
This paper provides new insights to the long-standing debate initiated by
Citation: Mumtaz Ahmed, Muhammad Azam, Stelios Bekiros, Syeda Mahlaqa Hina. Are output fluctuations transitory or permanent? New evidence from a novel Global Multi-scale Modeling approach[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2021, 5(3): 373-396. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2021017
[1] | Hilal Essaouini, Pierre Capodanno . Analysis of small oscillations of a pendulum partially filled with a viscoelastic fluid. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(3): 388-409. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023019 |
[2] | Chunyou Sun, Junyan Tan . Attractors for a Navier–Stokes–Allen–Cahn system with unmatched densities. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2025, 17(1): 237-262. doi: 10.3934/cam.2025010 |
[3] | Yuxuan Chen . Global dynamical behavior of solutions for finite degenerate fourth-order parabolic equations with mean curvature nonlinearity. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(4): 658-694. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023033 |
[4] | Shu Wang . Global well-posedness and viscosity vanishing limit of a new initial-boundary value problem on two/three-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes equations and/or Boussinesq equations. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2025, 17(2): 582-605. doi: 10.3934/cam.2025023 |
[5] | Cheng Yang . On the Hamiltonian and geometric structure of Langmuir circulation. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(2): 58-69. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023004 |
[6] | Shuyue Ma, Jiawei Sun, Huimin Yu . Global existence and stability of temporal periodic solution to non-isentropic compressible Euler equations with a source term. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(2): 245-266. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023013 |
[7] | Yonghui Zou . Global regularity of solutions to the 2D steady compressible Prandtl equations. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(4): 695-715. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023034 |
[8] | Xiao Qing Huang, Jia Feng Liao . Existence and asymptotic behavior for ground state sign-changing solutions of fractional Schrödinger-Poisson system with steep potential well. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2024, 16(2): 307-333. doi: 10.3934/cam.2024015 |
[9] | Xiufang Cui, Xianpeng Hu . Uniform bound of the highest-order energy for three dimensional inhomogeneous incompressible elastodynamics. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2025, 17(2): 429-461. doi: 10.3934/cam.2025018 |
[10] | Shuai Xi . A Kato-type criterion for the inviscid limit of the nonhomogeneous NS equations with no-slip boundary condition. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2024, 16(4): 896-909. doi: 10.3934/cam.2024039 |
This paper provides new insights to the long-standing debate initiated by
Fluid flows in branching tubes are common in many biological and industrial applications such as physiological branching flows and flows through pipe and duct networks (see, for instance, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]). This subject is extensively studied in both theoretical and practical points of views. A mathematical model of fluid flows in a network of thin tubes has been derived in [9] from the asymptotic expansion of Navier–Stokes equations. Consistent asymptotic analysis of Navier–Stokes equations in thin tube structures, by letting the diameter of the tubes tend to zero, has been recently studied in a series of papers, such as [10] and [11]. The Navier–Stokes equations with pressure boundary conditions in the junctions of thin pipes are considered in [12] and [13], where approximations based on Leray and Poiseuille problems are constructed therein.
Let h be a positive integer. Let Gh be the pre-fractal polygonal curve obtained after h-iterations of the contractive similarities of the Sierpinski gasket G (see Figure 1). We consider a network of circular cylindrical pipes whose axes are the sides of the polygon Gh. We assume that these pipes are narrow axisymmetric tubes of radius εh very small with respect to the length 2−h of each side of Gh. We consider an incompressible fluid flow in the bounded domain Ωh consisting of these pipes connected, after local adjustments near the bifurcation points, through smooth thin regions centered at the vertices of Gh (see Figure 4). We suppose that each pipe is split into two principal regions: junction zones of length εhln(1/εh)≪ 2−h linked to the ends of the pipe and the rest of the pipe. We suppose that the fluid flow in Ωh is driven by some volumic forces and governed by Stokes equations with boundary conditions for the velocity and the pressure on the external boundary of Ωh and inner continuity conditions for the normal velocity on the interfaces between the junction zones and the rest of the pipes (see Section 2 for more details). We assume that the flow in the junction zones is controlled by a typical Reynolds number Rej,h.
The main focus of this paper is to study the asymptotic behavior of the fluid flowing through the branching pipes as the radius of the tubes tends to zero and the sequence of pre-fractal curves converges in the Hausdorff metric to the Sierpinski gasket G. Using Γ-convergence methods (see, for instance, [14] and [15]), we prove that the effective potential energy of the fluid turns out to be of the form
F∞(v)={μπm(Θ)Hd(G)∫Gv2dHd+2μπm(Θ)3σ∫G∇v.Z∇vdν if v∈V∞, +∞ otherwise, | (1.1) |
where v is the fluid velocity, μ is the fluid viscosity, m(Θ) is the average value (see Eq. (6.10)) of the solution Θ of boundary value problem (6.5), 1m(Θ)Hd(G) is the permeability of the Sierpinski gasket G, Hd being the d -dimensional Hausdorff measure on G where
d=ln3/ln2 | (1.2) |
stands for the fractal dimension of G, Z is a random matrix given in Section 4 (see Eq. (4.15)–(4.18)), ν is a singular measure with respect to the Hausdorff measure Hd on G called the Kusuoka measure (see Eq. (4.11)), which, according to [16], is a Gibbs measure of special kind, V∞ is the admissible velocities space (see Definition 23), and
1σ=limh→∞εhRej,h. | (1.3) |
Depending on the values of σ, we obtain different asymptotic problems:
1. If σ∈(0,+∞), then Rej,h=O(εh). In this case, the effective flow is described (see Theorem 3) by the following singular Brinkman equation in the Sierpinski gasket G:
−2μπm(Θ)Hd3σHd(G)ΔG(u)+μπHdm(Θ)Hd(G)u+νZ∇p.n=HdHd(G)f.n in G, | (1.4) |
where u is the fluid velocity, p is the pressure, ΔG is the Laplace operator on the Sierpinski gasket (see Lemma 4), f is the effective source term, n=(1,0) on the horizontal part of G, n=(1/2,√3/2) on the part of G which is perpendicular to the unit vector (−√3/2,1/2), and n=(1/2,−√3/2) on the part of G which is perpendicular to the unit vector (√3/2,1/2). This equation includes the singular Brinkman viscous resistance term −2μπm(Θ)Hd3σHd(G)ΔG(u), which is due to the viscous behavior of the fluid flow at the junction zones, and the singular Darcy resistance term μπHdm(Θ)Hd(G)u.
2. If σ=+∞, then Rej,h =O(1) or Rej,h⟶∞ as h⟶∞. In this case, the term μπm(Θ)3σ∫G∇v.Z∇vdν in (1.1) disappears and the flow is governed by singular Darcy's law in the Sierpinski gasket G.
3. If σ=0, then Rej,h =O(εαh) with α>1. In this case, the energy F∞(v) is finite only if ∫G∇v.Z∇vdν=0, which implies that the velocity of the fluid flow is asymptotically constant in the Sierpinski gasket G.
The study of asymptotic analysis of boundary value problems in domains with fractal boundaries or containing thin inclusions developing a fractal geometry has been recently addressed in a series of papers (see, for instance, [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]). The problems obtained at the limit generally consist of singular forms containing fractal terms. The problem considered in this work is quite different from the previous ones, as we deal here with the determination of the fluid motion through branching tubes having a fractal structure. The overall effect of the pre-fractal branching networks on the fluid flow appears in the singular effective equation (1.4), according to the characteristics of the flow, as the radius of the tubes tends to zero and the sequence of pre-fractal curves converges in the Hausdorff metric to the Sierpinski gasket G. The asymptotic representation of the solution of the original singularly perturbed problem includes local perturbations representing the flow in the boundary layers in the junction zones. These local perturbations are solutions of Leray problems in semi-infinite cylinders representing the rescaled junctions. The main novelty of this paper lies in the construction of these local perturbations as well as the derivation of the effective flow described above by singular Brinkman and Darcy laws on the fractal G with divergence-free velocity in a fractal sense specified in Definition 22 in Section 5.
The problem considered in this work has some implications for modeling the behavior of fluid flows in various complex geometrical configurations of branching tubes. An important field to which this model is closely related is the behavior of fluid flows in some physiological structures such as lung airways (see, for instance, [1] and [30]) the cardiovascular system and cerebral arteriovenous (see, for instance, [30], [31], and [32]). It has been shown that physiological branching networks exhibit fractal structures for minimal energy dissipation (see, for instance, [33] and [34]). In particular, blood vessels have self-similar structures with optimal transport property of their fractal networks (see, for instance, [35]). Blood has been treated in [31] as a homogeneous, incompressible, Newtonian viscous fluid, making the assumptions that the flow is steady and axisymmetric with sufficiently small Reynolds number so that the flow is laminar. The authors observed that the overall effect of the non-Newtonian characteristics would be small.
The present investigation on fractal branching flows provides some motivations in the haemodynamics. The blood vessels can be illustrated, under some simplifying assumptions, by the network Ωh of narrow branching tubes with laminar flow far ahead of the bifurcations and boundary layer flow near the bifurcations, where the local Reynolds number is the most effective factor controlling the flow throughout the whole network.
This paper is organized as follows. The statement of the problem is presented in Section 2, with a subsection reserved for the nomenclature and another devoted to the position of the problem. In Section 3, we formulate the main results of this work. In Section 4, we introduce the energy forms, the Kusuoka measures, and gradients on the Sierpinski gasket. Section 5 is devoted to some a priori estimates and compactness results. Section 6 is consecrated to the proof of the main results. A final conclusion is made in Section 7.
A1A2A3 | equilateral triangle of vertices A1=(0,0), A2=(1,0), A3=(1/2,√3/2) |
G | Sierpinski gasket built in the triangle A1A2A3 |
Gh | prefractal polygonal curve obtained after h-iterations of contractive similarities of G |
Vh | set of vertices of Gh |
Eh | set of edges of Gh |
V∞ | set of all vertices of G |
Tkh | kth triangle of Gh |
Ei,kh=[ai,kh,bi,kh] | ith edge of Tkh |
2−h | length of Ei,kh |
yi,kh,1, yi,kh,2 | local variables on Tkh |
εh | small positive number |
Πh,ik | ith tube of radius εh and of length 2−h−2εh surrounding Ei,kh |
Bhk(ai,kh) | small smooth branch junction of thickness of order 2εh centered at the vertex ai,kh |
Bhk(bi,kh) | small smooth branch junction of thickness of order 2εh centered at the vertex bi,kh |
Σh,ik,1 | interface between Bhk(ai,kh) and Πh,ik |
Σh,ik,2 | interface between Bhk(bi,kh) and Πh,ik |
Ωh,ik | pipe formed with Bhk(ai,kh), Bhk(bi,kh), Πh,ik, and the interfaces Σh,ik,α; α=1,2, between them |
Ωh | network of the interconnected pipes Ωh,ik |
Γh | external boundary of Ωh |
Jh,+,ik | small junction zone of length εhln(1/εh) located in the region yi,kh,1>0 |
Jh,−,ik | small junction zone of length εhln(1/εh) located in the region yi,kh,1<2−h |
Jh | union of the junction zones Jh,±,ik |
μ | fluid viscosity |
Rej,h | typical Reynolds number in Jh |
Reh | characteristic Reynolds number in Ωh |
Euh | characteristic Euler number in Ωh |
Frh | characteristic Froude number in Ωh |
5h3h+1 | scaling factor associated to the ramification of the network Ωh |
d | the fractal dimension of G |
Hd | d -dimensional Hausdorff measure on G |
L2Hd(G) | space of square integrable L2-functions with respect to the measure Hd |
EG | Dirichlet form in L2Hd(G) |
Z | random matrix |
div Z | divergence operator on G |
ν | Kusuoka measure |
J+±,i | semi infinite cylinders representing the rescaled junctions |
Let us consider the points of the plane xOy: A1=(0,0), A2=(1,0), and A3=(1/2,√3/2). Let us denote {ψi}i=1,2,3 as the family of contractive similitudes defined on R2 by
ψi(x)=x+Ai2, ∀x=(x1,x2)∈R2. | (2.1) |
Let V0={A1, A2, A3} be the set of vertices of the equilateral triangle A1A2A3. We define inductively
Vh+1=∪i=1,2,3ψi(Vh), | (2.2) |
for every h∈N, and set
V∞=∪h∈NVh. | (2.3) |
The Sierpinski gasket, which is denoted here by G, is defined as the closure of the set V∞
G=¯V∞. | (2.4) |
We consider the graph Gh=(Vh,Eh), where Eh is the set of edges [ah,bh]; ah,bh∈Vh, such that |ah−bh|=2−h; |ah−bh| being the Euclidean distance between ah and bh (see Figure 2). The graph Gh is then the standard approximation of the Sierpinski gasket, which means that the sequence (Gh)h converges, as h tends to ∞, in the Hausdorff metric, to the Sierpinski gasket G.
We denote Card(Vh) as the number of vertices of Vh. We can easily check that
Card(Vh)=3h+1+32, ∀h∈N. | (2.5) |
Let k∈{1,2,...,3h}. We denote Tkh as the kth triangle of the graph Gh obtained at the step h. Let nk be the unit normal to Tkh. Then, nk=(−√3/2,1/2), nk=(√3/2,1/2), or nk=(0,1). We denote E1,kh=[a1,kh,b1,kh] as the edge of Tkh, which is normal to nk=(0,1), E2,kh=[a2,kh,b2,kh] as the edge of Tkh, which is normal to nk=(−√3/2,1/2), and E3,kh=[a3,kh,b3,kh] as the edge of Tkh which is normal to nk=(√3/2,1/2) (see Figure 3).
Let us consider the following rotation matrices:
{R1=IdR3, R2=(1/2√3/20−√3/21/20001), R3=Rt2, | (2.6) |
IdR3 being the 3×3 identity matrix. We also define the change of variables yi,kh,1, yi,kh,2, x3; i=1,2,3, for every h∈N, every k∈{1,2,...,3h}, and every x=(x1,x2,x3)∈[ai,kh,bi,kh]×R, by
(yi,kh,1(x)yi,kh,2(x)x3)=Ri(x1−ai,kh,1x2−ai,kh,2x3). | (2.7) |
Let S be the unit disk of R2 centred at the origin. Let (εh)h∈N be a decreasing sequence of positive numbers, such that
limh→∞εh=limh→∞2hεhln(1/εh)=0. | (2.8) |
We define, for h∈N, k∈{1,2,...,3h}, and i=1,2,3, the tube Πh,ik by
Πh,ik={(x1,x2,x3)∈R3; εh<yi,kh,1(x)<2−h−εh, (yi,kh,2(x),x3)∈εhS}. | (2.9) |
We define the interfaces
{Σh,ik,1={(x1,x2,x3)∈R3; (yi,kh,2(x),x3)∈εhS, yi,kh,1(x)=εh }, Σh,ik,2={(x1,x2,x3)∈R3; (yi,kh,2(x),x3)∈εhS, yi,kh,1(x)=2−h−εh}, Σh,ik=Σh,ik,1∪Σh,ik,2. | (2.10) |
We then set
{Πh=3h∪k=1i=1,2,3Πh,ik, Σhα=3h∪k=1i=1,2,3Σh,ik,α; α=1,2, Σh=Σh1∪Σh2. | (2.11) |
We now define thin, smooth regions which ensure the junctions between the tubes Πh,ik. Let Bhk(ai,kh) and Bhk(bi,kh) be bounded open sets of thickness of order 2εh and centered at the points (ai,kh,1,ai,kh,2,0) and (bi,kh,1,bi,kh,2,0), respectively, such that ∂Bhk(ai,kh) and ∂Bhk(bi,kh) are C2-surfaces with
{∂Bhk(ai,kh)∩∂Πh=εhS, ∂Bhk(bi,kh)∩∂Πh=εhS, | (2.12) |
(see Figure 4).
We set
Bh=3h∪k=1i=1,2,3Bhk(ai,kh)∪Bhk(bi,kh). | (2.13) |
Let us define the pipe Ωh,ik; h∈N, k∈{1,2,...,3h}, and i=1,2,3, by
Ωh,ik=Πh,ik∪Σh,ik∪Bhk(ai,kh)∪Bhk(bi,kh). | (2.14) |
We consider the network Ωh of interconnected pipes and its external boundary Γh defined by
Ωh=Σh∪3h∪k=1i=1,2,3Ωh,ik, Γh=∂Ωh. | (2.15) |
We consider a viscous incompressible fluid flow in Ωh. We suppose that this flow is essentially laminar except in the set Jh of the junction zones, where the main characteristics of the flow and their influence on the fluid motion will be analyzed. On the basis of works [12] and [13], we define the set Jh as
Jh=3h∪k=1i=1,2,3Jh,+,ik∪Jh,−,ik, | (2.16) |
where, for every k∈{1,2,...,3h} and i=1,2,3,
Jh,+,ik={x=(x1,x2,x3)∈Ωh; 0<yi,kh,1(x)<εhln(1/εh)}, Jh,−,ik={x=(x1,x2,x3)∈Ωh; 2−h−εhln(1/εh)<yi,kh,1(x)<2−h}. | (2.17) |
Taking into account the typical scales in Ωh∖Jh, we suppose that the characteristic Reynolds number in these regions is of order 2−hμ. The characteristic Reynolds number in Ωh can be then defined as
Reh={Rej,hin Jh, 2−hμin Ωh∖Jh, | (2.18) |
where Rej,h is assumed to be a typical Reynolds number of the flow in the region Jh. According to [36], the product EuhReh of the characteristic Euler number Euh and the characteristic Reynolds number Reh is the ratio between the caracteristic pressure and viscosity. Then, assuming that the characteristic pressure is the ratio between a constant normal force and the surface of the disk εhS, we may write
RehEuh=1μπε2h. | (2.19) |
According to the above equality, we suppose that the characteristic Euler number Euh in the network Ωh takes the form
Euh=2hπε2h. | (2.20) |
On the other hand, as the diameter of any tube of the network Ωh is 2εh, we deduce, according to [37, page 98], that the ratio of the characteristic Froude number Frh to the characteristic Reynolds number Reh is of order ε2h. Accordingly, we suppose that the characteristic Froude number in Ωh has the following scaling:
Frh=2−hπε2h. | (2.21) |
Since the characteristic Reynolds number is small in Ωh∖Jh, we suppose that the inertia effects are negligible in the whole Ωh and the flow is governed by the following Stokes equations:
{ −1Reh5h3h+1Δuh+Euh 5h3h+1∇ph=1Frh5h3h+1fhin Ωh, div uh=0in Ωh, | (2.22) |
where 5h3h+1 is a scaling factor, which is associated to the ramification of the pre-fractal network Ωh and determined by the decimation principle (see [38] for more details on scaling exponents governing some physical phenomena in fractal media), the source term fh is the solution of the following problem posed in each tube Ωh,ik; k∈{1,2,...,3h} and i=1,2,3,
{div fh=ghin Ωh,ik, fh.n=0on ∂Ωh,ik, | (2.23) |
where n is the outward unit normal on ∂Ωh,ik and gh is a L2(Ωh) function such that
{ ∫Ωh,ikghdx=0, suph 5h|Ωh|∫Ωhg2hdx<+∞, | (2.24) |
|A| being the Lebesgue measure of the measurable and bounded subset A of R3. The boundary conditions (2.25) are given, for every i=1,2,3, by
{ uh=0on Γh, uh∣Σh1.Rie1=uh∣Σh2.Rie1on Σh, ∂ph∂n=0on Γh, | (2.25) |
where, in accordance with the divergence free of the velocity, the condition (2.25)2 ensures that the outward normal velocities are the same on the two interfaces Σh,ik,1 and Σh,ik,2, e1=(1,0,0), and ∂ph∂n is the normal derivative of the pressure on Γh; n being the outward unit normal on Γh.
Remark 1. The homogeneous Neumann boundary condition (2.25)3 on Γh is justified as follows. According to [39, Chapter II], thin boundary layers are concentrated in the immediate neighborhood of the wall Γh due to the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition for the velocity on Γh. The characteristic Reynolds number in these boundary layers, denoted here by Rew,h, is sufficiently large so that the viscous term 1Rew,hΔuh is negligible when one gets too close to the wall Γh. We deduce, according to [40, Remarks page 1119], that the boundary condition
Euh∂ph∂n=1Rew,hΔuh.n onΓh, |
obtained by taking into account equation (2.22)1 and the fact that fh.n=0 on Γh, can ostensibly be approximated by Euh∂ph∂n=0 on Γh, which implies that ∂ph∂n=0 on Γh.
Let us introduce the space Vh defined by
Vh={v∈H1(Ωh,R3); v∣Σh1.Rie1=v∣Σh2.Rie1; i=1,2,3, div v=0 in Ωh, v=0 on Γh}. | (2.26) |
We state here a result of existence and uniqueness of a solution for problem (2.22) with boundary conditions (2.25).
Lemma 1. Problem (2.22)–(2.25) has a unique velocity solution uh∈Vh and pressure solution ph∈H1(Ωh), which is unique up to an additive constant.
Proof. Applying the divergence operator to the first equation of problem (2.22), using (2.23)–(2.24)1 and the boundary condition (2.25)3, we deduce that the pressure verifies the Neumann boundary value problem
{ Δph=gh in Ωh, ∂ph∂n=0 on Γh. | (2.27) |
This problem has a solution ph∈H1(Ωh), which is unique up to an additive constant. On the other hand, as
Euh 5h3h+1∫Ωhv.∇ph=0, | (2.28) |
for every v∈Vh, the weak formulation of problem (2.22) can be written as, for every v∈Vh,
5h3h+1Reh∫Ωh∇uh.∇vdx=1Frh5h3h+1∫Ωhfh.vdx. | (2.29) |
Using the Poincaré inequality, we have
|∫Ωhfh.vdx|≤Ch{∫Ωh|∇v|2dx}1/2 , |
where Ch is a positive constant. Then, according to the Lax–Milgram theorem, we infer that problem (2.29) has a unique solution uh∈Vh.
Let us consider the functional Fh defined by
Fh(v)={5h3h+1Reh∫Ωh|∇v|2dxif v∈Vh, +∞otherwise. | (2.30) |
The velocity uh, solution of problem (2.29), is then the solution of the minimization problem
minv∈Vh{Fh(v)−21Frh5h3h+1∫Ωhfh.vdx}. | (2.31) |
One of the main purposes of this paper is to prove the Γ-convergence of the sequence of functionals (Fh)h to the functional F∞ defined in (1.1).
In this section we state our main results in this work. Let M(R3) be the space of Borel regular measures on R3. According to Proposition 8 in Section 5, we introduce the following topology τ:
Definition 1. We say that a sequence (vh)h; vh∈Vh, τ-converges to (v,v∗,v∗∗) if
√5hvhπ1Ωh(x)3|Ωh|dx∗⇀h→∞(v,v∗,v∗∗)dHd(s)⊗δ0(x3)Hd(G)inM(R3), |
where the symbol ∗⇀ stands for the weak*-convergence of measures.
We formulate our result on the Γ-convergence of the sequence of functionals (Fh)h in the following
Theorem 2. We suppose that σ∈(0,+∞). Then
1. (limsup inequality) For every v∈V∞, there exists a sequence (vh)h, with vh∈Vh and (vh)h τ-converges to (v,v∗,v∗∗), where v∗∗=0, v∗=0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to (0,1), v∗=v√3 on the part of G which is perpendicular to (−√3/2,1/2), and v∗=−v√3 on the part of G which is perpendicular to (√3/2,1/2), such that
limsuph→∞Fh(vh)≤F∞(v), |
where V∞ is defined in Definition 23 of Section 5 and F∞ is the functional energy defined in (1.1),
2. (liminf inequality) For every sequence (vh)h, such that vh∈Vh and (vh)h τ -converges to (v,v∗,v∗∗), we have v∈V∞, v∗∗=0 on G, v∗=0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to (0,1), v∗=v√3 on the part of G which is perpendicular to (−√3/2,1/2), v∗=−v√3 on the part of G which is perpendicular to (√3/2,1/2), and
liminfh→∞Fh(vh)≥F∞(v). |
We are now in a position to formulate the asymptotic problem.
Theorem 3. Let (uh,ph) be the solution of problem (2.22) with boundary conditions (2.25). Under the hypothesis of Theorem 2, we have
1. The sequence (uh)h τ-converges to (u,u∗,0), with u∈V∞, u∗=0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to (0,1), u∗=u√3 on the part of G which is perpendicular to (−√3/2,1/2), and u∗=−u√3 on the part of G which is perpendicular to (√3/2,1/2). There exists p∈HZ(G); HZ(G) being the space defined in Definition 2 1 of Section 5, and f=(f1,f2,0)∈L2Hd(G,R3), such that
{√5hˆphπ1Ωh(x)3|Ωh|dx∗⇀h→∞pdHd⊗δ0(x3)Hd(G)inM(R3), √5hfhπ1Ωh(x)3|Ωh|dx∗⇀h→∞fdHd⊗δ0(x3)Hd(G)inM(R3), limh→∞5h|Ωh|∫Ωhuh.∇ph=∫GuZ∇p.ndν=0, |
where n=(1,0) on the horizontal part G1 of G, n=(1/2,√3/2) on the part G2 of G which is perpendicular to (−√3/2,1/2), and n=(1/2,−√3/2) on the part G3 of G which is perpendicular to (√3/2,1/2),
2. The couple (u,p) is the solution of equation (1.4) stated in the Introduction.
In this subsection we introduce the notion of Dirichlet forms on the Sierpinski gasket. For the definition and properties of Dirichlet forms, we refer to [41] and [42].
For any function w:V∞⟶R, we define
EhG(w)=(53)h∑r,s∈Vh|r−s|=2−h(w(r)−w(s))2. | (4.1) |
We then define the energy EG on G by
EG(w)=limh→∞EhG(w), | (4.2) |
with domain D∞={w:V∞⟶R:EG(w)<∞}. According to [42, Theorem 2.2.6], every function w∈D∞ can be uniquely extended to be an element of C(G) still denoted by w. Let us set
D={w∈C(G):EG(w)<∞}, | (4.3) |
where EG(w)=EG(w∣V∞). Then, D⊂C(G)⊂L2Hd(G). We define the space DE as
DE=¯D‖ | (4.4) |
where \left\Vert.\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}}} is the intrinsic norm
\begin{equation} \left\Vert w\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}}} = \left\{ \mathcal{E} _{G}\left( w\right) +\left\Vert w\right\Vert _{L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left( G\right) }^{2}\right\} ^{1/2}\text{.} \end{equation} | (4.5) |
We denote \mathcal{E}_{G}\left(., .\right) as the bilinear form defined on \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}}\times \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} by
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{G}\left( w, z\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left( \mathcal{E}_{G}\left( w+z\right) -\mathcal{E}_{G}\left( w\right) -\mathcal{E}_{G}\left( z\right) \right) \text{, }\forall w, z\in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}}\text{, } \end{equation} | (4.6) |
from which we deduce, according to (4.2), that
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{G}\left( w, z\right) = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim } \mathcal{E}_{G}^{h}\left( w, z\right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (4.7) |
where
\begin{align} \mathcal{E}_{G}^{h}\left( w, z\right) = \left( \frac{5}{3}\right) ^{h}\underset {\underset{\left\vert r-s\right\vert = 2^{-h}}{r, s\in \mathcal{V}_{h}}}{\sum }\left( w\left( r\right) -w\left( s\right) \right) \left( z\left( r\right) -z\left( s\right) \right) . \end{align} | (4.8) |
The form \mathcal{E}_{G}\left(., .\right) is a closed Dirichlet form in the Hilbert space L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left(G\right) and, according to [43, Theorem 4.1], \mathcal{E}_{G}\left(., .\right) is a local regular Dirichlet form in L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left(G\right) . This means that
1. (local property) w, z\in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} with supp \left[ w\right] and supp \left[z\right] are disjoint compact sets \Longrightarrow \mathcal{E}_{G}\left(w, z\right) = 0 ,
2. (regularity) \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}}\cap C_{0}\left(G\right) is dense both in C_{0}\left(G\right) (the space of functions of C\left(G\right) with compact support) with respect to the uniform norm and in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} with respect to the intrinsic norm (4.5).
We deduce that \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} is injected in L_{\mathcal{H} ^{d}}^{2}\left(G\right) and is a Hilbert space with the scalar product associated to the norm (4.5). The second property implies that \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} is not trivial (that is, \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E} } is not made by only the constant functions). Moreover every function of \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} possesses a continuous representative. Indeed, according to [44, Theorem 6.3. and example 7 _{1} ], the space \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} is continuously embedded in the space C^{\beta }\left(G\right) of Hölder continuous functions with \beta = \ln \dfrac{5}{3}/\ln 4 .
Now, applying [45, Chap. 6], we have the following result:
Lemma 4. There exists a unique self-adjoint nonpositive operator \Delta _{G} on L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left(G\right) with domain
\begin{equation*} \mathcal{D}_{\Delta _{G}} = \left\{ w\in L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left( G\right) \text{; }\Delta _{G}w\in L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left( G\right) \right\} \subset \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} \end{equation*} |
dense in L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left(G\right) , such that, for every w\in \mathcal{D}_{\Delta _{G}} and z\in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} ,
\begin{equation*} \mathcal{E}_{G}\left( w, z\right) = -\int_{G}\left( \Delta _{G}w\right) z \frac{d\mathcal{H}^{d}}{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\text{.} \end{equation*} |
In this subsection we define the Kusuoka measure and the gradient on the Sierpinski gasket G . For the definitions and properties of Kusuoka measures and gradients on fractals, we refer to [46,47,48,49].
Let \varrho :\mathcal{V}_{\infty }\longrightarrow \mathbb{R} . Then, according to [42, Proposition 3.2.1], there exists a unique \mathfrak{h}\in \mathcal{D}_{\infty } such that \mathfrak{h}|_{\mathcal{V} _{0}} = \varrho and
\begin{equation*} \mathcal{E}_{G}\left( \mathfrak{h}\right) = \inf \left\{ \mathcal{E} _{G}\left( v\right) \text{; }v\in \mathcal{D}_{\infty }\text{, }v|_{\mathcal{ V}_{0}} = \varrho \right\} \text{, } \end{equation*} |
where \mathfrak{h} is called the harmonic function in G with boundary value \mathfrak{h}|_{\mathcal{V}_{0}} = \varrho . On each \mathcal{V}_{h} , h \in \mathbb{N}^{\ast } , a harmonic function \mathfrak{h} verifies
\begin{equation} \left( \mathfrak{h\circ \psi }_{i_{1}...i_{h}}\right) |_{\mathcal{V} _{0}} = T_{i_{1}...i_{h}}\left( \mathfrak{h}|_{\mathcal{V}_{0}}\right) \text{; }i_{1}, ..., i_{h}\in \left\{ 1, 2, 3\right\} \text{, } \end{equation} | (4.9) |
(see [42, Proposition 3.2.1]), where \mathfrak{\psi } _{i_{1}...i_{h}} = \mathfrak{\psi }_{i_{_{1}}}\circ \cdots \circ \mathfrak{ \psi }_{i_{h}} and T_{i_{1}...i_{h}} = T_{i_{1}}...T_{i_{h}} with
\begin{equation*} T_{1} = \frac{1}{5}\left[ \begin{array}{lll} 5 & 0 & 0 \\ 2 & 2 & 1 \\ 2 & 1 & 2 \end{array} \right] \text{, }T_{2} = \frac{1}{5}\left[ \begin{array}{lll} 2 & 2 & 1 \\ 0 & 5 & 0 \\ 1 & 2 & 2 \end{array} \right] \text{, }T_{3} = \frac{1}{5}\left[ \begin{array}{lll} 2 & 1 & 2 \\ 1 & 2 & 2 \\ 0 & 0 & 5 \end{array} \right] \text{.} \end{equation*} |
Let M_{0} = \left\{ (x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3})\in \mathbb{R}^{3}\text{; } x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3} = 0\right\} . Kigami [46] introduced the map \Phi :G\longrightarrow M_{0} defined by
\begin{equation*} \Phi \left( x\right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \left( \begin{array}{c} \mathfrak{h}_{1}\left( x\right) \\ \mathfrak{h}_{2}\left( x\right) \\ \mathfrak{h}_{3}\left( x\right) \end{array} \right) -\frac{1}{3}\left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 1 \\ 1 \end{array} \right) \right) \text{, } \end{equation*} |
with \mathfrak{h}_{i}\left(A_{j}\right) = \delta _{ij} for A_{j}\in \mathcal{V}_{0} , where \delta _{ij} is, for i, j = 1, 2, 3 , the Kronecker delta symbol. We have the following.
Proposition 5. [47, Proposition 4.4] If G_{H} = \Phi \left(G\right) , then \Phi is a homeomorphism between G and G_{H} . Moreover, define H_{i}:M_{0}\longrightarrow M_{0} ; i = 1, 2, 3 , by
\begin{equation*} H_{i}\left( x\right) = T_{i}^{t}\left( x-\Phi \left( A_{i}\right) \right) +\Phi \left( A_{i}\right) \text{, } \end{equation*} |
then G_{H} = \underset{i = 1, 2, 3}{\mathop{\cup }}H_{i}\left(G_{H}\right) and \Phi \circ \psi _{i} = H_{i}\circ \Phi for any i = 1, 2, 3 .
G_{H} is called the harmonic Sierpinski gasket, which is the self-similar set associated with the collection of contractions \left\{ H_{1}, H_{2}, H_{3}\right\} on M_{0} . Let P be the projection from \mathbb{R}^{3} into M_{0} defined, for every x = (x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3})\in \mathbb{R}^{3} , by
\begin{equation} Px = \left( \begin{array}{c} x_{1} \\ x_{2} \\ x_{3} \end{array} \right) -\frac{(x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3})}{3}\left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 1 \\ 1 \end{array} \right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (4.10) |
According to [48], the Kusuoka measure {\boldsymbol{\nu}} on G is the unique Borel probability measure defined by
\begin{equation} {\boldsymbol{\nu}} \left( G_{i_{1}...i_{h}}\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{5}{3}\right) ^{h}tr\left( T_{i_{1}...i_{h}}^{t}PT_{i_{1}...i_{h}}\right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (4.11) |
where G_{i_{1}...i_{h}} = \mathfrak{\psi }_{i_{1}...i_{h}}\left(G\right) . Let us define
\begin{equation} I = \left\{ \omega = i_{1}i_{2}...\text{/ }i_{n}\in \left\{ 1, 2, 3\right\} \text{ for any }n\in \mathbb{N}^{\ast }\right\} \text{, } \end{equation} | (4.12) |
and \pi :I\longrightarrow G such that \mathfrak{\psi }_{j}\circ \pi \left(\omega \right) = \pi \left(j\omega \right) , for j = 1, 2, 3 . For any \omega \in I , there exists a unique x\in G such that
\begin{equation} \left\{ x\right\} = \underset{h\in \mathbb{N}^{\ast }}{\mathop{\cap }}G_{i_{1}...i_{h}}\text{ and } \pi \left( \omega \right) = x\text{.} \end{equation} | (4.13) |
We now define, by abuse of notation, the Kusuoka measure {\boldsymbol{\nu}} on I (see, for instance, [49]) as the pullback of the Kusuoka measure {\boldsymbol{\nu}} on G under the projection map \pi , that is
\begin{equation} {\boldsymbol{\nu}} \left( \pi ^{-1}\left( .\right) \right) = {\boldsymbol{\nu}} \left( .\right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (4.14) |
Let us set
\begin{equation} Z\left( i_{1}...i_{h}\right) = \frac{T_{i_{1}...i_{h}}^{t}PT_{i_{1}...i_{h}}}{ tr\left( T_{i_{1}...i_{h}}^{t}PT_{i_{1}...i_{h}}\right) }\text{.} \end{equation} | (4.15) |
Then, according to [48], for {\boldsymbol{\nu}} -almost all \omega , there exists a limit
\begin{equation} Z\left( \omega \right) = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }Z\left( i_{1}...i_{h}\right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (4.16) |
Let Z\left(x\right) \equiv Z\left(\pi ^{-1}\left(x\right) \right) . Then, Z\left(x\right) is well defined on \mathcal{V}_{\infty } (see for instance [47]). Indeed, according to [49, Theorem 3.6], for {\boldsymbol{\nu}}- almost all x\in G ,
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} Z\left( \pi ^{-1}\left( x\right) \right) & = & Z\left( \omega \right) \\ & = & \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }Z_{h}\left( i_{1}...i_{h}\right) \text{, } \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.17) |
where
\begin{equation} Z_{h}\left( i_{1}...i_{h}\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{5}{3}\right) ^{h} \frac{T_{i_{1}...i_{h}}^{t}PT_{i_{1}...i_{h}}}{ {\boldsymbol{\nu}} \left( G_{i_{1}...i_{h}}\right) }\text{.} \end{equation} | (4.18) |
Let U be an open subset of M_{0} containing G_{H} . Let us define
\begin{equation} C^{1}\left( G\right) = \left\{ u;u = \left( v\mid _{G_{H}}\right) \circ \Phi \text{, }v\text{ }\in C^{1}\left( U\right) \text{ }\right\} . \end{equation} | (4.19) |
According to [47], if we fix an orthonormal basis of M_{0} and regard M_{0} as \mathbb{R}^{2} , then, for any u\in C^{1}\left(G\right) ,
\begin{equation} \nabla u = \left( \begin{array}{c} \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial x_{1}} \\ \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial x_{2}} \end{array} \right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (4.20) |
We have the following.
Theorem 6. [47, Theorem 4.8] C^{1}\left(G\right) is a dense subset of \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} under the norm
\begin{equation*} \left\Vert u\right\Vert = \sqrt{\mathcal{E}_{G}\left( u, u\right) }+\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{\infty }\text{, } \end{equation*} |
and, for any u, v\in C^{1}\left(G\right) ,
\begin{equation*} \mathcal{E}_{G}\left( u, v\right) = \int_{G}\nabla u.Z\nabla vd{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \text{.} \end{equation*} |
In this section, we establish some a priori estimates and compactness results which will be useful for the proof of the main results.
Lemma 7. Let v^{h}\in V^{h} , such that \sup_{h}F_{h}\left(v^{h}\right) < \infty . If \sigma \in \left(0, +\infty \right) then
\begin{equation*} \sup\limits_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{ \Omega ^{h}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty \text{.} \end{equation*} |
Proof. The proof follows from the Poincaré inequality in a bounded domain with the Dirichlet boundary condition on a part of the boundary and a scaling argument. Let us define, for every k\in \left\{ 1, 2, ..., 3^{h}\right\} and i = 1, 2, 3 ,
\begin{equation*} U_{k}^{h, i} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y, z\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{3}\text{; }y_{h, 1}^{i, k}\in \left( \varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) , 2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) \right) \\ \left( y, z\right) \in S \end{array} \right\} \text{.} \end{equation*} |
Let \varphi \in C^{1}\left(U_{k}^{h, i}\right) , such that \varphi = 0 on \partial U_{k}^{h, i}\cap \partial S . Using the Poincaré inequality, we infer that, for every y_{h, 1}^{i, k}\in \left(\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left(1/\varepsilon _{h}\right), 2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left(1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) \right) ,
\begin{equation*} \int_{S}\varphi ^{2}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y, z\right) dydz\leq C\int_{S}\left\vert \nabla _{y, z}\varphi \left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y, z\right) \right\vert ^{2}dydz\text{, } \end{equation*} |
where C is a positive constant independent of h and
\begin{equation*} \nabla _{y, z}\varphi \left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y, z\right) = \left( \begin{array}{c} \dfrac{\partial \varphi }{\partial y}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y, z\right) \\ \\ \dfrac{\partial \varphi }{\partial z}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y, z\right) \end{array} \right) \text{.} \end{equation*} |
Now, introducing the scaling y_{h, 2}^{i, k} = \varepsilon _{h}y , x_{3} = \varepsilon _{h}z , and integrating with respect to y_{h, 1}^{i, k} between \varepsilon _{h}\ln \left(1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) and 2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left(1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) , we get
\begin{equation*} \left. \begin{array}{l} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }\int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}\varphi ^{2}dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}dy_{h, 2}^{i, k}dx_{3} \\ \leq C\varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int_{\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }\int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}\left\vert \nabla \varphi \right\vert ^{2}dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}dy_{h, 2}^{i, k}dx_{3}\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} |
from which we deduce, using the change of variables (2.7), that, for every v^{h}\in V^{h} ,
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}\backslash \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}\cup \mathcal{J} _{k}^{h, -, i}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\leq C\varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}\backslash \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}\cup \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, -, i}}\left\vert \nabla v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\text{.} \end{equation} | (5.1) |
We can use the same method in \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}\cup \mathcal{J} _{k}^{h, -, i} to obtain
\begin{equation} \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}\cup \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, -, i}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\leq C\varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int_{\mathcal{J} _{k}^{h, +, i}\cup \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, -, i}}\left\vert \nabla v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\text{.} \end{equation} | (5.2) |
The combination of (5.1) and (5.2) implies that
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\leq C\varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert \nabla v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.3) |
Then, summing over i and k in (5.3), we obtain that
\begin{equation} \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}^{2}\text{Re}_{h}}\int\nolimits_{ \Omega ^{h}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\leq C\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1} \text{Re}_{h}}\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\text{.} \end{equation} | (5.4) |
As \sigma \in \left(0, +\infty \right) , we have that
\begin{equation*} \text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}}, h}\leq C\varepsilon _{h}\leq C2^{-h}\text{, } \end{equation*} |
from which we deduce that 2^{h}\leq C \dfrac{1}{\text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}}, h}} in \mathcal{J}^{h} . Thus, using (5.4),
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}^{2}2^{-h}}\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx & \leq & \dfrac{5^{h}}{ 3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}^{2}\text{Re}_{h}}\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ & \leq & CF_{h}\left( v^{h}\right) \text{.} \end{array} \end{equation} | (5.5) |
Observing that 3^{h}\varepsilon _{h}^{2}2^{-h}\approx \dfrac{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }{\pi } , we conclude that
\begin{equation} \sup\limits_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{ \Omega ^{h}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\leq C\sup\limits_{h}F_{h}\left( v^{h}\right) < +\infty \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.6) |
We have the following result:
Proposition 8. Let \boldsymbol{1}_{\Omega ^{h}} be the characteristic function of the set \Omega ^{h} . Let v^{h}\in V^{h} , such that \sup_{h}F_{h}\left(v^{h}\right) < +\infty . If \sigma \in \left(0, +\infty \right) , then there exists a subsequence of \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} , still denoted as \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} , such that
\begin{equation*} \sqrt{5^{h}}v^{h}\dfrac{\pi \boldsymbol{1}_{\Omega ^{h}}\left( x\right) }{ 3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }dx\overset{\ast }{\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\rightharpoonup }}v\dfrac{d\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( s\right) \otimes \delta _{0}\left( x_{3}\right) }{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\text{ in } \mathcal{M}\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) \text{, } \end{equation*} |
where v = \left(v_{1}, v_{2}, v_{3}\right) \in L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left(G, \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) with v_{3} = 0 on G , v_{2} = 0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(0, 1\right) , v_{2} = v_{1}\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(-\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and v_{2} = -v_{1}\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) .
Proof. Let us consider the sequence of measures \left(\vartheta _{h}\right) _{h} on \mathbb{R}^{3} defined by
\begin{equation*} \vartheta _{h} = \frac{\pi \boldsymbol{1}_{\Omega ^{h}}\left( x\right) }{ 3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }dx\text{.} \end{equation*} |
Using an ergodicity argument (see, for instance, [50, Theorem 6.1]), we deduce that, for every \varphi \in C_{0}\left(\mathbb{R}^{3}\right) ,
\begin{align*} \begin{array}{lll} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\varphi \left( x\right) d\vartheta _{h} & = & \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim } \mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \dfrac{1}{3^{h+1}} \varphi \left( \dfrac{a_{h}^{i, k}+b_{h}^{i, k}}{2}, 0\right) \\ & = & \dfrac{1}{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}\varphi \left( s, 0\right) d\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( s\right) \text{, } \end{array} \end{align*} |
from which we deduce that
\begin{equation*} \vartheta _{h}\overset{\ast }{\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{ \rightharpoonup }}\vartheta = \boldsymbol{1}_{G}\left( s\right) \dfrac{d \mathcal{H}^{d}\left( s\right) \otimes \delta _{0}\left( x_{3}\right) }{ \mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }. \end{equation*} |
Let v^{h}\in L^{2}\left(\Omega ^{h}, \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) , such that \sup_{h}F_{h}\left(v^{h}\right) < +\infty . If \sigma \in \left(0, +\infty \right) then, according to Lemma 7,
\begin{equation} \sup\limits_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{ \Omega ^{h}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.7) |
Observing that, for some positive constant C independent of h ,
\begin{equation*} \begin{array}{lll} \left\vert \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\sqrt{5^{h}}v^{h}d\vartheta _{h}\right\vert ^{2} & \leq & C5^{h}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}d\vartheta _{h} \\ & & \\ & \leq & \dfrac{C5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert } \int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\text{, } \end{array} \end{equation*} |
and, by taking into account (5.7), we deduce that the sequence \left(\sqrt{ 5^{h}}v^{h}\vartheta _{h}\right) _{h} is uniformly bounded in variation, hence \ast -weakly relatively compact. Possibly passing to a subsequence, we can suppose that the sequence \left(\sqrt{5^{h}}v^{h}\vartheta _{h}\right) _{h} \ast -weakly converges to some \chi . Let \varphi \in C_{0}\left(\mathbb{R}^{3}, \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) . By using Fenchel's inequality, we have
\begin{equation*} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \inf }\dfrac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R} ^{3}}\left\vert \sqrt{5^{h}}v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}d\vartheta _{h} \\ \geq \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \inf }\left( \int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \sqrt{5^{h}}v^{h}.\varphi d\vartheta _{h}-\dfrac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R} ^{3}}\left\vert \varphi \right\vert ^{2}d\vartheta _{h}\right) \\ \geq \langle \chi , \varphi \rangle -\dfrac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R} ^{3}}\left\vert \varphi \right\vert ^{2}d\vartheta \text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} |
As the left-hand side of this inequality is bounded, we deduce that
\begin{equation*} \sup \left\{ \langle \chi , \varphi \rangle \text{; }\varphi \in C_{0}\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}, \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) \text{, } \int_{G}\left\vert \varphi \right\vert ^{2}\left( s, 0\right) d\mathcal{H} ^{d}\left( s\right) \leq 1\right\} < +\infty \text{, } \end{equation*} |
from which we deduce, according to Riesz' representation Theorem, that there exists v such that v\left(s, 0\right) \in L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left(G, \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) and \chi = v\left(s, x_{3}\right) \vartheta .
Let us introduce the function v^{h, i} ; i = 1, 2, 3 , related to v^{h} by
\begin{equation} v^{h, i}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y_{h, 2}^{i, k}, x_{3}\right) = \mathcal{R} _{i}v^{h}\circ \mathcal{R}_{i}^{t}\left( \left( \begin{array}{c} y_{h, 1}^{i, k} \\ y_{h, 2}^{i, k} \\ x_{3} \end{array} \right) +\mathcal{R}_{i}\left( \begin{array}{c} a_{h, 1}^{i, k} \\ a_{h, 2}^{i, k} \\ 0 \end{array} \right) \right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (5.8) |
where y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y_{h, 2}^{i, k}, x_{3} are the variables defined in (2.7). We can easily prove, after some computations that for every i = 1, 2, 3 ,
\begin{equation} \text{div }_{y}v^{h, i} = \text{div }v^{h}\text{, } \end{equation} | (5.9) |
where \text{div }_{y} is the divergence operator in the variables y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y_{h, 2}^{i, k}, x_{3} . On the other hand, as \Pi _{k}^{h, i} is a cylinder of revolution, we can introduce the cylindrical coordinates y_{h, 1}^{i, k}\equiv y_{h, 1}^{i, k} , y_{h, 2}^{i, k} = r\cos \theta , x_{3} = r\sin \theta , and the polar components of v^{h, i} defined by
\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} v_{1}^{h, i}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, r, \theta \right) & = & v_{1}^{h, i}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, r\cos \theta , r\sin \theta \right) \text{, } \\ v_{r}^{h, i}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, r, \theta \right) & = & \left( v_{2}^{h, i}\cos \theta +v_{3}^{h, i}\sin \theta \right) \left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, r\cos \theta , r\sin \theta \right) \text{, } \\ v_{\theta }^{h, i}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, r, \theta \right) & = & \left( -v_{2}^{h, i}\sin \theta +v_{3}^{h, i}\cos \theta \right) \left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, r\cos \theta , r\sin \theta \right) \text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.10) |
Let \widetilde{v}^{h, i} = \left(v_{1}^{h, i}, v_{r}^{h, i}, v_{\theta }^{h, i}\right) . The divergence of \widetilde{v}^{h, i} in cylindrical coordinates is given by
\begin{equation} \text{div }_{r}\left( \widetilde{v}^{h, i}\right) = \frac{\partial v_{1}^{h, i}}{ \partial y_{h, 1}^{i, k}}+\frac{v_{r}^{h, i}}{r}+\frac{\partial v_{r}^{h, i}}{ \partial r}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial v_{\theta }^{h, i}}{\partial \theta } \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.11) |
Since \text{div }v^{h} = 0 , we deduce from (5.9) and (5.11) that
\begin{equation} \text{div }_{y}v^{h, i} = \text{div }_{r}\left( \widetilde{v}^{h, i}\right) = 0. \end{equation} | (5.12) |
Using the boundary condition (2.25) _{2} , we have, for every h\in \mathbb{N} ,
\begin{equation} v_{1}^{h, i}\left( \varepsilon _{h}, r, \theta \right) -v_{1}^{h, i}\left( 2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}, r, \theta \right) = 0\text{, } \end{equation} | (5.13) |
from which we deduce, using Green's formula, that, for \psi \in C_{c}^{\infty }\left(0, 2\pi \right) and \varphi \left(\theta \right) = \int_{0}^{\theta }\psi \left(\xi \right) d\xi with \varphi \left(2\pi \right) = 0 ,
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}}^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi }\dfrac{\partial v_{1}^{h, i}}{\partial y_{h, 1}^{i, k}} \varphi \left( \theta \right) rdy_{h, 1}^{i, k}drd\theta \\ = -\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi }\underset{i = 1, 2, 3}{\underset{ k = 1}{\overset{3^{h}}{\mathop{\sum }}}}\left( v_{1}^{h, i}\left( \varepsilon _{h}, r, \theta \right) -v_{1}^{h, i}\left( 2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}, r, \theta \right) \right) \varphi \left( \theta \right) rdrd\theta \\ = 0\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.14) |
Since \text{div }_{r}\left(\widetilde{v}^{h, i}\right) = 0 , we deduce from formula (5.11), according to (5.14), that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \dfrac{2^{h}\sqrt{5^{h}}}{3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}}^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi }v_{r}^{h, i}\varphi \left( \theta \right) dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}drd\theta \\ +\dfrac{2^{h}\sqrt{5^{h}}}{3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}}^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi } \dfrac{\partial v_{r}^{h, i}}{\partial r}\varphi \left( \theta \right) rdy_{h, 1}^{i, k}drd\theta \\ +\dfrac{2^{h}\sqrt{5^{h}}}{3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}}^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi } \dfrac{\partial v_{\theta }^{h, i}}{\partial \theta }\varphi \left( \theta \right) dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}drd\theta \\ = 0\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.15) |
Using Green's formula, we deduce that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}}^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi }\dfrac{\partial v_{r}^{h, i}}{\partial r}\varphi \left( \theta \right) rdy_{h, 1}^{i, k}drd\theta \\ = -\int_{\varepsilon _{h}}^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi }v_{r}^{h, i}\varphi \left( \theta \right) dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}drd\theta \text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.16) |
and
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}}^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi }\dfrac{\partial v_{\theta }^{h, i}}{\partial \theta } \varphi \left( \theta \right) dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}drd\theta \\ = -\int_{\varepsilon _{h}}^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi }v_{\theta }^{h, i}\psi \left( \theta \right) dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}drd\theta \text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.17) |
Combining with (5.15), we deduce that
\begin{equation} \dfrac{2^{h}\sqrt{5^{h}}}{3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}}^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi }v_{\theta }^{h, i}\psi \left( \theta \right) dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}drd\theta = 0\text{ .} \end{equation} | (5.18) |
Recalling that v_{\theta }^{h, i} = -v_{2}^{h, i}\sin \theta +v_{3}^{h, i}\cos \theta and v_{3}^{h, i} = v_{3}^{h} , and using the first part of this Lemma, we obtain that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{2^{h}\sqrt{5^{h}}}{ 3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}}^{2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{\varepsilon _{h}}\int_{0}^{2\pi }v_{\theta }^{h, i}\psi \left( \theta \right) dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}drd\theta \\ = \dfrac{1}{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}\int_{0}^{2\pi }\left( -w\left( s\right) \sin \theta +v_{3}\left( s\right) \cos \theta \right) \psi \left( \theta \right) dsd\theta = 0\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.19) |
where
\begin{equation} w\left( s\right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} v_{2}\left( s\right) & \text{on }G_{1}\text{, } \\ -v_{1}\left( s\right) \sqrt{3}+v_{2}\left( s\right) & \text{on }G_{2}\text{, } \\ v_{1}\left( s\right) \sqrt{3}+v_{2}\left( s\right) & \text{on }G_{3}\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.20) |
where G_{1} is the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(0, 1\right) , G_{2} is the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(- \sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and G_{3} is the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) . We deduce from (5.19) that -w\left(s\right) \sin \theta +v_{3}\left(s\right) \cos \theta = 0 for every \theta \in \left(0, 2\pi \right) , thus w = v_{3} = 0 on G . Therefore, combining with (5.20), v_{2} = 0 on G_{1} , v_{2} = v_{1} \sqrt{3} on G_{2} , and v_{2} = -v_{1}\sqrt{3} on G_{3} .
Proposition 9. We suppose that \sigma \in \left(0, +\infty \right) . Let v^{h}\in V^{h}\cap H^{2}\left(\Omega ^{h}, \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) , such that \sup_{h}F_{h}\left(v^{h}\right) < +\infty . Then, for every sequence \left(\varphi _{h}\right) _{h} , such that \varphi _{h}\in H^{1}\left(\Omega ^{h}\right) and
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \sup\limits_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla \varphi _{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty \text{ , } \\ \sqrt{5^{h}}\varphi _{h}\dfrac{\pi \boldsymbol{1}_{\Omega ^{h}}\left( x\right) }{3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }dx\overset{\ast }{\underset{ h\rightarrow \infty }{\rightharpoonup }}\varphi \dfrac{d\mathcal{H} ^{d}\left( s\right) \otimes \delta _{0}\left( x_{3}\right) }{\mathcal{H} ^{d}\left( G\right) }\;{ in }\;\mathcal{M}\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) \text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.21) |
we have
1. \varphi \left(s, 0\right) \in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} and \int_{G}\nabla \varphi.Z\nabla \varphi d{\boldsymbol{\nu}} < +\infty ,
2. there exists a subsequence of \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} , still denoted as \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} , and v\in L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left(G\right) , such that
\begin{equation*} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}v^{h}.\nabla \varphi _{h}dx = \int_{G}vn.Z\nabla \varphi d{\boldsymbol{\nu}} = 0\text{, } \end{equation*} |
where n = \left(1, 0\right) on the horizontal part of G , n = \left(1/2, \sqrt{3}/2\right) on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(- \sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and n = \left(1/2, -\sqrt{3}/2\right) on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) .
Proof. 1. Let us define, for every k\in \left\{ 1, 2, ..., 3^{h}\right\} and i = 1, 2, 3 ,
\begin{equation} \varphi _{h}^{i}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y_{h, 2}^{i, k}, x_{3}\right) = \varphi _{h}\circ \mathcal{R}_{i}^{t}\left( \left( \begin{array}{c} y_{h, 1}^{i, k} \\ y_{h, 2}^{i, k} \\ x_{3} \end{array} \right) +\mathcal{R}_{i}\left( \begin{array}{c} a_{h, 1}^{i, k} \\ a_{h, 2}^{i, k} \\ 0 \end{array} \right) \right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (5.22) |
and
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} {\ }\widetilde{\varphi }_{h}^{i}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}\right) = \dfrac{1}{ \pi \varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}\varphi _{h}^{i}\left( y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y_{h, 2}^{i, k}, x_{3}\right) dy_{h, 2}^{i, k}dx_{3} \\ = \dfrac{1}{\pi \varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}\varphi _{h}\left( \mathcal{R}_{i}^{t}\left( \begin{array}{c} y_{h, 1}^{i, k} \\ y_{h, 2}^{i, k} \\ x_{3} \end{array} \right) +\left( \begin{array}{c} a_{h, 1}^{i, k} \\ a_{h, 2}^{i, k} \\ 0 \end{array} \right) \right) dy_{h, 2}^{i, k}dx_{3}\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.23) |
where y_{h, 1}^{i, k}, y_{h, 2}^{i, k}, x_{3} are the change of variables defined in (2.7). Then
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla \varphi _{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx = \dfrac{5^{h}}{ \left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert \nabla \varphi _{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ \geq \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{0}^{2^{-h}}\dfrac{2^{h}}{\pi \varepsilon _{h}^{2}} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}\left( \dfrac{\partial \varphi _{h}^{i}}{\partial y_{h, 1}^{i, k}}\right) ^{2}dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}dy_{h, 2}^{i, k}dx_{3}{ \ } \\ \geq \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \dfrac{1}{\pi \varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}\left( \int_{0}^{2^{-h}}\dfrac{\partial \varphi _{h}^{i}}{\partial y_{h, 1}^{i, k}} dy_{h, 1}^{i, k}\right) ^{2}dy_{h, 2}^{i, k}dx_{3} \\ = \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \dfrac{1}{\pi \varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}\left( \varphi _{h}^{i}\left( 2^{-h}, y_{h, 2}^{i, k}, x_{3}\right) -\varphi _{h}^{i}\left( 0, y_{h, 2}^{i, k}, x_{3}\right) \right) ^{2}dy_{h, 2}^{i, k}dx_{3} \\ \geq \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \left( \dfrac{1}{\pi \varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}\left( \varphi _{h}^{i}\left( 2^{-h}, y_{h, 2}^{i, k}, x_{3}\right) -\varphi _{h}^{i}\left( 0, y_{h, 2}^{i, k}, x_{3}\right) \right) dy_{h, 2}^{i, k}dx_{3}\right) ^{2} \\ = \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \left( \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}^{i}\left( 2^{-h}\right) -\widetilde{ \varphi }_{h}^{i}\left( 0\right) \right) ^{2} \\ = \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \left( \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) - \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\left( b_{h}^{i, k}\right) \right) ^{2} \\ = \mathcal{E}_{G}\left( \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\right) \text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.24) |
where \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) = \widetilde{ \varphi }_{h}^{i}\left(y_{h, 1}^{i, k}\right) for \left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) \in \left[a_{h}^{i, k}, b_{h}^{i, k}\right] . We now introduce the harmonic extension of \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\mid _{\mathcal{ V}_{h}} obtained by the so-called decimation procedure (see, for instance, [51, Corollary1]). We define the function H_{h+1} \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}:\mathcal{V}_{h+1}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R} as the unique minimizer of the problem
\begin{equation} \min \left\{ \mathcal{E}_{G}^{h+1}\left( w\right) \text{; }w:\mathcal{V} _{h+1}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}\text{, }w = \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\text{ on }\mathcal{V}_{h}\right\} \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.25) |
Then \mathcal{E}_{G}^{h+1}\left(H_{h+1}\widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\right) = \mathcal{E}_{G}^{h}\left(\widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\right) . For m > h , we define the function H_{m}\widetilde{\varphi }_{h} from \mathcal{V}_{m} into \mathbb{R}^{2} by
\begin{equation*} H_{m}\widetilde{\varphi }_{h} = H_{m}\left( H_{m-1}\left( ...\left( H_{h+1} \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\right) \right) \right) \text{.} \end{equation*} |
We have, for every m > h , H_{m}\widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\mid _{\mathcal{V} _{h}} = \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\mid _{\mathcal{V}_{h}} and
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{G}^{m}\left( H_{m}\widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\right) = \mathcal{E} _{G}^{h}\left( \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.26) |
We define now, for fixed h\in \mathbb{N} , the function H\widetilde{ \varphi }_{h} on \mathcal{V}_{\infty } as follows. For a\in \mathcal{V} _{\infty } , we choose m\geq h such that a\in \mathcal{V}_{m} and set
\begin{equation} H\widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\left( a\right) = H_{m}\widetilde{\varphi } _{h}\left( a\right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.27) |
As \sup_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla \varphi _{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty , we have, according to (5.24), (5.26), and (5.27),
\begin{equation} \sup\limits_{h}\mathcal{E}_{G}\left( H\widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\right) = \sup\limits_{h} \mathcal{E}_{G}^{h}\left( \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\right) < +\infty \text{, } \end{equation} | (5.28) |
from which we deduce, using Section 4 , that H\widetilde{\varphi }_{h} has a unique continuous extension on G , still denoted as H\widetilde{ \varphi }_{h} , and that the sequence \left(H\widetilde{\varphi } _{h}\right) _{h} is bounded in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} . Therefore, there exists a subsequence, still denoted as \left(H\widetilde{\varphi } _{h}\right) _{h} , weakly converging in the Hilbert space \mathcal{D}_{ \mathcal{E}} to some \varphi ^{\ast }\in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} , such that
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{G}\left( \varphi ^{\ast }\right) \leq \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\text{ }\lim \inf }\mathcal{E}_{G}\left( H\widetilde{\varphi } _{h}\right) \leq \text{ }\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \inf }\mathcal{ E}_{G}^{h}\left( \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.29) |
On the other hand, using the hypothesis (5.21) _{2} , we have that
\begin{equation} \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\sqrt{5^{h}}\dfrac{2^{h}\boldsymbol{1}_{T^{h}}\left( x\right) }{3^{h+1}}dx\overset{\ast }{\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{ \rightharpoonup }}\varphi \left( s, 0\right) \dfrac{d\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( s\right) }{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\text{ in }\mathcal{M}\left( \mathbb{R}^{2}\right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (5.30) |
where T^{h} = \overset{3^{h}}{\underset{k = 1}{\mathop{\cup }}}T_{h}^{k} ; T_{h}^{k} being the k^{th} triangle obtained at the step k in the construction of the fractal G . We deduce from this that, for every \psi \in C_{0}\left(G\right) ,
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{1}{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}H\widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\psi d\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( s\right) & = & \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \widetilde{\varphi }_{h}\psi d\upsilon _{h} \\ & = & \dfrac{1}{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}\varphi \left( s, 0\right) \psi d\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( s\right) \text{, } \end{array} \end{equation} | (5.31) |
where \left(\upsilon _{h}\right) _{h} is the sequence of measures defined by
\begin{equation} \upsilon _{h} = \frac{1}{Card\left( \mathcal{V}_{h}\right) }\mathop \sum \limits_{a \in {\mathcal{V}_h}}\delta _{a}\text{, } \end{equation} | (5.32) |
\delta _{a} being the Dirac measure at the point a . Thus, \varphi ^{\ast }\left(s\right) = \varphi \left(s, 0\right) , \varphi \left(s, 0\right) \in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} , and, according to (5.24) and (5.29),
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \mathcal{E}_{G}\left( \varphi \right) \leq \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{ \lim \inf }\text{ }\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert } \int_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla \varphi _{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ \leq \sup\limits_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla \varphi _{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty \text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.33) |
from which we deduce, using Theorem 6, that
\begin{equation} \mathcal{E}_{G}\left( \varphi \right) = \int_{G}\nabla \varphi .Z\nabla \varphi d{\boldsymbol{\nu}} < +\infty \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.34) |
2. As \text{div }v^{h} = 0 , we can write
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}v^{h}.\nabla \varphi _{h}dx = \dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{B^{h}}v^{h}.\nabla \varphi _{h}dx+\dfrac{5^{h}}{ \left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}\backslash B^{h}}v^{h}.\nabla \varphi _{h}dx \\ = \dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{B^{h}}v^{h}.\nabla \varphi _{h}dx \\ +\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}v^{h}\mid _{\Sigma _{k, 1}^{h, i}}.n^{i}\left( \varphi _{h}\mid _{\Sigma _{k, 1}^{h, i}}-\varphi _{h}\mid _{\Sigma _{k, 2}^{h, i}}\right) = 0\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.35) |
where n^{i} = \mathcal{R}_{i}e_{1} . Since \left\vert B^{h}\right\vert \longrightarrow 0 as h\rightarrow \infty , using the proof of Lemma 7 and the hypothesis (5.21), we have that
\begin{equation*} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{B^{h}}v^{h}.\nabla \varphi _{h}dx = 0\text{.} \end{equation*} |
Thus, passing to the limit in (5.35), we get
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}v^{h}.\nabla \varphi _{h}dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}v^{h}\mid _{\Sigma _{k, 1}^{h, i}}.n^{i}\left( \varphi _{h}\mid _{\Sigma _{k, 1}^{h, i}}-\varphi _{h}\mid _{\Sigma _{k, 2}^{h, i}}\right) \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}v^{h}\mid _{\Sigma _{k, 1}^{h, i}}.n^{i}\left( \varphi \mid _{\Sigma _{k, 1}^{h, i}}-\varphi \mid _{\Sigma _{k, 2}^{h, i}}\right) \\ = 0\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.36) |
As \varphi \left(s, 0\right) \in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} , using some density argument, we may suppose that \varphi \left(s, 0\right) \in C^{1}\left(G\right) . As v^{h} \in H^{2}\left(\Omega ^{h}, \mathbb{R} ^{3}\right) , we may write
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}v^{h}.\nabla \varphi _{h}dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{\pi 3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\varepsilon _{h}S}v^{h}\left( a_{h}^{i, k}+\epsilon _{h}^{i}\right) .n^{i}2^{h}\left( \varphi \left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) -\varphi \left( b_{h}^{i, k}\right) \right) \text{, } \end{array} \end{equation} | (5.37) |
where \epsilon _{h}^{i} = \varepsilon _{h}\mathcal{R}_{i}^{t}e_{1} . On the other hand, there exists a function r_{h}\in C^{1}\left(\Omega ^{h}\right) such that v^{h} = \nabla r_{h} . Indeed, as \text{div }v^{h} = 0 , r_{h} is a solution of the equation \Delta r_{h} = 0 in \Omega ^{h} with some boundary conditions on \partial \Omega ^{h} . Using the smoothness of \varphi , we infer that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \varphi \left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) -\varphi \left( b_{h}^{i, k}\right) \\ = \mathop \sum \limits_{l = 1,2} \int_{0}^{1}\dfrac{\partial \varphi }{\partial x_{l}}\left( t\left( a_{h}^{i, k}-b_{h}^{i, k}\right) +b_{h}^{i, k}\right) \left( a_{h}^{i, k}-b_{h}^{i, k}\right) _{l}dt \\ = 2^{-h}\nabla \varphi \left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) .n^{i}+O\left( 2^{-2h}\right) \text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.38) |
Then, replacing in (5.37), taking into account the fact that \sup_{h}F_{h}\left(v^{h}\right) < +\infty and the estimates on v^{h} given in Lemma 7, we obtain that
\begin{equation} \dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}v^{h}.\nabla \varphi _{h} = \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \nabla r_{h}\left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) .n^{i}\nabla \varphi \left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) .n^{i}+O\left( \varepsilon _{h}2^{h}\right) . \end{equation} | (5.39) |
As for the fractal G , we can construct, according to Proposition 5, a graph approximation G_{H, h} of the harmonic Sierpinski gasket G_{H} and a sequence \left(\Omega _{H}^{h}\right) _{h} of thin branching tubes whose axes are iterated curves of the graph G_{H, h} . As r_{h}\in C^{1}\left(\Omega ^{h}\right) , there exists \mathfrak{r}_{h}\in C^{1}\left(\Omega _{H}^{h}\right) , such that r_{h}\mid _{G_{h}} = \mathfrak{r}_{h}\mid _{G_{H, h}}\circ \Phi . Similarly, there exists \mathfrak{\varsigma }\in C^{1}\left(U\right) , U being an open subset of M_{0} containing G_{H} , such that \varphi \mid _{G} = \varsigma \mathfrak{ \mid }_{G_{H}}\circ \Phi . Let us set, for k_{1}, ..., k_{h}\in \left\{ 1, 2, 3\right\} ,
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \Xi _{k_{1}...k_{h}}\left( A_{i}\right) & = & \nabla \mathfrak{r}_{h}\circ \Phi \left( \mathfrak{\psi }_{k_{1}...k_{h}}\left( A_{i}\right) \right) .n^{i}T_{k_{1}...k_{h}}^{t}P\mathfrak{H}\left( A_{i}\right) \text{, } \\ \digamma _{k_{1}...k_{h}}\left( A_{i}\right) & = & \mathfrak{H}\left( A_{i}\right) PT_{k_{1}...k_{h}}\nabla \varsigma \circ \Phi \left( \mathfrak{ \psi }_{k_{1}...k_{h}}\left( A_{i}\right) \right) .n^{i}\text{, } \end{array} \end{equation} | (5.40) |
where \mathfrak{H}\left(A_{i}\right) = \left(\mathfrak{h}_{1}\left(A_{i}\right), \mathfrak{h}_{2}\left(A_{i}\right), \mathfrak{h}_{3}\left(A_{i}\right) \right) = \left(\delta _{1i}, \delta _{2i}, \delta _{3i}\right) . Then, observing that, there exist k_{1}, ..., k_{h}\in \left\{ 1, 2, 3\right\} such that a_{h}^{i, k} = \mathfrak{\psi } _{k_{1}...k_{h}}\left(A_{i}\right) , using (5.40), the fact that P^{t} = P , T_{k_{1}...k_{h}}^{t}P = T_{k_{1}...k_{h}}^{t} , and [46, Lemma 3.2], we deduce that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \nabla r_{h}\left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) .n^{i}\nabla \varphi \left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) .n^{i} \\ = \Xi _{k_{1}...k_{h}}\left( A_{i}\right) .\digamma _{k_{1}...k_{h}}\left( A_{i}\right) \\ = \nabla \mathfrak{r}_{h}\circ \Phi \left( \mathfrak{\psi } _{k_{1}...k_{h}}\left( A_{i}\right) \right) .n^{i}Z_{h}\nabla \varsigma \circ \Phi \left( \mathfrak{\psi }_{k_{1}...k_{h}}\left( A_{i}\right) \right) .n^{i}{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \left( G_{k_{1}...k_{h}}\right) \text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.41) |
Using Lemma 8, there exists a subsequence of \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} , still denoted as \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} , and v\in L_{\mathcal{H} ^{d}}^{2}\left(G\right) , such that
\begin{equation*} \sqrt{5^{h}}v^{h}\dfrac{\pi \boldsymbol{1}_{\Omega ^{h}}\left( x\right) }{ 3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }dx\overset{\ast }{\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\rightharpoonup }}\left( v, v^{\ast }, 0\right) \dfrac{d\mathcal{H} ^{d}\left( s\right) \otimes \delta _{0}\left( x_{3}\right) }{\mathcal{H} ^{d}\left( G\right) }\text{ in }\mathcal{M}\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) \text{, } \end{equation*} |
where v^{\ast } = 0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(0, 1\right) , v^{\ast } = v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(-\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and v^{\ast } = -v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) . The corresponding subsequence of gradients \left(\nabla r_{h}\mid _{G_{h}} = \nabla \mathfrak{r}_{h}\mid _{G_{H}}\circ \Phi \right) _{h} converges to the same limit. Thus, using the limits (5.36)–(5.37), the relations (5.38)–(5.41), and the smoothness of \varphi and v^{h} , we obtain that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}v^{h}.\nabla \varphi _{h}dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \nabla r_{h}\left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) .n^{i}\nabla \varphi \left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) .n^{i} \\ = \int_{G}\left( v, v^{\ast }\right) .nZ\nabla \varphi .nd{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \\ = \int_{G}vn.Z\nabla \varphi d{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \\ = 0\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.42) |
where we have used the fact that \left(v, v^{\ast }\right).n = v .
According to the above proposition, we introduce the following
Definition 2. 1. We define the space H_{Z}\left(G\right) by
\begin{equation} H_{Z}\left( G\right) = \left\{ \varphi \in L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left( G\right) ;\int_{G}\nabla \varphi .Z\nabla \varphi d{\boldsymbol{\nu}} < +\infty \right\} \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.43) |
2. Let n = \left(1, 0\right) on the horizontal part of G , n = \left(1/2, \sqrt{3}/2\right) on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(-\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and n = \left(1/2, -\sqrt{3}/2\right) on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) . Let v\in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} . We define the divergence of v on G by the relation
\begin{equation*} \langle \text{div }_{Z}\left( v\right) , \varphi \rangle = \int_{G}vn.Z\nabla \varphi d{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \text{, } \end{equation*} |
for every \varphi \in H_{Z}\left(G\right) .
3. We define the space V^{\infty } by
\begin{equation} V^{\infty } = \left\{ v\in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}}\text{; }\langle \text{div }_{Z}\left( v\right) , \varphi \rangle = 0\text{, }\forall \varphi \in H_{Z}\left( G\right) \right\} \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.44) |
We introduce the following useful result which is due to Bogovskiĭ [52]:
Lemma 10. Let D\subset \mathbb{R}^{3} be a bounded domain with Lipschitz continuous boundary \partial D . There exists a linear operator \mathcal{B}:L^{2}\left(D\right) \rightarrow H_{0}^{1}\left(D; \mathbb{R} ^{3}\right) , such that, for every \varpi \in L^{2}\left(D\right) satisfying \int_{D}\varpi dx = 0 ,
\begin{equation*} \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} \text{div }\left( \mathcal{B}\left( \varpi \right) \right) & = & \varpi \;{ in }\;D\text{, } \\ \left\Vert \nabla \mathcal{B}\left( \varpi \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( D;\mathbb{R}^{9}\right) } & \leq & C\left( D\right) \left\Vert \varpi \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( D\right) }\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} |
where C\left(D\right) is a constant which only depends on D .
Let us define D = S\times \left(0, 1\right) . As a consequence, we have the following result:
Lemma 11. Let D_{h} = \varepsilon _{h}S\times \left(0, 2^{-h}\right) . There exists a linear operator \mathcal{B}_{h}:L^{2}\left(D_{h}\right) \rightarrow H_{0}^{1}\left(D_{h}; \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) , such that, for every \varpi \in L^{2}\left(D_{h}\right) with \int_{D_{h}}\varpi dx = 0 ,
\begin{equation*} \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} \text{div }\left( \mathcal{B}_{h}\right) & = & \varpi \ \;{ in }\;D_{h} \text{, } \\ \left\Vert \nabla \mathcal{B}_{h}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( D_{h};\mathbb{R} ^{9}\right) } & \leq & \dfrac{C\left( D\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}\left\Vert \varpi \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( D_{h}\right) }\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} |
where C\left(D\right) is a constant which still only depends on D .
Proof. For every \varpi \in L^{2}\left(D_{h}\right) satisfying \int_{D_{h}}\varpi dx = 0 , we define
\begin{equation*} \varpi _{h}\left( y\right) = \varpi \left( \varepsilon _{h}y_{1}, \varepsilon _{h}y_{2}, 2^{-h}y_{3}\right) \text{, }\forall y = \left( y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \in D\text{.} \end{equation*} |
Then, since \int_{D_{h}}\varpi dy = 0 , we can apply Lemma 10 in D to obtain
\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} \text{div }\left( \mathcal{B}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) \right) & = & \varpi _{h} \ \text{ in }D\text{, } \\ \left\Vert \nabla \mathcal{B}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( D;\mathbb{R}^{9}\right) } & \leq & C\left( D\right) \left\Vert \varpi _{h}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( D\right) }\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.45) |
Let us define, for every x\in D_{h} ,
\begin{equation} \mathcal{B}_{h}\left( \varpi \right) \left( x\right) = \left( \varepsilon _{h} \mathcal{B}_{1}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) \text{, }\varepsilon _{h}\mathcal{B} _{2}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) \text{, }2^{-h}\mathcal{B}_{3}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) \right) \left( \frac{x_{1}}{\varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{x_{2}}{ \varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{x_{3}}{2^{-h}}\right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.46) |
Then
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \text{div }\mathcal{B}_{h}\left( \varpi \right) \left( x\right) & = & \text{div }\left( \mathcal{B}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) \right) \left( \dfrac{x_{1}}{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{2}}{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3} }{2^{-h}}\right) \\ & = & \varpi _{h}\left( \dfrac{x_{1}}{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{2}}{ \varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{2^{-h}}\right) \\ & = & \varpi \left( x\right) \text{.} \end{array} \end{equation} | (5.47) |
On the other hand, observing that
\begin{equation*} \nabla \mathcal{B}_{h}\left( \varpi \right) \left( x\right) = M^{h}\left( \mathcal{B}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) \right) \left( \dfrac{x_{1}}{ \varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{2}}{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{2^{-h}} \right) \text{, } \end{equation*} |
where
\begin{equation*} M^{h}\left( \mathcal{B}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) \right) = \left( \begin{array}{lll} \dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{1}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{1}} & \dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{1}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{2}} & \dfrac{\varepsilon _{h}}{2^{-h}}\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{1}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{3}} \\ \dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{2}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{1}} & \dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{2}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{2}} & \dfrac{\varepsilon _{h}}{2^{-h}}\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{2}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{3}} \\ \dfrac{\varepsilon _{h}}{2^{-h}}\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{3}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{1}} & \dfrac{\varepsilon _{h}}{2^{-h}}\dfrac{ \partial \mathcal{B}_{3}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{2}} & \dfrac{ \partial \mathcal{B}_{3}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{3}} \end{array} \right) \text{, } \end{equation*} |
we deduce that
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \int\nolimits_{D_{h}}\left\vert \nabla \mathcal{B}_{h}\left( \varpi \right) \right\vert ^{2}dx & = & 2^{-h}\mathop \sum \limits_{\alpha ,\beta = 1,2} \int\nolimits_{D}\left\vert \dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{\alpha }\left( \left( \varpi _{h}\right) \right) }{\partial x_{\beta }}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ & & +\mathop \sum \limits_{\alpha = 1,2} 2^{h}\varepsilon _{h}^{4}\int\nolimits_{D}\left\vert \dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{\alpha }\left( \left( \varpi _{h}\right) \right) }{\partial x_{3}}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ & & +\mathop \sum \limits_{\alpha = 1,2} 2^{h}\varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int\nolimits_{D}\left\vert \dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{3}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{\alpha }}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ & & +2^{-h}\varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int\nolimits_{D}\left\vert \dfrac{\partial \mathcal{B}_{3}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) }{\partial x_{3}}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ & \leq & 2^{-h}\int\nolimits_{D}\left\vert \nabla \mathcal{B}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx\text{.} \end{array} \end{equation} | (5.48) |
Last, according to (5.45), we have
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} 2^{-h}\int\nolimits_{D}\left\vert \nabla \mathcal{B}\left( \varpi _{h}\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx & \leq & C\left( D\right) 2^{-h}\int\nolimits_{D}\left\vert \varpi _{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ & \leq & \dfrac{C\left( D\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\int \nolimits_{D_{h}}\left\vert \varpi \right\vert ^{2}dx\text{.} \end{array} \end{equation} | (5.49) |
Therefore, combining (5.48) and (5.49), we infer that
\begin{equation} \int\nolimits_{D_{h}}\left\vert \nabla \mathcal{B}_{h}\left( \varpi \right) \right\vert ^{2}dx\leq \dfrac{C\left( D\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}^{2}} \int\nolimits_{D_{h}}\left\vert \varpi \right\vert ^{2}dx\text{.} \end{equation} | (5.50) |
Let \left(u^{h}, p_{h}\right) be the solution of problem (2.22) with boundary conditions (2.25). Let us define, for every h\in \mathbb{N} , i = 1, 2, 3 , and k\in \left\{ 1, 2, ..., 3^{h}\right\} , the zero average-value pressure \widehat{p}_{k}^{h, i} by
\begin{equation} \widehat{p}_{k}^{h, i} = p_{h}-\dfrac{1}{\left\vert \Omega _{k}^{h, i}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}p_{h}dx\text{ in }\Omega _{k}^{h, i}\text{, } \end{equation} | (5.51) |
and the pressure \widehat{p}_{h} by
\begin{equation} \widehat{p}_{h}\equiv \widehat{p}_{k}^{h, i}\text{ on each }\Omega _{k}^{h, i} \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.52) |
The following estimates hold true:
Lemma 12. If \sigma \in \left(0, +\infty \right) then
1. \sup_{h}F_{h}\left(u^{h}\right) < +\infty , \sup_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{ \left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert u^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty ,
2. \sup_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert } \int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left(\widehat{p}_{h}\right) ^{2}dx < +\infty , \sup_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{ \Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla p_{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty .
Proof. 1. Applying Lemma 11 for the solution f_{h} of problem (2.23), we deduce that, for every k\in \left\{ 1, 2, ..., 3^{h}\right\} and i = 1, 2, 3 ,
\begin{equation} \int\nolimits_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert \nabla f_{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\leq \dfrac{C}{\varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\int\nolimits_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert g_{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\text{.} \end{equation} | (5.53) |
Additionally, using the inequality (5.3), we have
\begin{equation} \int\nolimits_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert f_{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\leq C\varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int\nolimits_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert \nabla f_{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\text{.} \end{equation} | (5.54) |
We deduce from (5.53) and (5.54), that
\begin{equation} \dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert f_{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\leq C\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert g_{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\text{, } \end{equation} | (5.55) |
then, using the hypothesis (2.24) _{2} , we conclude that
\begin{equation} \sup\limits_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{ \Omega ^{h}}\left\vert f_{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.56) |
Multiplying (2.22) _{1} by u^{h} and integrating by parts, we obtain that
\begin{equation} \dfrac{5^{h}}{\text{Re}_{h}}\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla u^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx = \dfrac{1}{Fr_{h}}\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\int_{\Omega ^{h}}f_{h}.u^{h}dx\text{, } \end{equation} | (5.57) |
from which we deduce, in virtue of the fact that \dfrac{1}{Fr_{h}}\dfrac{ 5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\approx \dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert } , by using inequality (5.6) and estimate (5.56),
\begin{equation} \sup\limits_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\text{Re}_{h}}\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla u^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty \text{ , } \end{equation} | (5.58) |
and, as \sigma \in \left(0, +\infty \right) , according to Lemma 7,
\begin{equation} \sup\limits_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{ \Omega ^{h}}\left\vert u^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.59) |
2. According to Lemma 11, there exists \phi _{k}^{h, i}\in H_{0}^{1}\left(\Omega _{k}^{h, i}, \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) such that
\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{llll} -\text{div }\phi _{k}^{h, i} & = & \widehat{p}_{k}^{h, i} & \text{in }\Omega _{k}^{h, i}\text{, } \\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ }\phi _{k}^{h, i} & = & 0 & \text{on }\partial \Omega _{k}^{h, i}\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.60) |
and
\begin{equation} \left\Vert \nabla \phi _{k}^{h, i}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Omega _{k}^{h, i}, \mathbb{R}^{9}\right) }\leq \dfrac{C}{\varepsilon _{h}}\left\Vert \widehat{p} _{k}^{h, i}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Omega _{k}^{h, i}\right) }\text{.} \end{equation} | (5.61) |
Let us define \phi ^{h} on \Omega ^{h} by \phi ^{h} = \phi _{k}^{h, i} on each \Omega _{k}^{h, i} , for every k\in \left\{ 1, 2, ..., 3^{h}\right\} and i = 1, 2, 3 . Then, according to inequality (5.61), we have that
\begin{equation} \left\Vert \nabla \phi ^{h}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Omega ^{h}, \mathbb{R} ^{9}\right) }\leq \dfrac{C}{\varepsilon _{h}}\left\Vert \widehat{p} _{h}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Omega ^{h}\right) }\text{.} \end{equation} | (5.62) |
Multiplying (2.22) _{1} by \phi ^{h} and integrating by parts, we deduce that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{c} \dfrac{5^{h}}{\text{Re}_{h}}\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\nabla u^{h}.\nabla \phi ^{h}dx+\mathrm{Eu}_{h}\text{ }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\int\nolimits_{ \Omega ^{h}}\left( \widehat{p}_{h}\right) ^{2}dx \\ = \dfrac{1}{Fr_{h}}\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\int_{\Omega ^{h}}f_{h}.\phi ^{h}dx. \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.63) |
Using the fact that \mathrm{Eu}_{h} \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}} = \dfrac{1}{ Fr_{h}}\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}}\approx \dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert } , inequality (5.62), and the uniform boundedness (5.56) and (5.58), we deduce that
\begin{equation} \dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left( \widehat{p}_{h}\right) ^{2}dx\leq C\left\{ \frac{5^{h}}{ \left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left( \widehat{p}_{h}\right) ^{2}dx\right\} ^{1/2}\text{, } \end{equation} | (5.64) |
which implies that
\begin{equation} \sup\limits_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{ \Omega ^{h}}\left( \widehat{p}_{h}\right) ^{2}dx < +\infty \text{.} \end{equation} | (5.65) |
On the other hand, multiplying (2.27) _{1} by p_{h} , integrating by parts, and, using the hypothesis (2.24) _{1} , we get
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{r} \begin{array}{lll} \dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla p_{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx & = & -\dfrac{5^{h}}{ \left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}g_{h}p_{h}dx \\ & = & -\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}g_{h}p_{h}dx \\ & = & -\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\Omega _{k}^{h, i}}g_{h} \widehat{p}_{k}^{h, i}dx \\ & = & -\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int_{\Omega ^{h}}g_{h}\widehat{p}_{h}dx\text{, } \end{array} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.66) |
from which we deduce by using (2.24) _{2} and the uniform boundedness (5.65):
\begin{equation*} \sup\limits_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }\int\nolimits_{ \Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla p_{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty \text{.} \end{equation*} |
Let us define new orthonormal basis systems \left(e_{m}^{i}\right) _{m = 1, 2, 3} ; i = 1, 2, 3 , by
\begin{equation} e_{m}^{i} = \mathcal{R}_{i}e_{m}\text{, } \end{equation} | (6.1) |
where e_{m} = \left(\delta _{1m}, \delta _{2m}, \delta _{3m}\right) . We define the rescaled junctions \mathcal{J}^{+, i} and \mathcal{J}^{-, i} , for i = 1, 2, 3 , by
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \mathcal{J}^{+, i} & = & \left\{ y = y_{1}e_{1}^{i}+y_{2}e_{2}^{i}+y_{3}e_{3}^{i}\text{; }y_{1} > 0\text{, } \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \in S\right\} \text{, } \\ \mathcal{J}^{-, i} & = & \left\{ y = y_{1}e_{1}^{i}+y_{2}e_{2}^{i}+y_{3}e_{3}^{i}\text{; }y_{1} < 0\text{, } \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \in S\right\} \text{.} \end{array} \end{equation} | (6.2) |
We consider the following Leray problems:
\begin{equation} \left( \mathcal{P}_{i}^{+}\right) \left\{ \begin{array}{llll} -\mu \Delta w^{+, i}+\nabla \pi ^{+, i} & = & 0{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{in }\mathcal{J}^{+, i}\text{, } \\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\text{div }w^{+, i} & = & 0{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{in }\mathcal{J}^{+, i}\text{, } \\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }w^{+, i} & = & 0{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{on }\partial \mathcal{J}^{+, i}\text{, } \\ \text{ }\underset{y_{1}\rightarrow +\infty }{\lim }w^{+, i}\left( y\right) & = & \Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) e_{1}^{i}{ \ } & \text{in }\mathcal{J }^{+, i}\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.3) |
and
\begin{equation} \left( \mathcal{P}_{i}^{-}\right) \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} -\mu \Delta w^{-, i}+\nabla \pi ^{-, i} & = & 0{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ in }\mathcal{J}^{-, i}\text{, } \\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\text{div }w^{-, i} & = & 0{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ in }\mathcal{J}^{-, i}\text{, } \\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }w^{-, i} & = & 0{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ on }\partial \mathcal{J}^{-, i}\text{, } \\ \underset{y_{1}\rightarrow -\infty }{\lim }w^{-, i}\left( y\right) & = & \Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) e_{1}^{i}\ \ \text{ in }\mathcal{J}^{-, i} \text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.4) |
where \Theta is the solution of the auxiliary problem
\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} -\mu \Delta \Theta & = & 1\ \ \ \ \text{ in }S\text{, } \\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ }\Theta & = & 0\ \ \ \text{ on }\partial S\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.5) |
We define, for every k\in \left\{ 1, 2, ..., 3^{h}\right\} and i = 1, 2, 3 , the sequence of functions \left(w^{h, \pm, i}\right) _{h} by
\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{llll} w^{h, +, i}\left( x\right) & = & \mathcal{R}_{i}w^{+, i}\left( \frac{ y_{h, 1}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) & \text{ for }x\in \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}\text{, } \\ w^{h, -, i}\left( x\right) & = & \mathcal{R}_{i}w^{-, i}\left( \frac{ y_{h, 1}^{i, k}\left( x\right) -2^{-h}}{\varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{ y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) & \text{for }x\in \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, -, i}\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.6) |
where the sets \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i} and \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, -, i} are defined in (2.17) and the coordinates y_{h, 1}^{i, k} , y_{h, 2}^{i, k} , x_{3} ; i = 1, 2, 3 , are related to the variable x through the relations (2.7). Let us define, for every k\in \left\{ 1, 2, ..., 3^{h}\right\} and i = 1, 2, 3 , the intermediate tubes
\begin{equation} \omega _{k}^{h, i} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} x = \left( x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{3}\text{; }\left( y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) , x_{3}\right) \in \varepsilon _{h}S\text{, } \\ \text{ }\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) < y_{h, 1}^{i, k}\left( x\right) < 2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) \text{, } \end{array} \right\} \end{equation} | (6.7) |
and their upper and lower bases, respectively,
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \gamma _{k}^{h, +, i} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \left( x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{3}\text{; }\left( y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) , x_{3}\right) \in \varepsilon S\text{, } \\ y_{h, 1}^{i, k}\left( x\right) = \varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) \text{ } \end{array} \right\} \text{, } \\ \gamma _{k}^{h, -, i} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \left( x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{3}\text{; }\left( y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) , x_{3}\right) \in \varepsilon S\text{, } \\ y_{h, 1}^{i, k}\left( x\right) = 2^{-h}-\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h, }\right) \end{array} \right\} \text{.} \end{array} \end{equation} | (6.8) |
Let v\in C^{1}\left(G\right) . Let x\in \Omega _{k}^{h, i} . Then, \left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) \in \left[a_{h}^{i, k}, b_{h}^{i, k}\right] ; i = 1, 2, 3 , for every h\in \mathbb{N} and every k\in \left\{ 1, 2, ..., 3^{h}\right\} . Let x_{h}^{i, k} = \dfrac{a_{h}^{i, k}+b_{h}^{i, k}}{2} . We define the sequence of vector functions \left(v_{k}^{0, h, i}\right) _{h} by
\begin{equation} v_{k}^{0, h, i}\left( x\right) = \frac{v\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) }{\mathfrak{m} \left( \Theta \right) \sqrt{5^{h}}}\Theta \left( \dfrac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i}+\psi _{k}^{h, i}\left( x\right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (6.9) |
where
\begin{equation} \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) = \dfrac{1}{\pi }\int_{S}\Theta \left( y\right) dy \end{equation} | (6.10) |
and
\begin{equation} \psi _{k}^{h, i}\left( x\right) = r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \Theta \left( \dfrac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{ \varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i}\text{, } \end{equation} | (6.11) |
with
\begin{equation} r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }}\left( v\left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) -v\left( b_{h}^{i, k}\right) \right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (6.12) |
We introduce the function \phi _{h}^{i, \pm, k} defined by
\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} \phi _{h}^{i, +, k}\left( x\right) & = & r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) w^{i, +}\left( \ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) , \dfrac{ y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) \text{, } \\ \phi _{h}^{i, -, k}\left( x\right) & = & r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) w^{i, -}\left( -\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) , \dfrac{ y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) \text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.13) |
and the function \mathcal{\theta }_{k}^{h, \pm, 1} defined by
\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} \mathcal{\theta }_{k}^{h, +, 1}\left( x\right) & = & \varepsilon _{h}^{2}\left( \phi _{h}^{i, +, k}\left( x\right) -\psi _{k}^{h, i}\left( x\right) \right) \text{, } \\ \mathcal{\theta }_{k}^{h, -, i}\left( x\right) & = & \varepsilon _{h}^{2}\left( \phi _{h}^{i, -, k}\left( x\right) -\psi _{k}^{h, i}\left( x\right) \right) \text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.14) |
Let \eta _{k}^{h, i} be the solution of the problem
\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{llll} \text{div }\eta _{k}^{h, i} & = & 0{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{ in }\omega _{k}^{h, i}\text{, } \\ { \ \ \ \ }\eta _{k}^{h, i} & = & \varepsilon _{h}^{-2}\mathcal{\theta } ^{h, +, i}\text{ } & \text{on }\gamma _{k, }^{h, +, i}\text{, } \\ { \ \ \ \ }\eta _{k}^{h, i} & = & \varepsilon _{h}^{-2}\mathcal{\theta } ^{h, -, i}\text{ } & \text{on }\gamma _{k, }^{h, -, i}\text{, } \\ { \ \ \ \ }\eta _{k}^{h, i} & = & 0{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } & \text{on }\partial \omega _{k}^{h, i}\backslash \gamma _{k}^{h, +, i}\cup \gamma _{k}^{h, -, i}\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.15) |
We define the sequence of test-functions \left(v_{k}^{h, i}\right) _{h} ; v_{k}^{h, i} = \left(v_{k, j}^{h, i}\right) _{j = 1, 2, 3} , by
\begin{equation} v_{k}^{h, i} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} v_{k}^{0, h, i}+\eta _{k}^{h, i} & \text{in }\omega _{k}^{h, i}\text{, } \\ r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) w^{h, \pm , i} & \\ +\dfrac{v\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) }{\mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) \sqrt{ 5^{h}}}\Theta \left( \dfrac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i} & \text{in }\mathcal{J} _{k}^{h, \pm , i}\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.16) |
We then define the test function v^{h} in \Omega ^{h} by
\begin{equation} v^{h}\left( x\right) = v_{k}^{h, i}\left( x\right) \text{ for }x\in \Omega _{k}^{h, i}\text{, }k\in \left\{ 1, 2, ..., 3^{h}\right\} \text{, and }i = 1, 2, 3 \text{.} \end{equation} | (6.17) |
We have the following results:
Proposition 13. We have
1. v^{h}\in V^{h} for \varepsilon _{h} small enough,
2. \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} \tau -converges to \left(v, v^{\ast }, 0\right) , where v^{\ast } = 0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(0, 1\right) , v^{\ast } = v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(-\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and v^{\ast } = -v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) ,
3. if \sigma \in \left(0, \infty \right) , then
\begin{equation*} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }F_{h}\left( v^{h}\right) = \dfrac{\mu \pi }{\mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) \mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) } \int_{G}v^{2}d\mathcal{H}^{d}+\dfrac{2\mu \pi \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) }{3\sigma }\int_{G}d\mathcal{L}_{G}\left( v\right) \text{.} \end{equation*} |
Proof. 1. Introducing the variables y_{2} = \dfrac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left(x\right) }{ \varepsilon _{h}} and y_{3} = \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}} , we have, for \varepsilon _{h} small enough, that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \int_{\gamma _{k}^{h, +, i}}\mathcal{\theta }^{h, +, i}.e_{1}^{i} = -r_{k}^{h, i} \left( v\right) \varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int_{S}\left( \begin{array}{l} w^{+, i}\left( \ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) , y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \\ -\Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) e_{1}^{i} \end{array} \right) .e_{1}^{i}dy \\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } = -r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int_{S}\left( \Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) -\Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \right) dy \\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } = 0\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.18) |
and
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \int_{\gamma _{k}^{h, -, i}}\mathcal{\theta }^{h, -, i}.e_{1}^{i} = -r_{k}^{h, i} \left( v\right) \varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int_{S}\left( \begin{array}{l} w^{-, i}\left( -\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) , y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \\ -\Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) e_{1}^{i} \end{array} \right) .e_{1}^{i}dy \\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } = -r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \varepsilon _{h}^{2}\int_{S}\left( \Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) -\Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \right) dy \\ { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } = 0\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.19) |
This implies that problem (6.15) is solvable. On the other hand, using [53, Theorem Ⅵ.1.2], there exists \tau > 0 such that, for any i = 1, 2, 3 and every y\in \mathcal{J}^{\pm, i} ,
\begin{equation} \left\vert w^{\pm , i}\left( y\right) -\Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) e_{1}^{i}\right\vert +\left\vert \nabla w^{\pm , i}\left( y\right) -\nabla \left( \Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) e_{1}^{i}\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-\tau \left\vert y\right\vert }\text{, } \end{equation} | (6.20) |
from which we deduce that
\begin{equation} \left\vert \mathcal{\theta }_{k}^{h, \pm , i}\left( x\right) \right\vert \leq \frac{C\varepsilon _{h}^{3}\sqrt{\varepsilon _{h}}}{\sqrt{\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }}\text{, }\left\vert \nabla \mathcal{\theta } _{k}^{h, \pm , i}\left( x\right) \right\vert \leq \frac{C\varepsilon _{h}^{2} \sqrt{\varepsilon _{h}}}{\sqrt{\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }}\text{, } \end{equation} | (6.21) |
which implies that
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \left\Vert \mathcal{\theta }_{k}^{h, \pm , i}\right\Vert _{H^{1/2}\left( \gamma _{k}^{h, \pm , i}\right) } & \leq & C\sqrt{\left\Vert \mathcal{\theta } _{k}^{h, \pm , i}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \gamma _{k}^{h, i}\right) }\left\Vert \nabla \mathcal{\theta }_{k}^{h, \pm , i}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \gamma _{k}^{h, \pm , i}\right) }} \\ & \leq & \dfrac{C\varepsilon _{h}^{7/2}\sqrt{\varepsilon _{h}}}{\sqrt{\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }}\text{, } \end{array} \end{equation} | (6.22) |
and, using [54, Lemma 9],
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \left\Vert \nabla \eta _{k}^{h, i}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \omega _{k}^{h, i}\right) } & \leq & \dfrac{C}{\varepsilon _{h}^{2}\sqrt{\varepsilon _{h}}}\left\Vert \mathcal{\theta }_{k}^{h, \pm , i}\right\Vert _{H^{1/2}\left( \gamma _{k}^{h, \pm , i}\right) } \\ & \leq & \dfrac{C\varepsilon _{h}\sqrt{\varepsilon _{h}}}{\sqrt{\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }}\text{.} \end{array} \end{equation} | (6.23) |
Since \text{div }\eta _{k}^{h, i} = 0 , \text{div }_{y}w^{+, i} = \text{div } _{y}w^{-, i} = 0 , for every i = 1, 2, 3 , and \Theta is independent of y_{1} , we have \
\begin{equation*} \text{div }v_{k}^{h, i} = 0\text{, for every }i = 1, 2, 3\text{.} \end{equation*} |
Therefore, for \varepsilon _{h} small enough, v^{h}\in V^{h} .
2. Let \varphi \in C_{0}\left(\mathbb{R}^{3}\right) . We have
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\varphi \left( x\right) \psi _{k}^{h, i}\left( x\right) \sqrt{5^{h}}\dfrac{\boldsymbol{1} _{\Omega ^{h}}\left( x\right) }{3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\sqrt{5^{h}}}{3^{h+1}\pi \sqrt{ \ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \left( v\left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) -v\left( b_{h}^{i, k}\right) \right) \\ \times \varphi \left( x_{h}^{i, k}, 0\right) \int_{S}\Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) dy_{2}dy_{3} \end{array} \right\} \\ = 0\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.24) |
and
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\sqrt{5^{h}}}{3\mathfrak{m} \left( \Theta \right) \left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert \sqrt{5^{h}}} \mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\mathcal{J} _{k}^{h, \pm , i}}\left( \begin{array}{c} \varphi \left( x\right) v\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \\ \times \Theta \left( \dfrac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) .e_{1}^{i} \end{array} \right) dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\varepsilon _{h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }{3^{h+1}\pi \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) } \mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \varphi \left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) v\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) .e_{1}^{i}\int_{S}\Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) dy_{2}dy_{3} \\ = 0\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.25) |
Then, using the estimate (6.20) for w^{\pm, i}\left(y\right) , the estimates (6.21)–(6.22) for \mathcal{\theta }_{k}^{h, \pm, i} , the estimate (6.23) for \eta _{k}^{h, i} , and the inequality (5.3) applied to \eta _{k}^{h, i} , we deduce that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\varphi \left( x\right) \sqrt{5^{h}}v^{h}\dfrac{\boldsymbol{1}_{\Omega ^{h}}\left( x\right) }{3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{1}{3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) }\int_{\Omega ^{h}} \mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \left( \begin{array}{c} \varphi \left( x_{h}^{i, k}, 0\right) v\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \\ \times \Theta \left( \dfrac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i} \end{array} \right) dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{1}{\pi \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) 3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \left( \begin{array}{c} \varphi \left( x_{h}^{i, k}, 0\right) v\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \\ \times \left( \int_{S}\Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) dy_{2}dy_{3}\right) e_{1}^{i} \end{array} \right) \\ = \dfrac{1}{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}\varphi \left( s, 0\right) \left( v\left( s\right) , v^{\ast }\left( s\right) , 0\right) d \mathcal{H}^{d}\left( s\right) \text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.26) |
3. Let us suppose that \sigma \in \left(0, \infty \right) . Then, in virtue of the estimates (6.20)–(6.23), we have that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}} \int_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\mu 2^{h}}{\mathfrak{m} ^{2}\left( \Theta \right) 3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert \begin{array}{c} \nabla \left( \Theta \left( \frac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i}\right) \\ \times v\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \end{array} \right\vert ^{2}dx \\ +\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\mu 2^{h}5^{h}}{3^{h+1}} \mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert \nabla \psi _{k}^{h, i}\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx \\ +\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{ {\mathbf{j}}, h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}}\left( r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \right) ^{2}\left\vert \nabla w^{h, +, i}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ +\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{ {\mathbf{j}}, h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, -, i}}\left( r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \right) ^{2}\left\vert \nabla w^{h, -, i}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ +\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{1}{3^{h+1}\mathfrak{m} ^{2}\left( \Theta \right) \text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}}, h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\mathcal{J} _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert \begin{array}{c} \nabla \left( \Theta \left( \frac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i}\right) \\ \times v\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \end{array} \right\vert ^{2}dx\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.27) |
where \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, i} = \mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}\cup \mathcal{J} _{k}^{h, -, i} . Then, as
\begin{equation} \left\vert \nabla \left( \Theta \left( \frac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{ \varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i}\right) \right\vert ^{2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\left\vert \nabla \Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \right\vert ^{2}\text{, } \end{equation} | (6.28) |
and \int_{S}\left\vert \nabla \Theta \left(y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \right\vert ^{2}dy_{2}dy_{3} = \pi \mathfrak{m}\left(\Theta \right) , we deduce that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\mu 2^{h}}{3^{h+1}\mathfrak{m} ^{2}\left( \Theta \right) }\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert \begin{array}{c} v\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \\ \times \nabla \left( \Theta \left( \frac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{ \varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i}\right) \end{array} \right\vert ^{2}dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\mu }{\mathfrak{m}^{2}\left( \Theta \right) 3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} v^{2}\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \int_{S}\left\vert \nabla \Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \right\vert ^{2}dy_{2}dy_{3} \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\mu \pi }{\mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) }\dfrac{1}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} v^{2}\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \\ = \dfrac{\mu \pi }{\mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) \mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}v^{2}d\mathcal{H}^{d}\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.29) |
After some computations, we infer that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\mu 2^{h}5^{h}}{3^{h+1}} \mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert \nabla \psi _{k}^{h, i}\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\mu 5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \left\{ \begin{array}{c} \left( v\left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) -v\left( b_{h}^{i, k}\right) \right) ^{2} \\ \times \int_{\mathcal{S}}\left\vert \nabla \Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \right\vert ^{2}dy_{2}dy_{3} \end{array} \right\} \\ = 0\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.30) |
and, for the last limit in (6.27),
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{1}{3^{h+1}\mathfrak{m} ^{2}\left( \Theta \right) \text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}}, h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\mathcal{J} _{k}^{h, i}}\left\vert \begin{array}{c} v\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \\ \times \nabla \left( \Theta \left( \frac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{ \varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i}\right) \end{array} \right\vert ^{2}dx \\ = 0\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.31) |
Using once again the estimate (6.20), we deduce that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{ {\mathbf{j}}, h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}}\left( r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \right) ^{2}\left\vert \nabla w^{h, +, i}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{ {\mathbf{j}}, h}\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \left( \begin{array}{l} \left( v\left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) -v\left( b_{h}^{i, k}\right) \right) ^{2} \\ \times \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}}\left\vert \nabla w^{h, +, i}\right\vert ^{2} \end{array} \right) dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\varepsilon _{h}}{3\text{Re}_{ {\mathbf{j}}, h}}\left( \dfrac{5}{3}\right) ^{h}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \left\{ \begin{array}{c} \left( v\left( a_{h}^{i, k}\right) -v\left( b_{h}^{i, k}\right) \right) ^{2} \\ \times \int_{\mathcal{S}}\left\vert \nabla \Theta \left( y_{2}, y_{3}\right) \right\vert ^{2}dy_{2}dy_{3} \end{array} \right\} \\ = \dfrac{\pi \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) }{3\sigma }\int_{G}d\mathcal{L }_{G}\left( v\right) \text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.32) |
and
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{ {\mathbf{j}}, h}}\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, -, i}}\left( r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \right) ^{2}\left\vert \nabla w^{h, -, i}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ = \dfrac{\pi \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) }{3\sigma }\int_{G}d\mathcal{L }_{G}\left( v\right) \text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.33) |
Now, combining (6.27)–(6.33), we get the result.
Proposition 14. If \sigma \in \left(0, +\infty \right) , then for every v\in V^{\infty } , there exists a sequence \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} , with v^{h}\in V^{h} and \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} \tau -converges to \left(v, v^{\ast }, v^{\ast \ast }\right) , where v^{\ast \ast } = 0 , v^{\ast } = 0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(0, 1\right) , v^{\ast } = v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(-\sqrt{3} /2, 1/2\right) , and v^{\ast } = -v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , such that
\begin{equation*} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \sup }F_{h}\left( v^{h}\right) \leq F_{\infty }\left( v\right) \text{.} \end{equation*} |
Proof. Let v\in V^{\infty } . Let \left(v_{m}\right) _{m} \subset C^{1}\left(G\right) such that v_{m}\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\longrightarrow } v with respect to the norm (4.5). We define the sequence \left(v^{m, h}\right) _{m, h} by replacing in (6.9), (6.16), and (6.17) v by v_{m} . Then, according to Proposition 13, the sequence \left(v^{m, h}\right) _{m, h} \tau -converges to \left(v_{m}, v_{m}^{\ast }, 0\right) , where v_{m}^{\ast } = 0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(0, 1\right) , v_{m}^{\ast } = v_{m}\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(-\sqrt{ 3}/2, 1/2\right) , v_{m}^{\ast } = -v_{m}\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and
\begin{equation*} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }F_{h}\left( v^{m, h}\right) \leq F_{\infty }\left( v_{m}\right) \text{.} \end{equation*} |
The continuity of F_{\infty } implies that \lim_{m\rightarrow \infty }\lim_{h\rightarrow \infty }F_{h}\left(v^{m, h}\right) = F_{\infty }\left(v\right) . The topology \tau being metrizable, we deduce, using a diagonalization argument (see [14, Corollary 1.18]), that the sequence \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} = \left(v^{h, m\left(h\right) }\right) _{h} ; \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }m\left(h\right) = +\infty , \tau -converges to \left(v, v^{\ast }, 0\right) , with v^{\ast } = 0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(0, 1\right) , v^{\ast } = v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(-\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , v^{\ast } = -v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and
\begin{equation*} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \sup }F_{h}\left( v^{h}\right) \leq F_{\infty }\left( v\right) \text{.} \end{equation*} |
Proposition 15. If \sigma \in \left(0, +\infty \right) , then for every sequence \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} , such that v^{h}\in V^{h} and \left(v^{h}\right) _{h} \tau -converges to \left(v, v^{\ast }, v^{\ast \ast }\right) , we have v\in V^{\infty } , v^{\ast \ast } = 0 on G , v^{\ast } = 0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(0, 1\right) , v^{\ast } = v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(-\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , v^{\ast } = -v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and
\begin{equation*} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \inf }F_{h}\left( v^{h}\right) \geq F_{\infty }\left( v\right) \text{.} \end{equation*} |
Proof. Observe that if \sup_{h}F_{h}\left(v^{h}\right) = +\infty , then the lim inf inequality is trivial. We suppose that \sup_{h}F_{h}\left(v^{h}\right) < +\infty and, using some regularity argument, we may suppose that v^{h}\in V^{h}\cap H^{2}\left(\Omega ^{h}, \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) . Then, according to Proposition 8, we have that v\in L_{\mathcal{H} ^{d}}^{2}\left(G\right) , v^{\ast \ast } = 0 on G , v^{\ast } = 0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(0, 1\right) , v^{\ast } = v \sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(-\sqrt{3} /2, 1/2\right) , v^{\ast } = -v\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and, according to Proposition 5.9,
\begin{equation} \langle \text{div }_{Z}\left( v\right) , \varphi \rangle = 0, \forall \varphi \in H_{Z}\left( G\right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (6.34) |
where H_{Z}\left(G\right) is the space defined in Definition 2 _{1} . Let \left(v_{m}\right) _{m} \subset C^{1}\left(G\right) such that v_{m}\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\longrightarrow } v with respect to the norm L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left(G\right) -strong. We define the sequence \left(v^{m, h}\right) _{m, h} by replacing v by v_{m} in test-functions (6.9), (6.16), and (6.17). We deduce from the definition of the subdifferentiability of convex functionals that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{r} \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}}\int_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla v^{h}\right\vert ^{2}dx\geq \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}}\int_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla v^{m, h}\right\vert ^{2}dx \\ +2\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}}\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\nabla \left( v^{m, h}\right) .\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.35) |
We then compute
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}} \int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\nabla \left( v^{m, h}\right) .\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}\text{Re}_{h}^{-1}}{ 3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\nabla \eta _{k}^{h, i}.\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx \\ +\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}\text{Re}_{h}^{-1}}{ 3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\nabla \psi _{k}^{h, i}\left( x\right) .\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx \\ -\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\sqrt{5^{h}}\text{Re}_{h}^{-1} }{\mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) 3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\underset{ i = 1, 2, 3}{\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left( \begin{array}{c} \Delta \Theta \left( \frac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) \\ \times v_{m}\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) .e_{1}^{i} \end{array} \right) dx \\ +\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}\text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}} , h}^{-1}}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}}\nabla w^{h, +, i}.\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx \\ +\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}\text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}} , h}^{-1}}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, -, i}}\nabla w^{h, -, i}.\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx \\ +\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\sqrt{5^{h}}\text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}}, h}^{-1}}{\mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) 3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, i}}\left( \begin{array}{c} \left( \nabla v^{h}-\nabla v^{m, h}\right) \\ .\nabla \left( \Theta \left( \frac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{ \varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i}\right) \end{array} \right) dx\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.36) |
Using the estimate (6.23), we deduce that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\nabla \eta _{k}^{h, i}.\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx \\ \leq \dfrac{C\varepsilon _{h}\sqrt{\varepsilon _{h}}}{\sqrt{\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }}\sqrt{\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}}} \left\{ \dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}}\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx\right\} ^{1/2} \\ \leq \dfrac{C\varepsilon _{h}\sqrt{\varepsilon _{h}}}{\sqrt{\ln \left( 1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) }}\sqrt{\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}}}\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.37) |
from which we deduce that
\begin{equation} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}} \mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\nabla \eta _{k}^{h, i}.\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx = 0\text{.} \end{equation} | (6.38) |
On the other hand, using the fact that \varepsilon _{h}^{2}3^{h}\text{Re} _{h}\approx \dfrac{\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }{\pi \mu } in \omega _{k}^{h, i} and according to the problem (6.5) of which \Theta is the solution, we deduce that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\sqrt{5^{h}}\text{Re}_{h}^{-1}}{ \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) 3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\underset{ i = 1, 2, 3}{\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left( \begin{array}{c} \Delta \Theta \left( \dfrac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) \\ \times v_{n}\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) .e_{1}^{i} \end{array} \right) dx \\ = \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\mu \pi \sqrt{5^{h}}}{ \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) 3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert } \mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\left( \begin{array}{c} \Delta \Theta \left( \dfrac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) \\ \times v_{n}\left( x_{h}^{i, k}\right) \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) .e_{1}^{i} \end{array} \right) dx \\ = \dfrac{-\pi }{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}v_{m}\left( v-v_{m}\right) d\mathcal{H}^{d}\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.39) |
Using the limits (6.24) and (6.30), and the fact that
\begin{equation} \sup\limits_{h}F_{h}\left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) < +\infty \text{, } \end{equation} | (6.40) |
we deduce that
\begin{equation} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}\text{Re}_{h}^{-1}}{3^{h+1} }\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\omega _{k}^{h, i}}\nabla \psi _{k}^{h, i}\left( x\right) .\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx = 0\text{.} \end{equation} | (6.41) |
Analogously, using the estimate (6.20), the equations (6.5), the expression (6.12) of r_{k}^{h, i}\left(v\right) , and the estimate (6.40), we get
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}\text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}} , h}^{-1}}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}}\nabla w^{h, +, i}.\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx \\ = -\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}\text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}} , h}^{-1}}{3^{h+1}\varepsilon _{h}^{2}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, +, i}}\left( \begin{array}{c} r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \Delta \Theta \left( \dfrac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{\varepsilon _{h}}, \dfrac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) \\ \times \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) .e_{1}^{i} \end{array} \right) dx \\ = 0\text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.42) |
and, similarly,
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}\text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}} , h}^{-1}}{3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} r_{k}^{h, i}\left( v\right) \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, -, i}}\nabla w^{h, -, i}.\nabla \left( v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) dx \\ = 0\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.43) |
As \sup_{h}\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}}\int\nolimits_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla \left(v^{h}-v^{m, h}\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx < +\infty , we have
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{\sqrt{5^{h}}\text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j }}, h}^{-1}}{\mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) 3^{h+1}}\mathop {\mathop {\mathop \sum \limits^{{3^h}} }\limits_{k = 1} }\limits_{i = 1,2,3} \int_{\mathcal{J}_{k}^{h, i}}\left( \begin{array}{c} \left( \nabla v^{h}-\nabla v^{m, h}\right) \\ .\nabla \left( \Theta \left( \frac{y_{h, 2}^{i, k}\left( x\right) }{ \varepsilon _{h}}, \frac{x_{3}}{\varepsilon _{h}}\right) e_{1}^{i}\right) \end{array} \right) dx \\ = 0\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.44) |
In addition, owing to Proposition 13, we have
\begin{equation} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\dfrac{5^{h}}{3^{h+1}\text{Re}_{h}} \int_{\Omega ^{h}}\left\vert \nabla v^{m, h}\right\vert ^{2}dx = F_{\infty }\left( v_{m}\right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (6.45) |
Thus, combining (6.35)–(6.45), we deduce that
\begin{equation} \left. \begin{array}{l} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \inf }F_{h}\left( v^{h}\right) \geq F_{\infty }\left( v_{m}\right) \\ +\dfrac{2\mu \pi }{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}v_{m}\left( v-v_{m}\right) d\mathcal{H}^{d}\text{.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (6.46) |
Then, letting m tend to \infty , we obtain
\begin{equation*} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \inf }F_{h}\left( v^{h}\right) \geq F_{\infty }\left( v\right) \text{, } \end{equation*} |
and, as a consequence, \mathcal{E}_{G}\left(v\right) < +\infty . Thus, v\in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{E}} and, taking into account (6.34), we have that v\in V^{\infty } .
Proof. 1. Let \left(u^{h}, p_{h}\right) be a solution of problem (2.22) with boundary conditions (2.25). According to Lemma 12 and Proposition 8 there exists a subsequence of \left(u^{h}\right) _{h} , still denoted as \left(u^{h}\right) _{h} , such that
\begin{equation} \sqrt{5^{h}}u^{h}\dfrac{\pi \boldsymbol{1}_{\Omega ^{h}}\left( x\right) }{ 3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }dx\overset{\ast }{\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\rightharpoonup }}\left( u, u^{\ast }, 0\right) \dfrac{d\mathcal{H} ^{d}\left( s\right) \otimes \delta _{0}\left( x_{3}\right) }{\mathcal{H} ^{d}\left( G\right) }\text{ in }\mathcal{M}\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (6.47) |
with u^{\ast } = 0 on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(0, 1\right) , u^{\ast } = u\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(-\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and u^{\ast } = -u\sqrt{3} on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) . As the boundary \partial \Omega ^{h} is C^{2} , the velocity u^{h} is at least in H^{2}\left(\Omega ^{h}\right) . Thus, according to Proposition 5.9, we have that
\begin{equation} \langle \text{div }_{Z}\left( u\right) , \varphi \rangle = 0\text{, } \forall \varphi \in H_{Z}\left( G\right) \text{.} \end{equation} | (6.48) |
On the other hand, since u^{h} is the unique velocity solution of problem (2.31), we deduce from Theorem 2 and [15, Theorem 7.8], that the whole sequence \left(u^{h}\right) _{h} verifies the convergence (6.47),
\begin{equation} \underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }F_{h}\left( u^{h}\right) = F_{\infty }\left( u\right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (6.49) |
and, taking into account (6.48), we deduce that u\in V^{\infty } . In addition, using Lemma 12 and the proof of Proposition 8, we have that
\begin{equation} \sqrt{5^{h}}\widehat{p}_{h}\dfrac{\pi \boldsymbol{1}_{\Omega ^{h}}\left( x\right) }{3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }dx\overset{\ast }{\underset{ h\rightarrow \infty }{\rightharpoonup }}p\dfrac{d\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( s\right) \otimes \delta _{0}\left( x_{3}\right) }{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\text{ in }\mathcal{M}\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (6.50) |
with p\in H_{Z}\left(G\right) , and, using the uniform boundedness (5.56),
\begin{equation} \sqrt{5^{h}}f_{h}\dfrac{\pi \boldsymbol{1}_{\Omega ^{h}}\left( x\right) }{ 3\left\vert \Omega ^{h}\right\vert }dx\overset{\ast }{\underset{h\rightarrow \infty }{\rightharpoonup }}f\dfrac{d\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( s\right) \otimes \delta _{0}\left( x_{3}\right) }{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\text{ in } \mathcal{M}\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) \text{, } \end{equation} | (6.51) |
with f\in L_{\mathcal{H}^{d}}^{2}\left(G, \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) . Using Proposition 5.9 and Lemma 12 _{2} , we deduce that, for every v\in V^{\infty } ,
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \int_{G}\left( v, v^{\ast }\right) .nZ\nabla p.nd{\boldsymbol{\nu}} & = & \int_{G}vn.Z\nabla pd{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \\ & = & \int_{G}vZ\nabla p.nd{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \\ & = & 0\text{, } \end{array} \end{equation} | (6.52) |
where n = \left(1, 0\right) on the horizontal part of G , n = \left(1/2, \sqrt{3}/2\right) on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(- \sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) , and n = \left(1/2, -\sqrt{3}/2\right) on the part of G which is perpendicular to \left(\sqrt{3}/2, 1/2\right) .
2. According to Theorem 2 and [15, Theorem 7.8], u is the solution of the problem
\begin{equation} \underset{v\in V^{\infty }}{\min }\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \dfrac{\mu \pi }{\mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) \mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}v^{2}d\mathcal{H}^{d}+\dfrac{2\mu \pi \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) }{3\sigma }\int_{G}\nabla v.Z\nabla vd{\mathbf{\nu }} \\ -\dfrac{2}{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}f.\left( v, v^{\ast }, 0\right) d\mathcal{H}^{d} \end{array} \right\} \text{.} \end{equation} | (6.53) |
Then, using Lemma 4 and the fact that \int_{G}vZ\nabla p.nd{\boldsymbol{\nu}} = 0 and \left(v, v^{\ast }\right) = v.n , for every v\in V^{\infty } , we deduce from (6.53) that, for every v\in V^{\infty } ,
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l} -\dfrac{4\mu \pi \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) }{3\sigma \mathcal{H} ^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}\Delta _{G}\left( u\right) vd\mathcal{H} ^{d}\left( s\right) \\ +\dfrac{2\mu \pi }{\mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) \mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}uvd\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( s\right) +2\int_{G}vZ\nabla p.nd{\boldsymbol{\nu}} \\ = \dfrac{2\mathcal{H}^{d}}{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\int_{G}vf.nd \mathcal{H}^{d}\text{, } \end{array} \end{equation} | (6.54) |
where, by abuse of notation, f.n = \left(f_{1}, f_{2}\right).n . Therefore, \left(u, p\right) is the solution (with p up to an additive constant) of the following problem:
\begin{equation*} \left. \begin{array}{r} -\dfrac{2\mu \pi \mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) \mathcal{H}^{d}}{3\sigma \mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }\Delta _{G}\left( u\right) +\dfrac{\mu \pi \mathcal{H}^{d}}{\mathfrak{m}\left( \Theta \right) \mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }u+{\boldsymbol{\nu}} Z\nabla p.n \\ = \dfrac{\mathcal{H}^{d}}{\mathcal{H}^{d}\left( G\right) }f.n\text{ in }G \text{, } \end{array} \right. \end{equation*} |
which completes the proof of Theorem 3.
In this paper, we considered the motion of a viscous incompressible fluid in a varying bounded domain consisting of branching cylindrical pipes whose axes are line segments that form a network of pre-fractal polygonal curves G_{h} obtained after h -iterations of the contractive similarities of the standard Sierpinski gasket. We assumed that these pipes are narrow axisymmetric tubes of radius \varepsilon _{h} very small with respect to the length 2^{-h} of each side of G_{h} . We supposed that the fluid flow is driven by some volumic forces and governed by Stokes equations with continuity of the velocity at the interfaces separating the junction zones from the rest of the pipes, homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition for the velocity, and homogeneous Neumann boundary condition for the pressure on the wall of the tubes. The flow in each pipe is split into two streams: boundary layers flow in junction zones of length \varepsilon _{h}\ln \left(1/\varepsilon _{h}\right) \ll 2^{-h} and laminar flow in the rest of the pipe. We assumed that the flow in the junction zones is controlled by a typical Reynolds number \text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}}, h} . Using \Gamma -convergence methods, we studied the asymptotic behavior of the fluid flowing in the branching tubes as the radius of the tubes tends to zero and the sequence of the pre-fractal curves converges in the Hausdorff metric to the Sierpinski gasket. According to critical values taken by \text{Re}_{ {\mathbf{j}}, h} , we derived three uncommon effective models of fluid flows in the Sierpinski gasket:
1. a singular Brinkman equation if \text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}}, h} = O\left(\varepsilon _{h}\right) ,
2. a singular Darcy flow if \text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}}, h} = O\left(1\right) or \text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}}, h}\longrightarrow \infty as h\longrightarrow \infty ,
3. a flow with constant velocity if \text{Re}_{{\mathbf{j}}, h} = O\left(\varepsilon _{h}^{\alpha }\right) with \alpha > 1 .
As far as the modeling is concerned, fractal branching pipe networks have to be considered to describe fluid flows in various complex geometrical configurations. An important field to which this model is closely related is the behavior of fluid flows in some physiological structures such as the blood circulation through arterial networks. Our model may serve as a starting point for further investigations in this area.
Haifa El Jarroudi: Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing, Methodology, Formal Analysis; Mustapha El Jarroudi: Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing, Methodology, Supervision.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the anonymous referee for giving a number of valuable comments and helpful suggestions, which improve the presentation of sentation of the manuscript significantly.
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
Ahmed M, Khan AM, Bibi S, et al. (2017) Convergence of per capita CO2 emissions across the globe: insights via wavelet analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 75: 86-97. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.053
![]() |
[2] | Ahmed HA, Uddin GS, Ozturk I (2012) Is Real GDP Per capıta Statıonary for Bangladesh? empirical evidence from structural break. Actual Prob Econ 128: 332-339. |
[3] |
Apergis N, Payne JE (2009) Energy consumption and economic growth in Central America: evidence from a panel cointegration and error correction model. Energy Econ 31: 211-216. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.09.002
![]() |
[4] |
Aslanidis N, Fountas S (2014) Is real GDP stationary? Evidence from a panel unit root test with cross−sectional dependence and historical data. Empir Econ 46: 101-108. doi: 10.1007/s00181-012-0668-z
![]() |
[5] | Aydin M (2019) A new nonlinear wavelet-based unit root test with structural breaks. MPRA Paper No. 98693. Available from: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/98693/. |
[6] | Aydin M, Pata UK (2020) Are shocks to disaggregated renewable energy consumption permanent or temporary for the USA? Wavelet based unit root test with smooth structural shifts. Energy. |
[7] | Azimi MN (2015) A unit root hypothesis: is Afghanistan real GDP per capita stationary? (a case study for the period 2001 to 2014). J Econ Bus Res 1: 1-6. |
[8] |
Baktemur FI (2019) STAR models: an application for GDP per capita growth rate. Bus Econ Res J 10: 405-441. doi: 10.20409/berj.2019.176
![]() |
[9] | Banerjee A, Marcellino M, Osbat C (2005) Testing for PPP: should we use panel methods? Empir Econ 30: 77-91. |
[10] |
Becker R, Enders W, Lee J (2006) A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. J Time Series Anal 27: 381-409. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9892.2006.00478.x
![]() |
[11] | Campbell J, Mankiw G (1987 Are output fluctuations transitory? Q J Econ 102: 857-880. |
[12] |
Chang T, Chu HP, Ranjbar O (2014) Are GDP fluctuations transitory or permanent in African countries? Sequential Panel Selection Method. Int Rev Econ Financ 29: 380-399. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2013.07.001
![]() |
[13] | Chang HL, Su CW, Zhu MN (2011) Flexible Fourier stationary test in GDP per capita for Central Eastern European countries. J Econ Bus 29: 51-63. |
[14] |
Chang T, Ho YH, Caudill SB (2010) Is per capita real GDP stationary in China? More powerful nonlinear (logistic) unit root tests. Appl Econ Lett 17: 1347-1349. doi: 10.1080/13504850903007567
![]() |
[15] |
Chang T, Chang HL, Chu HP, et al. (2006) Is per capita real GDP stationary in African countries? Evidence from panel SURADF test. Appl Econ Lett 13: 1003-1008. doi: 10.1080/13504850500425881
![]() |
[16] | Chang T, Nieh CC, Wei CC (2005) Is per capita real GDP stationary? Evidence from selected African countries based on more powerful nonlinear (logistic) unit root tests. Econ Bull 3: 1-9. |
[17] | Chen SW (2008) Are 19 Developed Countries' real per capita GDP levels non-stationary? a revisit. Econ Bull 3: 1-11. |
[18] | Choi I (2006) Combination Unit Root Tests for Cross−Sectionally Correlated Panels, In: Econometric Theory and Practice: Frontiers of Analysis and Applied Research, by Phillips, P.C.B., Corbae, D., Durlauf, S.N., & Hansen, B.E., Eds., Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 311-333. |
[19] |
Cuestas JC, Garratt D (2011) Is real GDP per capita a stationary process? Smooth transitions, nonlinear trends and unit root testing. Empir Econ 41: 555-563. doi: 10.1007/s00181-010-0389-0
![]() |
[20] | Dogru B (2014) Are output fluctuations transitory in the MENA region? Econ Rev/Ekonomski Pregled 65: 35-55. |
[21] |
Eggoh JC, Bangake C, Rault C (2011) Energy consumption and economic growth revisited in African countries. Energy Policy 39: 7408-7421. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.007
![]() |
[22] |
Emirmahmutoglu F, Gupta R, Miller SM, et al. (2020) Is real per capita state personal income stationary? New nonlinear, asymmetric panel‐data evidence. Bull Econ Res 72: 50-62. doi: 10.1111/boer.12209
![]() |
[23] |
Enders W, Lee J (2012) A unit root test using a Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 74: 574-599. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00662.x
![]() |
[24] | Eroglu B, Soybilgen B (2018) On the performance of wavelet based unit root tests. J Risk Financ Manage 11: 47. |
[25] |
Fleissig AR, Strauss J (1999) Is OECD real per capita GDP trend or difference stationary? Evidence from panel unit root test. J Macroecon 21: 673-690. doi: 10.1016/S0164-0704(99)80001-9
![]() |
[26] | Furuoka F (2011) Is GDP in ASEAN countries stationary? New evidence from panel unit root tests. Econ Bull 31: 1391-1400. |
[27] |
Fan Y, Gencay R (2010) Unit root tests with wavelets. Econometric Theory 26: 1305-1331. doi: 10.1017/S0266466609990594
![]() |
[28] | Firat EH (2016) Is real GDP stationary? Evidence from some unit root tests for the advanced economies. J Social Econ Stat 5: 60-80. |
[29] |
Gencay R, Gradojevic N (2011) Errors-in-variables estimation with wavelets. J Stat Comput Simul 81: 1545-1564. doi: 10.1080/00949655.2010.495073
![]() |
[30] |
Guloglu B, Ivrendi M (2008) Output fluctuations: transitory or permanent? The case of Latin America. Appl Econ Lett 17: 381-386. doi: 10.1080/13504850701735880
![]() |
[31] |
Haan JD, Zelhorst D (1993) Does output have a unit root? New International Evidence. Appl Econ 25: 953-960. doi: 10.1080/00036849300000075
![]() |
[32] | Hegwood N, Papell DH (2007) Are real GDP levels trend, difference, or regime−wise trend stationary? Evidence from panel data tests incorporating structural change. South Econ J, 104-113. |
[33] |
Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econometrics 115: 53-74. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
![]() |
[34] |
Jalil A (2014) Energy-growth conundrum in energy exporting and importing countries: Evidence from heterogeneous panel methods robust to cross−sectional dependence. Energy Econ 44: 314-324. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.04.015
![]() |
[35] | Jannati NN, Sultana N, Israt R (2013) Are the real GDP Series in Asian countries nonstationary or nonlinear stationary? Russ J Agr Socio-Econ Sci 6: 8-14. |
[36] |
Lee KC (2014) Is per capita real GDP stationary in China? Sequential panel selection method. Econ Model 37: 507-517. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2013.11.040
![]() |
[37] |
Levin A, Lin CF, Chu CS (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econometrics 108: 1-24. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
![]() |
[38] |
Li XM (2000) The Great Leap Forward, economic reforms and the unit root hypothesis: Testing for breaking trend functions in China's GDP data. J Comp Econ 28: 814-827. doi: 10.1006/jcec.2000.1678
![]() |
[39] | Lucas RE Jr (1977) Understanding Business Cycles. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 5: 7-29. |
[40] | Maddala GS, Wu S (1999) A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf J Econ Stat, 631-652. |
[41] | Murthy VNR, Anoruo E (2009) Are per capita real GDP Series in African countries non-stationary or non-linear? What does empirical evidence reveal? Econ Bull 29: 2492-2504. |
[42] | Ozturk I, Kalyoncu H (2007) Is per capita real GDP stationary in the OECD countries? Econ Rev/Ekonomski Pregled 58: 680-688. |
[43] |
Perron P (1988) Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: Further Evidence from a New Approach. J Econ Dyn Control 12: 297-332. doi: 10.1016/0165-1889(88)90043-7
![]() |
[44] |
Pesaran HM (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependency. J Appl Econometrics 22: 265-312. doi: 10.1002/jae.951
![]() |
[45] | Narayan PK (2008a) Is Asian per capita GDP panel stationary? Empir Econ 34: 439-449. |
[46] |
Narayan PK (2008b) Evidence of panel stationarity from Chinese provincial and regional income. China Econ Rev 19: 274-286. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2007.02.010
![]() |
[47] | Narayan PK (2007) Are G7 per capita real GDP levels non-stationary, 1870-2001? Japan World Econ 19: 374-379. |
[48] |
Nelson CR, Plosser CI (1982) Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series−some evidence and implications. J Monetary Econ 10: 139-162. doi: 10.1016/0304-3932(82)90012-5
![]() |
[49] | Noor S, Siddiqi MW (2010) Energy consumption and economic growth in South Asian countries: a co-integrated panel analysis. Int J Energy Power Eng 4: 1731-1736. |
[50] | Nyoni T, Muchingami L (2019) Modeling and forecasting Botswana's growth domestic product (GDP) per capita. MPRA Paper No. 93987. Available from: https://mpra.ub.uni−muenchen.de/93987/. |
[51] | Oskooe SAP, Akbari LT (2015) Is per capita real GDP stationary? Evidence from OPEC countries. Int J Humanit Social Sci 5: 166-168. |
[52] |
Ozturk I (2010) A literature survey on energy-growth nexus. Energy policy 38: 340-349. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.024
![]() |
[53] |
Rapach DE (2002) Are real GDP levels non-stationary? Evidence from panel data tests. South Econ J 68: 473-495. doi: 10.2307/1061713
![]() |
[54] | Rodríguez-Caballero CV (2021) Energy consumption and GDP: a panel data analysis with multi-level cross-sectional dependence. Econometric Stat. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosta.2020.11.002. |
[55] | Rodríguez-Caballero CV, Ventosa-Santaulària D (2017) Energy-growth long-term relationship under structural breaks. Evidence from Canada, 17 Latin American economies and the USA. Energy Econ 61: 121-134. |
[56] | Shen PL, Su CW, Chang HL (2013) Are real GDP levels non-stationary across Central and Eastern European countries? Baltic J Econ 13: 99-108. |
[57] |
Smyth R, Inder B (2004) Is Chinese provincial real GDP per capita non-stationary? Evidence from multiple trend break unit root tests. China Econ Rev 15: 1-24. doi: 10.1016/S1043-951X(03)00025-7
![]() |
[58] |
Tiba S, Omri A (2017) Literature survey on the relationships between energy, environment and economic growth. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69: 1129-1146. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.113
![]() |
[59] |
Tiwari AK, Suresh KG (2014) Mean reversion in per capita GDP of Asian countries. J Econ Stud 41: 2-11. doi: 10.1108/JES-09-2011-0109
![]() |
[60] |
Tiwari AK, Chaudhari A, Suresh KG (2012a) Are Asian per capita GDP stationary? Evidence from first and second generation panel unit root tests. Transit Stud Rev 19: 3-11. doi: 10.1007/s11300-012-0225-7
![]() |
[61] | Tiwari AK, Shahbaz M, Shabbir MS (2012b) Is per capita GDP non-linear stationary in SAARC countries? Eur Econ Lett 1: 1-5. |
[62] | World Development Indicators (2020) the World Bank. Available from: https://databank.worldbank.org/home.aspx. |
[63] |
Yazgan ME, Ozkan H (2015) Detecting structural changes using wavelets. Financ Res Lett 12: 23-37. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2014.12.003
![]() |
[64] | Ying Z, Dong CR, Chang HL, et al. (2014) Are real GDP levels stationary in African countries? South Afr J Econ 82: 393-401. |
[65] | Zeren F, İşlek H (2019) Is per capita real GDP stationary in the D-8 countries? evidence from a panel unit root test, Chapter 4, Book: Selected Topics in Applied Econometrics, Printed by CPI books GmbH, Leck. |
[66] | Zhang NJ, Lii P, Huang YS, et al. (2007) Is per capita real GDP stationary in China? Evidence-based on a panel SURADF approach. Econ Bull 3: 1-12. |
![]() |
![]() |