(Tt)αlim infnΩun(,t)vn(,t)dx
    C(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)). (7.7)

    Hence (2.18) holds.

    We consider un and wn two solutions of the approximation problems (Pn) and (P1n) respectively. For any ξC1((0,T),C1(Ω)) such that ξ(,T)=0 in Ω and ξη=0 on S as a test function of the approximation problem (Pn)(P1n). Therefore, we have the following equation

    Q(unwn)ξt(x,t)dxdt=Q[ψ(un)ψ(wn)]ξdxdtΩu0nξ(x,0)dxdt (7.8)

    Taking ξ(x,t)=sign(un(x,t)wn(x,t))Ttzϵ(s)(Ts)αds(α>1) into the equality (7.8), then we obtain

    [T0zϵ(t)(Tt)αdt][Ωun(,t)wn(,t)dx]
    =[T0zϵ(s)(Ts)αdt][Ωu0nsign(un(x,0)wn(x,0))].

    Letting ϵ0+ in the previous equation and using the properties of the Dirac mass at t, then we have

    (Tt)αΩun(,t)wn(,t)dxTαΩu0ndx. (7.9)

    By (4.1), the above inequality (7.9) yields

    (Tt)αΩun(,t)wn(,t)dxCu0M+(Ω). (7.10)

    By [24, Chapter V, Section 5.2.1, Theorem 1], the semi-continuity of the total variation yields,

    (Tt)αu(,t)w(,t)M+(Ω)(Tt)αlim infnΩun(,t)wn(,t)dx
    Cu0M+(Ω)

    where C=C(T,α)>0 a constant. Hence (2.19) is achieved. Now we consider the auxiliary function Wn such that

    Wn(x,t)=tαun(x,t)sign(Wn) (7.11)

    for every α>1. The derivation of the expression Wn with respect to the variable t gives

    Wnt(x,t)=αtα1un(x,t)sign(Wn)+tαunt(x,t)sign(Wn). (7.12)

    Since unt=Δψ(un)+h(t)fn(x,t) and we multiply the Eq (7.12) by the function sign(Wn) and then we integrate the result over Ω×(0,t)(for any t(0,T)), then we obtain

    ΩWn(x,t)dx=αt0sα1Ωun(x,s)dxds+t0Ωg(un)sαdH(x)ds+t0Ωsαh(s)fn(x,s)dxds. (7.13)

    By replacing the expression of Wn in (7.13), we deduce that

    tαΩun(x,t)dxαTαQun(x,t)dxdt+TαSg(un)dH(x)dt+h(T)TαQfn(x,t)dxdt. (7.14)

    By assumptions (A), (J), (2.16) and (4.19), there exists a constant C=C(αTα+1,h(T)Tα,g(un)L(R+))>0 such that

    tαΩun(x,t)dxC(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)). (7.15)

    According to [24, Chapter V, Section 5.2.1, Theorem 1], we conclude from the estimate (7.15), the following estimate

    tαu(,t)M+(Ω)tαlim infnΩun(,t)dxC(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)).

    Hence the estimate (2.21) is completed.

    To show the existence of the problem (E), we employ the natural approximation method. Therefore, the solution of the problem (P) is constructed by limiting point of a family {un} of solutions to the approximation problem. To this purpose, we consider the function ϕCc(Ω) such that 0ϕ1 and ϕ=1 in K0 (for any compact set K0ΩRN), then we get

    Δ(ϕψ(U))+ϕU=ϕu0+ε(ϕ)inD(Ω)

    where ε(ϕ)=ψ(U)Δϕ2ϕψ(U) and ε(ϕ)=0 in K0 with ε(ϕ)L1(Ω).

    Now we consider the approximation of problem (E)

    {Δψ(Un)+Un=u0n  in  Ω,ψ(Un)η=g(Un)  on  Ω, (En)

    where u0n=(ϕu0+ε(ϕ))ρn and {ρn} a sequence of standard mollifiers. Furthermore, the sequence {u0n}C(¯Ω) satisfies the assumption (4.1).

    Then for every nN, there exists UnH1(Ω)L(Ω) solution of the approximation problem (En).

    In the next Lemma, we state the technical estimates important for the proof of the existing solutions.

    Lemma 8.1 Assume that (I), (A) and u0M+(Ω) are satisfied. The sequence {Un} be a weak solution of the approximation problem (En). Then, there holds

    UnL1(Ω)Cu0M+(Ω), (8.1)
    ψ(Un)L2(Ω)+ψ(Un)L2(Ω)C, (8.2)

    where C>0 is a constant. Moreover, for every 1p<NN1 there holds

    ψ(Un)Lp(Ω)+ψ(Un)Lp(Ω)C, (8.3)

    where C=C(p)>0 is a constant.

    Proof of Lemma 8.1 We consider φC1(¯Ω) as a test function in the approximation problem (En), then we have

    Ωψ(Un)φdx+ΩUnφdx=Ωu0nφdx+Ωg(Un)φdH(x) (8.4)

    Assume that Ω={xΩ/Un(x)0in the sense ofL1(Ω)} and φ(x)=infxΩ{Un(x),0}. It is worth observing that φ(x)L1(Ω). To show that Un0 in Ω, it is enough to prove that φ(x)=0 in Ω. Indeed, we choose φ(x)=sign(Un(x)), then we get

    ΩUn(x)dx=Ωu0n(x)sign(Un(x))dx+Ωg(Un)sign(Un(x))dH(x)0 (8.5)

    where u0n0 in Ω and g>0 in R+ (see the assumption (A)). Therefore φ(x)=0 a.e in Ω. Hence the solution of the approximation problem (En), Un(x)0 a.e xΩ.

    Now we consider the regularizing sequence {Tϵ}C1(R+) for every ϵ>0 such that

    (i) 0Tϵ(s)1 in R+, Tϵ(s)=0, Tϵ0 in R+,

    (ii) Tϵ(s)1 as ϵ0+ for every s0.

    We choose Tϵ(Un)H1(Ω)L(Ω) as a test function in the approximation problem (En) and by employing the assumptions (A) and (I), then we get

    ΩTϵ(Un)ψ(Un(x))Un(x)2dx+ΩUn(x)Tϵ(Un)dxCu0M+(Ω) (8.6)

    where C=C(g(Un)L(R+),Ω)>0. Since Tϵ(Uk)ψ(Un(x))0 in R+ (see the hypothesis (I)), then (8.6) reads

    ΩUn(x)Tϵ(Un)dxCu0M+(Ω) (8.7)

    Again, by considering the limit when ϵ0+, the estimate (8.1) holds true. Now we consider another regularizing sequence {Tϵ}C1(R+) for every ϵ>0 such that Tϵ(s)=1 if 0s1ϵ, Tϵ(s)=ϵs if 1ϵs2ϵ, Tϵ(s)=2 if s2ϵ. It is obvious to see that 1Tϵ(s)2 in R+. We take the function φ(s)=s0Tϵ(σ)dσ and we choose φ(ψ(Un)) as a test function in (En), then we obtain

    Ωψ(Un)2Tϵ(ψ(Un))dx+ΩUnφ(ψ(Un))dx=Ωφ(ψ(Un))u0ndx+Ωg(Un)φ(ψ(Un))dH(x). (8.8)

    Since 1Tϵ(ψ(Un))2 and ψ(Un)φ(ψ(Un))2ψ(Un), therefore there exists a positive constant C such that

    Ωψ(Un)2dxCu0M+(Ω) (8.9)

    where C=C(ψ(Un)L(R+),g(Un)L(R+),Ω)>0. By the assumption (I), the statement ψ(Un)L2(Ω) holds. Whence the estimate (8.2) is achieved.

    Again, recalling the Hölder's inequality, we get

    Ωψ(Un)pdx[Ωψ(Un)2(1+ψ(Un))2dx]1q[Ω(1+ψ(Un))qdx]1q

    where q:=2p and q:=22p. Therefore, there exists a positive constant C=C(p,ψ(Un)L(R+))>0 such that

    Ωψ(Un)pdxC (8.10)

    By the assumption (I), the statement ψ(Un)Lp(Ω) holds. Hence the estimate (8.3) is achieved.

    Proof of Theorem 2.6. From the estimate (8.2) and assumption (A), we can extract from {ψ(Un)} a subsequence {ψ(Unk)} such that

    ψ(Unk)VinH1(Ω)andψ(Unk)Va.e inΩ (8.11)
    g(Unk)VL(Ω)andg(Unk)Va.e inΩ (8.12)

    By (8.3), the sequence {ψ(Unk)}BV(Ω) and applying [44, Chapter IV, Section 1.1, Proposition 5], there exists a subsequence {ψ(Unk)} and V1M+(Ω) such that the convergence

    ψ(Unk)V1inM+(Ω). (8.13)

    By repeating the same method as in the Proposition 5.2, we deduce that

    UnkU:=ψ1(V)+λ1inM+(Ω) (8.14)

    where Ur=ψ1(V) a.e in Ω, Us=λ1 in M+(Ω) and Ur=g1(V) a.e in Ω.

    By [24, Chapter V, Section 5.2.1, Theorem 1], the estimate (8.1) yields

    UM+(Ω)lim infnΩUn(x)dxCu0M+(Ω).

    Hence the estimate (2.23) is completed.

    Remark 8.1 The sets

    S0={x¯Ωψ(Ur)(x)=γ}andN0={x¯Ωg(Ur)(x)=0}

    have zero Lebesgue measure. Moreover S0N0 and supp(Us)S0.

    Proof of Theorem 2.7. We choose ξ(x,t)=sign(un(x,t)Un(x))Ttzϵ(s)sαds(α>1) as a test function in the approximation problem (Pn)(En), then we have

    ΩT0un(x,t)Un(x)zϵ(t)tαdt=ΩT0u0n(x)Un(x)zϵ(t)tαdtdx+
    +ΩT0[g(un)g(Un)]sign(un(x,t)Un(x))Ttzϵ(s)sαdsdtdH(x)+
    +ΩT0un(x,t)Un(x)]sign(un(x,t)Un(x))Ttzϵ(s)sαdsdtdx+
    +ΩT0h(t)fn(x,t)sign(un(x,t)Un(x))Ttzϵ(s)sαdsdtdx.

    By the previous proof mentioned above, we deduce that

    ΩT0un(x,t)Un(x)zϵ(t)tαdtC(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)) (8.15)

    where C=C(αTα+1,h(T),Tα,g(un)L(R+),S)>0 is a constant. By letting ϵ0+, then (8.15) reads

    tαΩun(x,t)Un(x)dxC(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)). (8.16)

    By virtue of [24, Chapter V, Section 5.2.1, Theorem 1], then the semi-continuity of the total variation yields

    tαu(,t)U()M+(Ω)lim infn+tαΩun(x,t)Un(x)dxC(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)) (8.17)

    for almost every t(0,T) and α>1. By considering to the limit as t+ in the following inequality

    u(,t)U()M+(Ω)Ctα(u0M+(Ω)+μM+(Q)).

    Hence the statement (2.24) follows.

    In this paper, we study the existence, uniqueness, decay estimates, and the asymptotic behavior of the Radon measure-valued solutions for a class of nonlinear parabolic equations with a source term and nonzero Neumann boundary conditions. To attain this, we use the natural approximation method, the definition of the weak solutions, and the properties of the Radon measure. Concerning the study of the existence and uniqueness of the solutions to the problem (P), we first show that the source term corresponding to the solution of the linear inhomogeneous heat equation with measure data is a unique Radon measure-valued. Moreover, we establish the decay estimates of these solutions by using the suitable test functions and the auxiliary functions. Finally, we analyze the asymptotic behavior of these solutions by establishing the decay estimate of the difference between the solution to the problem (P) and the solution to the steady state problem (E).

    This work was partially supported by National Natural Sciences Foundation of China, grant No: 11571057

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.



    [1] J. L. Vázquez, Measure-valued solutions and the phenomenon of blow-down in logarithmic diffusion, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 352 (2009), 515-547.
    [2] S. Itǒ, Fundamental solutions of parabolic differential equations and boundary value problems, Jnp. J. Math., 27 (1957), 55-102.
    [3] S. Itǒ, A boundary value problem of partial differential equations of parabolic type, Duke Math. J., 24 (1957), 299-312.
    [4] C. S. Kahane, On the asymptotic behavior of solutions of parabolic equations, Czechoslovak Math. J., 33 (1983), 262-285. doi: 10.21136/CMJ.1983.101876
    [5] C. V. Pao, Nonlinear Parabolic and Elliptic Equations, New York: Plenum Press, 1992.
    [6] M. Bertsch, F. Smarrazzo, A. Tesei, Pseudo-parabolic regularization of forward-backward parabolic equations: Power-type nonlinearities, J. Reine Angew. Math., 712 (2016), 51-80.
    [7] M. Bertsch, F. Smarrazzo, A. Tesei, Pseudo-parabolic regularization of forward-backward parabolic equations: A logarithmic nonlinearity, Anal. PDE, 6 (2013), 1719-1754. doi: 10.2140/apde.2013.6.1719
    [8] L. C. Evance, Partial differential equations, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 2010.
    [9] M. M. Porzio, F. Smarrazzo, A. Tesei, Radon measure-valued solutions for a class of quasilinear parabolic equations, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 210 (2013), 713-772. doi: 10.1007/s00205-013-0666-0
    [10] M. M. Porzio, F. Smarrazzo, A. Tesei, Radon measure-valued solutions of nonlinear strongly degenerate parabolic equations, Calc. Var. Partial Dif., 51 (2014), 401-437. doi: 10.1007/s00526-013-0680-y
    [11] F. Smarrazzo, A. Tesei, Degenerate regularization of forward-backward parabolic equations: The regularized problem, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 204 (2012), 85-139. doi: 10.1007/s00205-011-0470-7
    [12] L. Orsina, M. M. Porzio, F. Smarrazzo, Measure-valued solutions of nonlinear parabolic equations with logarithmic diffusion, J. Evol. Equ., 15 (2015), 609-645. doi: 10.1007/s00028-015-0275-5
    [13] M. M. Porzio, F. Smarrazzo, Radon measure-valued solutions for some quasilinear degenerate elliptic equations, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 194 (2015), 495-532. doi: 10.1007/s10231-013-0386-y
    [14] F. Petitta, A. C. Ponce, A. Porretta, Approximation of diffuse measures for parabolic capacities, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 346 (2008), 161-166. doi: 10.1016/j.crma.2007.12.002
    [15] J. Droniou, A. Porretta, A. Prignet, Parabolic capacity and soft measures for nonlinear equations, Potential Anal., 19 (2003), 99-161. doi: 10.1023/A:1023248531928
    [16] F. Petitta, A. C. Ponce, A. Porretta, Diffuse measures and nonlinear parabolic equations, J. Evol. Equ., 11 (2011), 861-905. doi: 10.1007/s00028-011-0115-1
    [17] J. L. Vázquez, The Porous Medium Equation: Mathematical Theory, Oxford: Oxford Mathematical Monographs, 2007.
    [18] J. R. Anderson, Local existence and uniqueness of solutions of degenerate parabolic equations, Commun. Part. Diff. Eq., 16 (1991), 105-143. doi: 10.1080/03605309108820753
    [19] E. DiBenedetto, Continuity of weak solutions to a general porous medium equation, Indiana Univ. Math. J., 32 (1983), 83-118. doi: 10.1512/iumj.1983.32.32008
    [20] J. Ding, B. Z. Guo, Global existence and blow-up solutions for quasilinear reaction-diffusion equations with a gradient term, Appl. Math. Lett., 24 (2011), 936-942. doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2010.12.052
    [21] J. L. Lions, Quelques Méthodes de Résolutions des Problèmes aux Limites non Linéaires, Paris: Dunod., French, 1969.
    [22] O. A. Ladyženskaja, V. A. Solonnikov, N. N. Ural'ceva, Linear and Quasilinear Equations of Parabolic Type, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 23 (1968).
    [23] J. Simon, Compact sets in the space Lp(0,T;B), Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 146 (1987), 65-96.
    [24] L. C. Evans, R. F. Gariepy, Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions, Studies in Advanced Mathematics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1992.
    [25] M. Papi, M. M. Porzio, F. Smarrazzo, Existence of solutions to a class of weakly coercive diffusion equations with singular initial data, Adv. Differential Eq., 22 (2017), 893-963.
    [26] L. Boccardo, L. Moreno-Mérida, W1,1(Ω) Solutions of nonlinear problems with nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, Milan J. Math., 83 (2015), 279-293. doi: 10.1007/s00032-015-0235-0
    [27] E. DiBenedetto, Degenerate Parabolic Equations, Universitext, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
    [28] H. Amann, Quasilinear parabolic system under nonlinear boundary conditions, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 92 (1986), 53-192.
    [29] H. Amann, Parabolic evolution equations and nonlinear boundary conditions, J. Differ. Equations, 73 (1988), 201-269.
    [30] L. Dung, Remarks on Hölder continuity for parabolic equations and convergence to global attractors, Nonlinear Anal., 41 (2000), 921-941. doi: 10.1016/S0362-546X(98)00319-8
    [31] V. Bögelein, F. Duzaar, U. Gianazza, Porous medium type equations with measure data and potential estimates, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 45 (2013), 3283-3330. doi: 10.1137/130925323
    [32] V. Liskevich, I. I. Skrypnik, Pointwise estimates for solutions to the porous medium equation with measure as a forcing term, Israel J. Math., 194 (2013), 259-275. doi: 10.1007/s11856-012-0098-9
    [33] U. Gianazza, Degenerate and singular porous medium type equations with measure data, Elliptic and Parabolic Equations, 119 (2015), 139-158.
    [34] H. Brézis, W. A. Strauss, Semi-linear second-order elliptic equations in L1, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 25 (1973), 565-590.
    [35] J. R. Cannon, The One-dimensional Heat Equations, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 23 (1984).
    [36] G. Q. Chen, H. Frid, Extended divergence measure fields and the Euler equations for gas dynamic, Comm. Math, Phys., 236 (2003), 251-280. doi: 10.1007/s00220-003-0823-7
    [37] B. P. Andreianov, N. Igbida, Uniqueness for inhomogeneous Dirichlet problem for elliptic-parabolic equations, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A, 137 (2007), 1119-1133 doi: 10.1017/S0308210505001290
    [38] L. Boccardo, J. M. Mazón, Existence of solutions and regularizing effect for some elliptic nonlinear problems with nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, Rev. Mat. Complut., 28 (2015), 263-280. doi: 10.1007/s13163-014-0162-6
    [39] F. Audreu, N. Igbida, J. M. Mazón, J. Toledo, Degenerate elliptic equations with nonlinear boundary conditions and measure data, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa. Cl. Sci., 8 (2009), 769-803.
    [40] F. Audreu, J. M. Mazón, S. Segura De Léon, J. Toledo, Quasilinear elliptic and parabolic equations in L1 with nonlinear boundary conditions, Adv. Math. Sci. Appl., 7 (1997), 183-213.
    [41] M. M. Porzio, F. Smarrazzo, Radon measure-valued solutions for some quasilinear degenerate elliptic equations, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 194 (2015), 495-532. doi: 10.1007/s10231-013-0386-y
    [42] S. Itô, The fundamental solution of the parabolic equation in a differentiable manifold. II, Osaka Math. J., 6 (1954), 167-185.
    [43] A. Friedman, Partial Differential Equations of Parabolic Type, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1964.
    [44] M. Giaquinta, G. Modica, J. Souček, Cartesian Currents in the Calculus of Variations. I. Cartesian Currents, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1998.
    [45] M. Bertsch, F. Smarrazzo, A. Terracina, A. Tesei, Radon measure-valued solutions of first order scalar conservation laws, Adv. Nonlinear Anal., 9 (2020), 65-107.
    [46] Q. S. Nkombo, F. Li, Radon Measure-valued solutions for nonlinear strongly degenerate parabolic equations with measure data, Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math., 14 (2021), 204-233. doi: 10.29020/nybg.ejpam.v14i1.3877
    [47] U. S. Fjordholm, S. Mishra, E. Tadmor, On the computation of measure-valued solutions, Acta Numer., 25 (2016), 567-679. doi: 10.1017/S0962492916000088
    [48] S. Lanthaler, S. Mishra, Computation of measure-valued solutions for the incompressible Euler equations, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 25 (2015), 2043-2088. doi: 10.1142/S0218202515500529
    [49] J. Droniou, T. Gallouët, R. Herbin, A finite volume scheme for a noncoercive elliptic equation with measure data, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 41 (2003), 1997-2031.
    [50] R. Eymard, T. Gallouët, R. Herbin, A. Michel, Convergence of a finite volume scheme for nonlinear degenerate parabolic equations, Numer. Math., 92 (2002), 41-82. doi: 10.1007/s002110100342
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Quincy Stévène Nkombo, Fengquan Li, Christian Tathy, Existence and asymptotic behavior of Radon measure-valued solutions for a class of nonlinear parabolic equations, 2021, 2021, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-021-03668-3
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2776) PDF downloads(104) Cited by(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog