This paper is concerned with the following Keller–Segel–Navier–Stokes system with indirect signal production and tensor-valued sensitivity:
{nt+u⋅∇n=Δn−∇⋅(nS(x,n,v,w)∇v),x∈Ω,t>0,vt+u⋅∇v=Δv−v+w,x∈Ω,t>0,wt+u⋅∇w=Δw−w+n,x∈Ω,t>0,ut+κ(u⋅∇)u+∇P=Δu+n∇ϕ,x∈Ω,t>0,∇⋅u=0,x∈Ω,t>0, (♡)
in a bounded domain Ω⊂R2 with smooth boundary, where κ∈R, ϕ∈W2,∞(Ω), and S is a given function with values in R2×2 which satisfies |S(x,v,w,u)|≤CS(n+1)−α with CS>0. If α>0, then for any sufficiently smooth initial data, there exists a globally classical solution which is bounded for the corresponding initial-boundary value problem of system (♡).
Citation: Kai Gao. Global boundedness of classical solutions to a Keller-Segel-Navier-Stokes system involving saturated sensitivity and indirect signal production in two dimensions[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(3): 1710-1736. doi: 10.3934/era.2023089
[1] | Zihan Zheng, Juan Wang, Liming Cai . Global boundedness in a Keller-Segel system with nonlinear indirect signal consumption mechanism. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(8): 4796-4808. doi: 10.3934/era.2024219 |
[2] | Zhonghua Qiao, Xuguang Yang . A multiple-relaxation-time lattice Boltzmann method with Beam-Warming scheme for a coupled chemotaxis-fluid model. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(3): 1207-1225. doi: 10.3934/era.2020066 |
[3] | Jie Qi, Weike Wang . Global solutions to the Cauchy problem of BNSP equations in some classes of large data. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(9): 5496-5541. doi: 10.3934/era.2024255 |
[4] | Linlin Tan, Bianru Cheng . Global well-posedness of 2D incompressible Navier–Stokes–Darcy flow in a type of generalized time-dependent porosity media. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(10): 5649-5681. doi: 10.3934/era.2024262 |
[5] | Guoliang Ju, Can Chen, Rongliang Chen, Jingzhi Li, Kaitai Li, Shaohui Zhang . Numerical simulation for 3D flow in flow channel of aeroengine turbine fan based on dimension splitting method. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 837-851. doi: 10.3934/era.2020043 |
[6] | Chun Huang . Global boundedness for a chemotaxis-competition system with signal dependent sensitivity and loop. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(5): 3261-3279. doi: 10.3934/era.2021037 |
[7] | Jie Zhang, Gaoli Huang, Fan Wu . Energy equality in the isentropic compressible Navier-Stokes-Maxwell equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(10): 6412-6424. doi: 10.3934/era.2023324 |
[8] | Ya Tian, Jing Luo . Boundedness and large time behavior of a signal-dependent motility system with nonlinear indirect signal production. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(11): 6301-6319. doi: 10.3934/era.2024293 |
[9] |
Guochun Wu, Han Wang, Yinghui Zhang .
Optimal time-decay rates of the compressible Navier–Stokes–Poisson system in |
[10] |
Jiayi Han, Changchun Liu .
Global existence for a two-species chemotaxis-Navier-Stokes system with |
This paper is concerned with the following Keller–Segel–Navier–Stokes system with indirect signal production and tensor-valued sensitivity:
{nt+u⋅∇n=Δn−∇⋅(nS(x,n,v,w)∇v),x∈Ω,t>0,vt+u⋅∇v=Δv−v+w,x∈Ω,t>0,wt+u⋅∇w=Δw−w+n,x∈Ω,t>0,ut+κ(u⋅∇)u+∇P=Δu+n∇ϕ,x∈Ω,t>0,∇⋅u=0,x∈Ω,t>0, (♡)
in a bounded domain Ω⊂R2 with smooth boundary, where κ∈R, ϕ∈W2,∞(Ω), and S is a given function with values in R2×2 which satisfies |S(x,v,w,u)|≤CS(n+1)−α with CS>0. If α>0, then for any sufficiently smooth initial data, there exists a globally classical solution which is bounded for the corresponding initial-boundary value problem of system (♡).
Chemotaxis is a biological phenomenon which describes the oriented movement of cells (or organisms) in response to chemical gradients [1,2]. As early as 1970, Keller and Segel [3] originally introduced a chemotaxis model through a system of parabolic equations. This model reads
{nt=Δn−∇⋅(nS(x,n,c)∇c),x∈Ω,t>0,ct=Δc−c+n,x∈Ω,t>0, | (1.1) |
where Ω⊂RN is a bounded domain with smooth boundary, the unknown functions n and c respectively represent the cell density and the signal concentration, and S denotes the chemotactic sensitivity. This model is primarily used to describe the aggregation phenomenon of Dictyostelium discoideum, where the effects of the chemical signal secreted by themselves are taken into consideration. During the past half a century, the Keller-Segel model has been attracting many scholars' attention. The known results are concentrated on whether the solutions for Neumann boundary problem of (1.1) globally exist or blow up in finite time. Concretely, if S:=S(n) is a scalar function fulfilling S(n)≤CS(n+1)−α with some CS>0 and α>0, then for all α>1−2N, the corresponding problem has a global solution which is uniformly bounded [4]. However, if S satisfies S(n)>cSn−α with some cS>0 and α<1−2N for N≥2, and Ω is a ball, then the solution of (1.1) will blow up in finite time. So,
α=N−2N |
is called the critical exponent of the blow-up phenomenon. Recently, some results relating to the well-posedness of the hyperbolic Keller-Segel equation in the Besov framework were obtained in [5]. Afterwards, Zhang et al. [6] improved these results and established two kinds of blow-up criteria of strong solutions in Besov spaces by means of Littlewood-Paley theory. For more results about (1.1) and its variations, we refer interested readers to [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]
If we consider the framework where the chemical is produced by the cells indirectly, the corresponding chemotaxis model turns to the following Keller-Segel system with indirect signal production:
{nt=Δn−∇⋅(nS(x,n,v,w)∇v),x∈Ω,t>0,vt=Δv−v+w,x∈Ω,t>0,wt=Δw−w+n,x∈Ω,t>0, | (1.2) |
in a bounded domain Ω⊂RN with smooth boundary, where the functions n, v and w represent the cells, density, the signal and the chemical concentration, respectively. If S(x,n,v,w)=χ with χ>0 and N≤3, Fujie and Senba [17] showed that the homogeneous Neumann (or mixed) boundary problem of system (1.2) possesses a unique and globally bounded classical solution.
However, in many cases, the migration of cells (or bacteria) is largely affected by their surrounding environment [18,19]. If the cells consume the chemical signal, Tuval et al. [19] introduced the following chemotaxis-fluid system:
{nt+u⋅∇n=Δn−∇⋅(nS(x,n,c)∇c),x∈Ω,t>0,ct+u⋅∇c=Δc−nf(c),x∈Ω,t>0,ut+κ(u⋅∇)u+∇P=Δu+n∇ϕ,x∈Ω,t>0,∇⋅u=0,x∈Ω,t>0, | (1.3) |
in a bounded domain Ω⊂R3 with smooth boundary, where f(c) measures the rate that cells consume the oxygen, and S(x,n,c) is a tensor-valued (or scalar) chemotactic sensitivity. Most remarkably, by means of the chemical consumption setting and the maximum principle of the parabolic equations, we may directly deduce that c is uniformly bounded from the second equation of (1.3). This significant feature leads to the chemotaxis-fluid model with the framework of signal consumption being more intensively studied than the signal production mechanism. For instance, Winkler [20] proved that the global weak solution of system (1.3) which has enough regularity properties and thereby fulfills the condition of so-called eventual energy solution (this concept is newly proposed in his paper) becomes eventually smooth after some waiting time. For more studies about this system, one can refer to Zheng [21], Winkler [22,23,24,25] and other results on the global solvability and asymptotic behavior, such as [26,27,28], for details.
Considering the framework where the chemical signal is produced by the cells instead of consuming it, the corresponding chemotaxis-fluid model becomes the following Keller-Segel(-Navier)-Stokes system:
{nt+u⋅∇n=Δn−∇⋅(nS(x,n,c)∇c),x∈Ω,t>0,ct+u⋅∇c=Δc−c+n,x∈Ω,t>0,ut+κ(u⋅∇)u+∇P=Δu+n∇ϕ,x∈Ω,t>0,∇⋅u=0,x∈Ω,t>0, | (1.4) |
where S is a tensor-valued (or scalar) function, and Ω⊂RN with smooth boundary. Let us just list a few representative results. For the Navier-Stokes fluid (i.e. κ≠0), if |S(x,n,c)|≤CS(n+1)−α with CS>0 and α>0, in 2D case Wang et al. [29] showed that the initial-boundary value problem of (1.4) admits at least one classical solution. In the 3D Stokes case (i.e. κ=0) of (1.4), Wang and Xiang [30] got the same results for α>12. For the 3D Navier-Stokes version of system (1.4), Liu and Wang [31] verified that there exists at least one global weak solution for the corresponding initial-boundary value problem of (1.4) if |S(x,n,c)|≤CS(n+1)−α with some CS>0 and α>37. Recently, Ke and Zheng [32] improved the restriction admitting a global weak solution from α>37 to α>13, which compared with the known result of the fluid-free system is an optimal restriction on α. As for the further results, under assumption α≥1 and an explicit condition on the size of CS, Zheng [33] confirmed that the weak solution of system (1.4) would be eventually smooth, and that it is close to a unique spatially homogeneous steady state. Additionally, one can see [34,35,36] and the references therein to find more conclusions about this system.
Motivated by the above works, in this paper we consider the following initial-boundary value problem of the Keller-Segel-Navier-Stokes system with indirect signal production:
{nt+u⋅∇n=Δn−∇⋅(nS(x,n,v,w)∇v),x∈Ω,t>0,vt+u⋅∇v=Δv−v+w,x∈Ω,t>0,wt+u⋅∇w=Δw−w+n,x∈Ω,t>0,ut+κ(u⋅∇)u+∇P=Δu+n∇ϕ,x∈Ω,t>0,∇⋅u=0,x∈Ω,t>0,(∇n−nS(x,n,v,w)∇v)⋅ν=∇v⋅ν=∇w⋅ν=0,u=0,x∈∂Ω,t>0,n(x,0)=n0(x),v(x,0)=v0(x),w(x,0)=w0(x),u(x,0)=u0(x),x∈Ω, | (1.5) |
where Ω⊂R2 is a bounded domain with smooth boundary, and S(x,n,v,w) satisfies
S∈C2(ˉΩ×[0,∞)3;R2×2), | (1.6) |
and
|S(x,n,v,w)|≤CS(n+1)−α,(x,n,v,w)∈Ω×[0,∞)3 | (1.7) |
with some CS>0 and α≥0. To state our main results of this paper, we make the following assumptions that
ϕ∈W2,∞(Ω), | (1.8) |
and the initial data (n0,v0,w0,u0) satisfies
{n0∈Cι(ˉΩ) with n0≥0 in Ω for certain ι>0,v0∈W1,∞(Ω) with v0≥0 in ˉΩ,w0∈W1,∞(Ω) with w0≥0 in ˉΩ,u0∈D(Aγr) for some γ∈(12,1) and any r∈(1,∞), | (1.9) |
where Ar denotes the Stokes operator with domain D(Ar):=W2,r(Ω)∩W1,r0(Ω)∩Lrσ(Ω) and Lrσ(Ω):={φ∈Lr(Ω)|∇⋅φ=0} [37].
With these assumptions at hand, we can state the following main results.
Theorem 1.1. If (1.6), (1.7), (1.8) and (1.9) hold, then for any
α>0, | (1.10) |
there exists a global classical solution (n,v,w,u,P) of problem (1.5) which fulfills
{n∈C0(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2,1(ˉΩ×(0,∞)),v∈C0(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2,1(ˉΩ×(0,∞))∩L∞([0,∞);W1,p(Ω)),w∈C0(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2,1(ˉΩ×(0,∞))∩L∞([0,∞);W1,q(Ω)),u∈C0(ˉΩ×[0,∞);R2)∩C2,1(ˉΩ×(0,∞);R2)∩L∞([0,∞);D(Aγ)),P∈C1,0(ˉΩ×(0,∞)) | (1.11) |
with p,q>1 and γ∈(0,1), where n, v and w are nonnegative in Ω×(0,∞). Moreover, the solution is bounded, and there exists C(γ)>0 such that
‖n(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)+‖w(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)+‖v(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)+‖Aγu(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω)≤C(γ) | (1.12) |
for all t>0, where γ is given by (1.9).
Remark 1.1. Theorem 1.1 improves the result of Yu [38], which showed that if α>0, then the Stokes version of problem (1.5) possesses a global classical solution.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we claim that the regularized problem possesses at least one local classical solution which is nonnegative. Relying on a series of ε-independent a priori estimates obtained in Section 3, in Section 4 we verify the local existence of a classical solution for regularized problem can be extended to the global. In Section 5, we will construct a global weak solution which has enough regularity to become a classical solution to prove our main results.
Compared with the classical Keller-Segel model, the convection term presenting in the Navier-Stokes equations engenders more mathematical difficulties. We define
Sε(x,n,v,w):=ρε(x)χε(n)S(x,n,v,w) for all (x,n,v,w)∈ˉΩ×[0,∞)3, | (2.1) |
where {ρε}ε∈(0,1)∈C∞0(Ω) is a family of standard cut-off functions fulfilling 0≤ρε≤1 in Ω and ρε↗1 in Ω as ε↘0, and χε∈C∞0([0,∞)) satisfies 0≤χε≤1 in [0,∞) and χε↗1 in [0,∞) as ε↘0.
Then, we can introduce the following approximate system of (1.5):
{nεt+uε⋅∇nε=Δnε−∇⋅(nεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε),x∈Ω,t>0,vεt+uε⋅∇vε=Δvε−vε+wε,x∈Ω,t>0,wεt+uε⋅∇wε=Δwε−wε+nε,x∈Ω,t>0,uεt+∇Pε=Δuε−κ(Yεuε⋅∇)uε+nε∇ϕ,x∈Ω,t>0,∇⋅uε=0,x∈Ω,t>0,∇nε⋅ν=∇vε⋅ν=∇wε⋅ν=0,uε=0,x∈∂Ω,t>0,nε(x,0)=n0(x),vε(x,0)=v0(x),wε(x,0)=w0(x),uε(x,0)=u0(x),x∈Ω, | (2.2) |
where
Yεξ:=(1+εA)−1ξ for all ξ∈L2σ(Ω) |
is the standard Yosida approximation, and A:=−PΔ is the realization of the Stokes operator with P denoting the Helmholtz projection of L2(Ω) onto solenoidal subspace L2σ(Ω) [37].
Our main idea is to construct a weak solution which is globally bounded (the concept of weak solution can be found in Definition 5.1), and we claim it possesses adequate regularity to be a classical solution. The biggest obstacle we must deal with is the bad regularity of n caused by the small exponent α. Our main tool is based upon an energy estimate concerning the functional
∫Ωn1+αε(⋅,t)+∫Ω|∇vε(⋅,t)|2, |
which successfully overcomes this difficulty. The appropriately regularized problem (2.2) possesses local-in-time classical solution, which can be stated as follows.
Lemma 2.1. Suppose ϕ∈W2,∞(Ω) and ε∈(0,1). Let Ω⊂R2 be a bounded domain with smooth boundary. Then, there exist Tmax,ε∈(0,∞] and a classical solution (nε,vε,wε,uε,Pε) of (2.2) in Ω×(0,Tmax,ε) such that
{nε∈C0(ˉΩ×[0,Tmax,ε))∩C2,1(ˉΩ×(0,Tmax,ε)),vε∈C0(ˉΩ×[0,Tmax,ε))∩C2,1(ˉΩ×(0,Tmax,ε)),wε∈C0(ˉΩ×[0,Tmax,ε))∩C2,1(ˉΩ×(0,Tmax,ε)),uε∈C0(ˉΩ×[0,Tmax,ε))∩C2,1(ˉΩ×(0,Tmax,ε)),Pε∈C1,0(ˉΩ×(0,Tmax,ε)) | (2.3) |
solves (2.2) in the classical sence in Ω×[0,Tmax,ε), and that nε, vε and wε are nonnegative in Ω×(0,Tmax,ε). Moreover, if Tmax,ε<∞, then we have
‖nε(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)+‖vε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)+‖wε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)+‖Aγuε(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω)→∞ |
as t→Tmax,ε, where γ is similar to that in (1.9).
Proof. The fixed point argument which is established in [39,40] enables us to immediately substantiate the local existence for a classical solution which complies with (2.3). That nε, vε and wε are nonnegative is a clear conclusion of the maximum principle [41].
In this section, we will derive a series ε-independent a priori estimates of the classical solution (nε,vε,wε,uε) of regularized problem (2.2) from Lemma 2.1. By the way, we take τ=min{1,14Tmax,ε}. The positive constants Ci (i∈N∗) appearing in the proof of every lemma are independent of ε∈(0,1), which only depend on Ω,α,CS,ϕ,n0,v0,w0 and u0 if there is no especial explanation. Firstly, by simple integration and ODE comparison arguments, we obtain the following boundedness of L1-norms, which is common in many chemotaxis models.
Lemma 3.1. For any ε∈(0,1), the solution of (2.2) satisfies
∫Ωnε(⋅,t)=∫Ωn0 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) | (3.1) |
as well as
∫Ωwε(⋅,t)≤max{∫Ωn0,∫Ωw0} for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) | (3.2) |
and
∫Ωvε(⋅,t)≤max{∫Ωn0,∫Ωv0,∫Ωw0} for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (3.3) |
Lemma 3.2. If α>0, then for any μ>0, there exists a constant C>0 independent of ε∈(0,1) such that
‖nε(⋅,t)‖2L1+α(Ω)≤μ‖∇nαε(⋅,t)‖2L2(Ω)+C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (3.4) |
Proof. For any μ>0, the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality and the Young inequality provide positive constants C1 and C2 such that
‖nε‖2L1+α(Ω)=‖nαε‖2αLα+1α≤C1‖∇nαε‖21+αL2(Ω)‖nαε‖2α(1+α)L1α(Ω)+C1‖nαε‖2αL1α(Ω)≤μ‖∇nαε‖2L2(Ω)+C2 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε), | (3.5) |
where the boundedness of ‖nε‖L1(Ω) from (3.1) and the fact that 21+α<2 by α>0 are used.
Lemma 3.3. If α>0 and p∈[2,2+2α1+α), then there exists some C>0 such that for all ε∈(0,1) the solution of (2.2) satisfies
{∫Ωn2αε(⋅,t)+∫Ωv2ε(⋅,t)+∫Ωwpε(⋅,t)≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) if α≠12∫Ωnε(⋅,t)lnnε(⋅,t)+∫Ωv2ε(⋅,t)+∫Ωwpε(⋅,t)≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) if α=12 | (3.6) |
and
∫t+τt∫Ω|∇nαε|2+∫t+τt∫Ω|∇vε|2+∫t+τt∫Ω|∇wp2ε|2≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε−τ). | (3.7) |
Proof. This proof may be divided into two cases:
Case 1, α≠12.
First, multiplying the first equation of (2.2) by n2α−1ε, employing the fact that ∇⋅uε=0, integrating by parts, we derive
12αddt∫Ωn2αε+2α−1α2∫Ω|∇nαε|2=∫Ωn2α−1ε∇⋅(nεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε). | (3.8) |
Applying the Young inequality and the trivial fact nεnε+1≤1, by (1.7), we obtain
sgn(2α−1)2αddt∫Ωn2αε+|2α−1|α2∫Ω|∇nαε|2=sgn(2α−1)∫Ωn2α−1ε∇⋅(nεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε)≤|2α−1|∫Ωn2α−1ε|Sε(x,nε,vε,wε)||∇vε||∇nε|≤|2α−1|CS∫Ωn2α−1ε(nε+1)−α|∇vε||∇nε|≤|2α−1|2α2∫Ω|∇nαε|2+|2α−1|2C2S∫Ω|∇vε|2. | (3.9) |
Namely,
sgn(2α−1)αddt∫Ωn2αε+|2α−1|α2∫Ω|∇nαε|2≤|2α−1|C2S∫Ω|∇vε|2. | (3.10) |
Next, testing the second equation of (2.2) by vε, utilizing the fact that uε is divergence-free and the continuous embedding W1,2(Ω)↪L1+αα(Ω), by virtue of the Hölder inequality and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we deduce that there exists a constant C1>0 satisfying
12ddt∫Ωv2ε+∫Ω|∇vε|2+∫Ωv2ε=∫Ωvεwε≤‖vε‖L1+αα(Ω)‖wε‖L1+α(Ω)≤C1‖vε‖W1,2(Ω)‖wε‖L1+α(Ω)≤12∫Ωv2ε+12∫Ω|∇vε|2+12C21‖wε‖2L1+α(Ω). | (3.11) |
Hence,
ddt∫Ωv2ε+∫Ω|∇vε|2+∫Ωv2ε≤C21‖wε‖2L1+α(Ω). | (3.12) |
This along with a multiple of (3.10) yields that
ddt(sgn(2α−1)2α|2α−1|C2S∫Ωn2αε+∫Ωv2ε)+12α2C2S∫Ω|∇nαε|2+12∫Ω|∇vε|2+∫Ωv2ε≤C21‖wε‖2L1+α(Ω). | (3.13) |
Then, multiplying the third equation of (2.2) by wp−1ε with p∈[2,2+2α1+α), integrating by parts, applying the Hölder and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities as well as the fact ∇⋅uε=0, we have
1pddt∫Ωwpε+4(p−1)p2∫Ω|∇wp2ε|2+∫Ωwpε=∫Ωnεwp−1ε≤‖nε‖L1+α(Ω)‖wp−1ε‖L1+αα(Ω)≤12‖nε‖2L1+α(Ω)+12‖wp−1ε‖2L1+αα(Ω). | (3.14) |
Combining (3.13) and (3.14), we get
ddt(sgn(2α−1)2α|2α−1|C2S∫Ωn2αε+∫Ωv2ε+1p∫Ωwpε)+12α2C2S∫Ω|∇nαε|2+4(p−1)p2∫Ω|∇wp2ε|2+12∫Ω|∇vε|2+∫Ωv2ε≤C21‖wε‖2L1+α(Ω)+12‖nε‖2L1+α(Ω)+12‖wp−1ε‖2L1+αα(Ω) for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (3.15) |
To handle these three terms on the right side of (3.15), one can employ the Gagliardo-Nirenberg and the Young inequalities as well as Lemma 3.2 to estimate
C21‖wε‖2L1+α(Ω)=C21‖wp2ε‖4pL2(1+α)p(Ω)≤C2‖∇wp2ε‖4α(1+α)pL2(Ω)‖wp2ε‖4(1+α)pL2p(Ω)+C2‖wp2ε‖4pL2p(Ω)≤p−1p2‖∇wp2ε‖2L2(Ω)+C3 | (3.16) |
as well as
12‖wp−1ε‖2L1+αα=12‖wp2ε‖4(p−1)pL2(p−1)(1+α)pα(Ω)≤C4‖∇wp2ε‖4p(p−1−α1+α)L2(Ω)‖wp2ε‖4αp(1+α)L2p(Ω)+C4‖wp2ε‖4(p−1)pL2p(Ω)≤p−1p2‖∇wp2ε‖2L2(Ω)+C5 | (3.17) |
and
12‖nε‖2L1+α(Ω)≤14α2C2S∫Ω|∇nαε|2+C6 | (3.18) |
with positive constants C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6, where we have 4α(1+α)p<2 and 4p(p−1−α1+α)<2 by p∈[2,2+2α1+α). Substituting (3.16), (3.17) and (3.18) into (3.15), one has
ddt(sgn(2α−1)2α|2α−1|C2S∫Ωn2αε+∫Ωv2ε+1p∫Ωwpε)+14α2C2S∫Ω|∇nαε|2+2(p−1)p2∫Ω|∇wp2ε|2+12∫Ω|∇vε|2+∫Ωv2ε≤C7 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) | (3.19) |
with C7:=C3+C5+C6. If sgn(2α−1)=1 (i.e. α>12), (3.19) in conjunction with some standard arguments implies that (3.6) and (3.7) hold. On the other hand, if sgn(2α−1)=−1 (i.e. 0<α<12), we set
fε(t):=−12α|2α−1|C2S∫Ωn2αε(⋅,t)+∫Ωv2ε(⋅,t)+1p∫Ωwpε(⋅,t) | (3.20) |
and
gε(t):=14α2C2S∫Ω|∇nαε(⋅,t)|2+12∫Ω|∇vε(⋅,t)|2+p−1p2∫Ω|∇wp2ε(⋅,t)|2. | (3.21) |
By the Gagliardo-Nirenberg estimate
1p∫Ωwpε=1p‖wp2ε‖2L2(Ω)≤C8‖∇wp2ε‖2−2pL2(Ω)‖wp2ε‖2pL2p(Ω)+C8‖wp2ε‖2L2p(Ω)≤p−1p2∫Ω|∇wp2ε|2+C9 |
and (3.19), we deduce
ddtfε(t)+fε(t)+gε(t)≤C10 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) | (3.22) |
with C10:=C7+C9, where we observe the fact that fε(t)≤∫Ωv2ε(⋅,t)+1p∫Ωwpε(⋅,t). In view of an ODE comparison argument, from (3.22), we obtain a constant C11>0 such that
−12α|2α−1|C2S∫Ωn2αε+∫Ωv2ε+1p∫Ωwpε≤C11. | (3.23) |
Since 0<α<12, the boundedness of ∫Ωn2αε is an immediate consequence by (3.1). Thus, (3.23) guarantees the existence of some constant C12>0 satisfying
∫Ωv2ε+1p∫Ωwpε≤12α|2α−1|C2S∫Ωn2αε+C11≤C12 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (3.24) |
Integrating (3.19) in time, there exists a C13>0 fulfilling
∫t+τt∫Ω|∇nαε|2+∫t+τt∫Ω|∇vε|2+∫t+τt∫Ω|∇wp2ε|2≤C13 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε−τ). | (3.25) |
Consequently, (3.6) and (3.7) hold for α≠12.
Case 2, α=12.
By the first equation of (2.2), one may exploit the Young inequality to estimate
ddt∫Ωnεlnnε=∫Ωnεtlnnε+∫Ωnεt=∫ΩΔnεlnnε−∫Ωlnnε∇⋅(nεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε)≤−∫Ω|∇nε|2nε+CS∫Ω(nε+1)−12|∇nε||∇vε|≤−12∫Ω|∇nε|2nε+12C2S∫Ω|∇vε|2. | (3.26) |
That is,
ddt∫Ωnεlnnε+12∫Ω|∇nε|2nε≤12C2S∫Ω|∇vε|2. | (3.27) |
Using the same arguments as proving case 0<α<12, it is deduced that
∫Ωnεlnnε+∫Ωv2ε+∫Ωwpε≤C14 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε), | (3.28) |
and
∫t+τt∫Ω|∇nε|2nε+∫t+τt∫Ω|∇vε|2+∫t+τt∫Ω|∇wp2ε|2≤C15 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε−τ) | (3.29) |
with positive constants C14 and C15. Thus, (3.6) and (3.7) hold for α=12.
Therefore, we may merge these two cases to conclude that (3.6) and (3.7) hold for any α>0. We complete this proof.
Lemma 3.4. There exists a constant C>0 independent of ε∈(0,1) such that the solution of (2.2) satisfies
∫Ω|uε|2(⋅,t)≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) | (3.30) |
and
∫t+τt∫Ω|∇uε|2≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε−τ). | (3.31) |
Proof. Multiplying the fourth equation of (2.2) by uε, recalling the fact that uε is divergence-free, integrating by parts, we have
12ddt∫Ω|uε|2+∫Ω|∇uε|2=∫Ωnεuε⋅∇ϕ for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (3.32) |
Then, in light of the Hölder inequality as well as the Young inequality and the continuous embedding W1,2(Ω)↪L1+αα(Ω), we apply Lemma 3.2 to estimate
∫Ωnεuε⋅∇ϕ≤‖nε‖L1+α(Ω)‖uε‖L1+αα(Ω)‖∇ϕ‖L∞(Ω)≤C1‖nε‖L1+α(Ω)‖∇uε‖L2(Ω)‖∇ϕ‖L∞(Ω)≤12‖∇uε‖2L2(Ω)+C2‖nε‖2L1+α(Ω)≤12‖∇uε‖2L2(Ω)+‖∇nαε‖2L2(Ω)+C3 | (3.33) |
with positive constants C1, C2 and C3. Now, inserting (3.33) into (3.32) and considering the estimate obtained by (3.7), we obtain
∫Ω|uε|2≤C4 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) | (3.34) |
and
∫t+τt∫Ω|∇uε|2≤C5 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε−τ) | (3.35) |
with positive constants C4 and C5. The proof is completed.
By almost exactly analogous argument with Lemma 6.1 in [29], one can directly derive the higher norm estimate of wε.
Lemma 3.5. For any q≥2, one can find a constant C>0 independent of ε∈(0,1) such that
‖wε(⋅,t)‖Lq(Ω)≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (3.36) |
Lemma 3.6. For any ε∈(0,1), there exists a constant C>0 that satisfies
∫Ω|∇vε(⋅,t)|2≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) | (3.37) |
and
∫t+τt∫Ω|Δvε|2≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε−τ). | (3.38) |
Proof. Testing the second equation in (2.2) by −Δvε, by applying the Young inequality and integrating by parts, we derive
12ddt∫Ω|∇vε|2+∫Ω|Δvε|2+∫Ω|∇vε|2=−∫ΩwεΔvε+∫Ω(uε⋅∇vε)Δvε≤14∫Ω|Δvε|2+∫Ωw2ε−∫Ω∇vε⋅(∇uε⋅∇vε)≤14∫Ω|Δvε|2−∫Ω∇vε⋅(∇uε⋅∇vε)+C1, | (3.39) |
where the positive constant C1 satisfies ∫Ωw2ε≤C1, and we have the fact that
∫Ω∇vε⋅(D2vε⋅uε)=12∫Ωuε⋅∇|∇vε|2=0. | (3.40) |
In view of the standard elliptic regularity theory, the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality and the Young inequality provide a constant C2>0 fulfilling
−∫Ω∇vε⋅(∇uε⋅∇vε)≤‖∇uε‖L2(Ω)‖∇vε‖2L4(Ω)≤C2‖∇uε‖L2(Ω)‖∇vε‖L2(Ω)‖Δvε‖L2(Ω)≤C22‖∇uε‖2L2(Ω)‖∇vε‖2L2(Ω)+14‖Δvε‖2L2(Ω). | (3.41) |
This in conjunction with (3.39) indicates that
12ddt∫Ω|∇vε|2+12∫Ω|Δvε|2+∫Ω|∇vε|2≤C22‖∇uε‖2L2(Ω)‖∇vε‖2L2(Ω)+C1 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (3.42) |
If we put
yε(t):=12∫Ω|∇vε(⋅,t)|2 |
and
ρε(t):=2C22∫Ω|∇uε(⋅,t)|2, |
then (3.42) yields that
ddtyε(t)+zε(t)≤ρε(t)yε(t)+C1 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε), | (3.43) |
where
zε(t)=12∫Ω|Δvε(⋅,t)|2. |
Recalling the estimates inferred from (3.7) and (3.31), there are two positive constants C3 and C4 satisfying
∫t+τtyε(s)ds≤C3 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε−τ) |
and
∫t+τtρε(s)ds≤C4 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε−τ). |
Furthermore, for any t∈(0,Tmax,ε), one can pick a t0∈[(t−τ)+,t) such that yε(⋅,t0)≤C5 with some C5>0. Invoking the Gronwall inequality, we obtain
yε(t)≤yε(t0)e∫tt0ρε(s)ds+∫tt0e∫tsρε(τ)dτC1ds≤C5eC4+∫tt0eC4C1ds≤C5eC4+C1eC4 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε), | (3.44) |
which implies (3.37). Finally, integrating (3.42) in time and exploiting the estimates obtained in (3.37) and (3.31), we can verify (3.38) is valid.
Lemma 3.7. If α>0, then there exists a constant C>0 independent of ε∈(0,1) such that
∫Ωn1+αε(⋅,t)≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) | (3.45) |
and
∫t+τt∫Ωnα−1ε|∇nε|2≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε−τ). | (3.46) |
Particularly, one has
∫t+τt∫Ωn2ε≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε−τ). | (3.47) |
Proof. Testing the first equation of (2.2) by nαε, noticing the fact that ∇⋅uε=0 and integrating by parts, by using the Young inequality and (1.7), we arrive at
11+αddt‖nε‖1+αL1+α(Ω)+α∫Ωnα−1ε|∇nε|2=−∫Ωnαε∇⋅(nεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε)≤αCS∫Ωnαε(nε+1)−α|∇nε‖∇vε|≤α4∫Ωnα−1ε|∇nε|2+αC2S∫Ωn1+αε(nε+1)−2α|∇vε|2≤α4∫Ωnα−1ε|∇nε|2+αC2S2∫Ωn2ε+αC2S2∫Ωn2αε(nε+1)−4α|∇vε|4≤α4∫Ωnα−1ε|∇nε|2+αC2S2∫Ωn2ε+αC2S2∫Ω|∇vε|4, | (3.48) |
where one can readily see that n2αε(nε+1)−4α=(nεnε+1)2α(nε+1)−2α<1 by α>0. By means of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality and the Young inequality, we conclude that
αC2S2∫Ωn2ε=αC2S2‖n1+α2ε‖41+αL41+α(Ω)≤C1‖∇nε1+α2‖21+αL2(Ω)‖n1+α2ε‖21+αL21+α(Ω)+C1‖n1+α2ε‖41+αL21+α(Ω)≤α4∫Ωnα−1ε|∇nε|2+C2 | (3.49) |
with positive constants C1 and C2, where we observe the truth that 21+α<2 by α>0. Moreover, looking back on the estimate in (3.37), we utilize the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality and the elliptic regularity to ensure the existence of constants C3>0 and C4>0 such that
αC2S2∫Ω|∇vε|4=αC2S2‖∇vε‖4L4(Ω)≤C3‖Δvε‖2L2(Ω)‖∇vε‖2L2(Ω)≤C4‖Δvε‖2L2(Ω). | (3.50) |
Accordingly, (3.48) in combination with (3.49) and (3.50) leads to
11+αddt‖nε‖1+αL1+α(Ω)+α2∫Ωnα−1ε|∇nε|2≤C4∫Ω|Δvε|2+C2 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (3.51) |
Recalling the spatio-temporal boundedness of ∫t+τt∫Ω|Δvε|2 inferred from (3.38), (3.51) implies (3.45) and (3.46). Finally, integrating (3.49) in time, (3.46) yields (3.47).
Relying on the spatio-temporal estimates of ∫t+τt∫Ω|∇uε|2 (see Lemma 3.4) and ∫t+τt∫Ωn2ε (see Lemma 3.7), one can improve the regularity features of the corresponding fluid field. Since the proof may be found in many papers [42], the details are omitted in order to avoid duplication.
Lemma 3.8. There exists some C>0 such that for all ε∈(0,1) the solution of (2.2) satisfies
∫Ω|∇uε(⋅,t)|2≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (3.52) |
In this section, we will prove the local-in-time solutions of regularized problem (2.2) are actually global. Without loss of generality, in this section we presume 0<α<12. If α≥12, at least the boundedness of ‖nε‖L32(Ω) can be deduced from (3.45). With the higher regularity of nε, it becomes easier than case 0<α<12 to get our desired conclusion. Thanks to the well-known smoothing properties of the Stokes semigroup and the Neumann heat semigroup, one can derive the following uniform L∞ estimates for nε, ∇vε, ∇wε and uε.
Lemma 4.1. If α>0 and γ∈(12,1), then there exists a constant C>0 such that for all ε∈(0,1), the classical solution of (2.2) satisfies
‖nε(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)+‖vε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)+‖wε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)+‖uε(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)+‖Aγuε(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω)≤C for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (4.1) |
Moreover, for p>1, we can find a positive constant C(p) such that
‖∇uε(⋅,t)‖Lp(Ω)≤C(p) for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (4.2) |
Proof. For the sake of clarity, this proof is divided into several steps. It is worth mentioning that the following constants Ci (i∈N∗) are independent of ε∈(0,1).
Step 1. The boundedness of ‖∇wε(⋅,t)‖L21−α(Ω) and ‖∇vε(⋅,t)‖L˜p(Ω) with ˜p>2 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε).
Since 0<α<12, we have 21−α>2. First, utilizing the variation-of-constants formula for wε, we obtain
‖∇wε(⋅,t)‖L21−α(Ω)≤‖∇e−t(−Δ+1)w0‖L21−α(Ω)+∫t0‖∇e−(t−s)(−Δ+1)nε(⋅,s)‖L21−α(Ω)ds+∫t0‖∇e−(t−s)(−Δ+1)∇⋅(uε(⋅,s)wε(⋅,s))‖L21−α(Ω)ds. | (4.3) |
With the boundedness of ‖nε(⋅,s)‖L1+α(Ω) obtained by Lemma 3.7, in view of the Lp−Lq estimates associated heat semigroup, we deduce
‖∇e−t(−Δ+1)w0‖L21−α(Ω)≤C11 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) | (4.4) |
and
∫t0‖∇e−(t−s)(−Δ+1)nε(⋅,s)‖L21−α(Ω)ds≤C1∫t0[(t−s)−12−(11+α−1−α2)+1]e−λ(t−s)‖nε(⋅,s)‖L1+α(Ω)ds≤C2 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) | (4.5) |
with λ>0, where we have the fact that −12−(11+α−1−α2)>−1 by 0<α<12. Furthermore, taking ς=1940 and δ=180 so that 12+(15−1−α2)<ς and −ς−12−δ>−1, we can infer that
∫t0‖∇e−(t−s)(−Δ+1)∇⋅(wε(⋅,s)uε(⋅,s))‖L21−α(Ω)ds≤C3∫t0‖(−Δ+1)ςe−(t−s)(−Δ+1)∇⋅(wε(⋅,s)uε(⋅,s))‖L5(Ω)ds≤C4∫t0(t−s)−ς−12−δe−μ(t−s)‖wε(⋅,s)uε(⋅,s)‖L5(Ω)ds≤C5∫t0(t−s)−ς−12−δe−μ(t−s)‖wε(⋅,s)‖L10(Ω)‖uε(⋅,s)‖L10(Ω)ds≤C6 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε), | (4.6) |
where the boundedness of ‖uε(⋅,s)‖L10(Ω) is derived from Lemma 3.8 along with the continuous embedding W1,2(Ω)↪L10(Ω), and ‖wε(⋅,s)‖L10(Ω) is ensured by Lemma 3.5. Therefore, by accumulating (4.3)-(4.6), the boundedness of ‖∇wε(⋅,t)‖L21−α(Ω) is obtained. With some very similar arguments, one can derive the boundedness of ‖∇vε(⋅,t)‖L˜p(Ω) with some ˜p>2.
Step 2. The boundedness of ‖nε(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω) for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε).
Letting
M(T):=supt∈(0,T)‖nε(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω) |
and
˜hε:=Sε(x,nε,vε,vε)∇vε+uε, |
then by the L˜p estimate of ∇vε, we obtain
‖˜hε(⋅,t)‖L˜p(Ω)≤C7 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (4.7) |
Exploiting the associate variation-of-constants formula for nε, in light of the fact that ∇⋅uε=0, we obtain
nε(⋅,t)=e(t−t0)Δnε(⋅,t0)−∫tt0e(t−s)Δ∇⋅(nε(⋅,s)˜hε(⋅,s))ds for t∈(t0,T) with t0:=(t−1)+. | (4.8) |
If 0<t≤1, then in view of the maximum principle, we have
‖e(t−t0)Δnε(⋅,t0)‖L∞(Ω)≤‖n0‖L∞(Ω). | (4.9) |
If t>1, then by the Lp−Lq estimates of the Neumann heat semigroup, we deduce
‖e(t−t0)Δnε(⋅,t0)‖L∞(Ω)≤C8(t−t0)−22‖nε(⋅,t0)‖L1(Ω)≤C9. | (4.10) |
Next, fixing q∈(2,˜p), we may utilize the well-known smoothing properties of the Neumann heat semigroup and the Hölder inequality to conclude
∫tt0‖e(t−s)Δ∇⋅(nε(⋅,s)˜hε(⋅,s))‖L∞(Ω)ds≤C10∫tt0(t−s)−12−22q‖nε(⋅,s)˜hε(⋅,s)‖Lq(Ω)ds≤C10∫tt0(t−s)−12−22q‖nε(⋅,s)‖Lq˜p˜p−q(Ω)‖˜hε(⋅,s)‖L˜p(Ω)ds≤C10∫tt0(t−s)−12−22q‖nε(⋅,s)‖σL∞(Ω)‖nε(⋅,s)‖1−σL1(Ω)‖˜hε(⋅,s)‖L˜p(Ω)ds≤C11Mσ(T) for all t∈(0,T), | (4.11) |
where σ:=q˜p−˜p+qq˜p∈(0,1), and −12−22q>−1 by q>2. Collecting (4.7)–(4.11) and utilizing the definition of M(T), there is a C12>0 such that
M(T)≤C12+C12Mσ(T) for all T∈(0,Tmax,ε). |
Since σ<1, by some basic calculation we have
‖nε(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)≤C13 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). |
Step 3. The boundedness of ‖uε(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω) and ‖Aγuε(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω) for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε).
Employing the Helmholtz projection P to the fourth equation in (2.2), we get the variation-of-constants formula of uε
uε(⋅,t)=e−tAu0+∫t0e−(t−s)Ahε(⋅,s)ds for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε), |
where hε(⋅,s)=P[nε(⋅,s)∇ϕ−κ(Yεuε(⋅,s)⋅∇)uε(⋅,s)]. With the standard smoothing properties of the Stokes semigroup, we derive that for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε) and any γ∈(12,1), there exist C14>0 and C15>0 fulfilling
‖Aγuε(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω)≤‖Aγu0‖L2(Ω)+∫t0‖Aγe−(t−s)Ahε(⋅,s)‖L2(Ω)ds≤C14+C15∫t0(t−s)−γ−(1p0−12)e−λ(t−s)‖hε(⋅,s)‖Lp0(Ω)ds. | (4.12) |
Choosing p0∈(23−2γ,2) such that
−γ−(1p0−12)>−1, | (4.13) |
the L∞-estimate of nε provides a C16>0 fulfilling
‖nε(⋅,t)‖Lp0(Ω)≤C16 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). |
Next, considering the embedding W1,2(Ω)↪L2p02−p0(Ω) and the boundedness of ‖∇uε(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω) (see Lemma 3.8), we employ the Hölder inequality and the fact that P is continuous in Lp(Ω;R2) to achieve that
‖hε(⋅,t)‖Lp0(Ω)≤C17‖(Yεuε(⋅,t)⋅∇)uε(⋅,t)‖Lp0(Ω)+C17‖nε(⋅,t)‖Lp0(Ω)≤C17‖Yεuε(⋅,t)‖L2p02−p0(Ω)‖∇uε(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω)+C18≤C19‖∇Yεuε(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω)‖∇uε(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω)+C18≤C20 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε), | (4.14) |
where we notice the fact that
‖∇Yεuε‖L2(Ω)=‖A12Yεuε‖L2(Ω)=‖YεA12uε‖L2(Ω)≤‖A12uε‖L2(Ω)=‖∇uε‖L2(Ω). |
Assembling (4.12), (4.13) and (4.14), we conclude that
‖Aγuε(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω)≤C21+C21∫t0(t−s)−γ−(1p0−12)e−λ(t−s)‖hε(⋅,s)‖Lp0(Ω)ds≤C22 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε), | (4.15) |
which in combination with the continuous embedding D(Aγ)↪L∞(Ω) by γ∈(12,1) yields that
‖uε(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)≤C23 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (4.16) |
Step 4. The boundedness of ‖∇uε(⋅,t)‖Lp(Ω) with p>1 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε).
For any p>1, we can pick suitable γ∈(12,1) satisfying γ>1−1p. By means of the embedding D(Aγ)↪W1,p(Ω;R2) (see [37]), (4.2) holds.
Step 5. The boundedness of ‖wε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω) and ‖vε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω) for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε).
Fixing θ∈(12+1−α2,1), the domain of the fractional power D((−Δ+1)θ) can be embedded into W1,∞(Ω) [4]. Accordingly, exploiting the Lp−Lq estimates associated heat semigroup, one has
‖wε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)≤C24‖(−Δ+1)θwε(⋅,t)‖L21−α(Ω)≤C25t−θe−μt‖w0‖L21−α(Ω)+C25∫t0(t−s)−θe−μ(t−s)‖(nε−uε⋅∇wε)(⋅,s)‖L21−α(Ω)ds≤C26+C26∫t0(t−s)−θe−μ(t−s)[‖nε(⋅,s)‖L21−α(Ω)+‖uε(⋅,s)‖L∞(Ω)‖∇wε(⋅,s)‖L21−α(Ω)]ds≤C27 for all t∈(τ0,Tmax,ε) |
with τ0∈(0,Tmax,ε). An application of the local solvability of (2.2) indicates that for some C28>0,
‖wε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)≤C28 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (4.17) |
Meanwhile, a similar argument yields a C29>0 satisfying
‖vε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)≤C29 for all t∈(0,Tmax,ε). | (4.18) |
The proof is completed. With the uniform L∞ bounds of nε, ∇vε, ∇wε and uε at hand, we claim that the local classical solution of regularized problem (2.2) which is constructed in Lemma 2.1 can be extended to the global.
Proposition 4.1. Let α>0, γ∈(12,1). Let (nε,vε,wε,uε,Pε)ε∈(0,1) be classical solutions of (2.2) constructed in Lemma 2.1 on [0,Tmax,ε). Then, we have Tmax,ε=∞. Moreover, one can find a C>0 which is independent of ε∈(0,1) such that
‖nε(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)+‖vε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)+‖wε(⋅,t)‖W1,∞(Ω)+‖uε(⋅,t)‖L∞(Ω)+‖Aγuε(⋅,t)‖L2(Ω)≤C for all t∈(0,∞). | (4.19) |
In addition, there is a C(p)>0 fulfilling
‖∇uε(⋅,t)‖Lp(Ω)≤C(p) for all t∈(0,∞). | (4.20) |
As the straightforward result of Proposition 4.1, in light of the standard parabolic regularity (see e.g. Lemmata 3.18 and 3.19 in [43]), we can get the following Hölder continuity of vε,∇vε as well as wε,∇wε and uε.
Lemma 4.2. If α>0, then there exist μ∈(0,1) and some C>0 such that
‖vε(⋅,t)‖Cμ,μ2(Ω×[t,t+1])+‖wε(⋅,t)‖Cμ,μ2(Ω×[t,t+1])+‖uε(⋅,t)‖Cμ,μ2(Ω×[t,t+1])≤C for all t∈(0,∞). | (4.21) |
Moreover, for any τ>0, one can find a C(τ)>0 satisfying
‖∇vε(⋅,t)‖Cμ,μ2(Ω×[t,t+1])+‖∇wε(⋅,t)‖Cμ,μ2(Ω×[t,t+1])≤C(τ) for all t∈(τ,∞). | (4.22) |
With all the results established above, we are adequately prepared for proving Theorem 1.1. First, we state the concept of global weak solution.
Definition 5.1. Let (n0,v0,w0,u0) satisfy (1.9) and T∈(0,∞]. Then, a fourfold of functions (n,v,w,u) which fulfills
{n∈L1loc(ˉΩ×[0,T)),v∈L1loc([0,T);W1,1(Ω)),w∈L1loc([0,T);W1,1(Ω)),u∈L1loc([0,T);W1,1(Ω)), | (5.1) |
and n as well as v and w are nonnegative in Ω×(0,T) and u is divergence-free in Ω×(0,T), and
u⊗u∈L1loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞);R2×2) and n∈L1loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞)),vu,wu,nu and nS(x,n,v,w)∇v∈L1loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞);R2) | (5.2) |
is called a weak solution of problem (1.5) if the following integral identities are satisfied:
−∫T0∫Ωnφt−∫Ωn0φ(⋅,0)=∫T0∫Ω∇n⋅∇φ+∫T0∫ΩnS(x,n,v,w)∇v⋅∇φ+∫T0∫Ωnu⋅∇φ | (5.3) |
for any φ∈C∞0(ˉΩ×[0,T)) satisfying ∂φ∂ν=0 on ∂Ω×(0,T) and
−∫T0∫Ωvφt−∫Ωv0φ(⋅,0)=−∫T0∫Ω∇v⋅∇φ−∫T0∫Ωvφ+∫T0∫Ωwφ+∫T0∫Ωvu⋅∇φ | (5.4) |
as well as
−∫T0∫Ωwφt−∫Ωw0φ(⋅,0)=−∫T0∫Ω∇w⋅∇φ−∫T0∫Ωwφ+∫T0∫Ωnφ+∫T0∫Ωwu⋅∇φ | (5.5) |
for any φ∈C∞0(ˉΩ×[0,T)) and
−∫T0∫Ωuφt−∫Ωu0φ(⋅,0)=κ∫T0∫Ωu⊗u⋅∇φ−∫T0∫Ω∇u⋅∇φ−∫T0∫Ωn∇ϕ⋅φ | (5.6) |
for any φ∈C∞0(ˉΩ×[0,T);R2) which is divergence-free in Ω×(0,T). If Ω×(0,∞)⟶R5 is a weak solution of (1.5) in Ω×(0,T) for all T>0, then (n,v,w,u) is called a global weak solution of (1.5).
In the following auxiliary outcome, we will derive the regularity property of time derivative so as to invoke the Aubin-Lions compactness lemma, which plays a prominent role in proving Theorem 1.1.
Lemma 5.1. If α>0, then for any T>0 and all ε∈(0,1), there exists C(T)>0 such that
∫T0∫Ω|∇nε|2≤C(T) | (5.7) |
and
∫T0‖∂tnε(⋅,t)‖(W1,20(Ω))∗dt≤C(T). | (5.8) |
Proof. Firstly, in view of Proposition 4.1, there exists a C1>0 such that
nε≤C1,|∇vε|≤C1 and |uε|≤C1 in Ω×(0,∞). | (5.9) |
Then, testing the first equation in (2.2) by nε, by virtue of (5.9), we have
12ddt‖nε‖2L2(Ω)+∫Ω|∇nε|2=−∫Ωnε∇⋅(nεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε)≤CS∫Ωnε|∇nε||∇vε|≤12∫Ω|∇nε|2+12C2SC41|Ω|. | (5.10) |
Integrating (5.10) over (0,T), (5.7) is valid. Testing the first equation in (2.2) by φ∈C∞0(Ω), we conclude there is a ˜C:=C(C1,Ω,CS)>0 such that
∫Ωnεt(⋅,t)⋅φ=∫Ω[Δnε−∇⋅(nεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε)−uε⋅∇nε]⋅φ=−∫Ω∇nε⋅∇φ+∫ΩnεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε⋅∇φ+∫Ωnεuε⋅∇φ≤˜C(‖∇nε‖L2(Ω)+‖∇vε‖L2(Ω))‖φ‖W1,20(Ω). | (5.11) |
Therefore, by the definition of the operator norm, one has
‖nεt(⋅,t)‖2(W1,20(Ω))∗≤˜C(‖∇nε‖2L2(Ω)+‖∇vε‖2L2(Ω)). | (5.12) |
Recalling the estimates obtained in (5.7) and (3.37), integrating (5.12) in time, we finally get (5.8).
As an application of the parabolic regularity theory, we may further derive the following Hölder continuity of nε.
Lemma 5.2. For any ε∈(0,1), there exist a positive constant C and θ∈(0,1) such that
‖nε(⋅,t)‖Cθ,θ2(ˉΩ×[t,t+1])≤C for all t∈(0,∞). | (5.13) |
Proof. Firstly, the first equation of (2.2) can be rewritten as the following sub-problem:
{nεt=∇⋅a(x,t,∇nε)+b(x,t,∇nε),x∈Ω,t>0,a(x,t,∇nε)⋅ν=0,x∈∂Ω,t>0,nε(x,0)=n0(x),x∈Ω, | (5.14) |
where a(x,t,ξ):=ξ−nεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε and b(x,t,ξ):=−uε⋅ξ with (x,t,ξ)∈Ω×(0,∞)×R2. By means of the Young inequality and basic analysis as well as Proposition 4.1, we obtain
ξ⋅a(x,t,ξ)=|ξ|2−nεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε⋅ξ≥12|ξ|2−C1|∇vε|2,(x,t,ξ)∈Ω×(0,∞)×R2 | (5.15) |
and
|a(x,t,ξ)|≤C2|∇vε|+|ξ|,(x,t,ξ)∈Ω×(0,∞)×R2 | (5.16) |
as well as
|b(x,t,ξ)|≤12|ξ|2+C3,(x,t,ξ)∈Ω×(0,∞)×R2 | (5.17) |
with positive constants C1, C2 and C3. Moreover, Proposition 4.1 points out that |∇vε| and |∇vε|2 belong to L∞((0,∞);Lp(Ω)) for any p>1. In light of the parabolic regularity theory [44], for any τ>0, there exist θ:=θ(τ)∈(0,1) and some constant C(τ)>0 such that
‖nε(⋅,t)‖Cθ,θ2(ˉΩ×[t,t+1])≤C(τ) for all t≥τ, | (5.18) |
which completes the proof. According to classical Schauder estimates, we may exploit the same arguments with Lemmata 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 in [29] to derive the Hölder estimates in C2+θ,1+θ2 for vε, wε and uε, so we leave out the details.
Lemma 5.3. If α>0, then for τ>0, there exist θ∈(0,1) and C(τ)>0 such that the solution of (2.2) satisfies
‖uε(⋅,t)‖C2+θ,1+θ2(ˉΩ×[t,t+1])+‖vε(⋅,t)‖C2+θ,1+θ2(ˉΩ×[t,t+1])+‖wε(⋅,t)‖C2+θ,1+θ2(ˉΩ×[t,t+1])≤C(τ) for all t≥τ. | (5.19) |
Based on above preparations, Theorem 1.1 may be proved by utilizing some standard compactness arguments and the parabolic regularity theory.
Lemma 5.4. If α>0, then there exist θ∈(0,1),{εj}j∈N⊂(0,1) and functions
{n∈Cθ,θ2loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2+θ,1+θ2loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)),v∈Cθ,θ2loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2+θ,1+θ2loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)),w∈Cθ,θ2loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2+θ,1+θ2 loc (ˉΩ×(0,∞)),u∈Cθ,θ2loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞);R2)∩C2+θ,1+θ2loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞);R2),P∈C1,0(ˉΩ×(0,∞)) | (5.20) |
such that n, v and w are nonnegative in Ω×(0,T), and that
{nε→n∈C0 loc (ˉΩ×[0,∞)),vε→v∈C0 loc (ˉΩ×[0,∞)),wε→w∈C0 loc (ˉΩ×[0,∞)),uε→u∈C0 loc (ˉΩ×[0,∞);R2) | (5.21) |
as ε=εj↘0, and (n,v,w,u,P) solves (1.5) classically in Ω×(0,∞).
Proof. By virtue of Proposition 4.1, Lemmata 4.2 and 5.1 and the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem, we can find a sequence ε=εj↘0 as j→∞ such that
nε⇀n weakly star in L∞(Ω×(0,∞)), | (5.22) |
∇nε⇀∇n weakly in L2loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞)), | (5.23) |
vε→v in C0loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞)), | (5.24) |
∇vε→∇v in C0loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)), | (5.25) |
∇vε⇀∇v weakly star in L∞(Ω×(0,∞)), | (5.26) |
wε→w in C0loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞)), | (5.27) |
∇wε→∇w in C0loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)), | (5.28) |
∇wε⇀∇w weakly star in L∞(Ω×(0,∞)) | (5.29) |
as well as
uε→u in C0loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞)), | (5.30) |
and
Duε⇀Du weakly star in L∞(Ω×(0,∞)) | (5.31) |
hold with some limit functions n,v,w and u.
By Lemma 5.1, we assert that nε belongs to L2((0,T);W1,2(Ω)), and ∂tnε is bounded in L1((0,T);(W1,20(Ω))∗) for any T>0. Noticing the embedding W1,2(Ω)↪↪L2(Ω)↪(W1,20(Ω))∗, the Aubin-Lions lemma ([45]) along with some standard arguments allows us to derive
nε→n a.e. in Ω×(0,∞). | (5.32) |
Now, we may verify the limit functions n, v, w and u exactly comply with the properties of a weak solution which are stated by Definition 5.1. The integrability conditions in (5.1) and (???) and the nonnegativity of n, v and w are evident by (5.22), (5.23), (5.24), (5.26), (5.27), (5.29), (5.30) and (5.32). Applying the dominated convergence theorem and some standard arguments to the corresponding weak formulations in the regularized problem (2.2) as ε=εj↘0, one can derive the integral identities (5.3)–(5.6) by using (5.22)–(5.32). Moreover, we have
nεSε(x,nε,vε,wε)∇vε→nS(x,n,v,w)∇v a.e. in Ω×(0,∞). | (5.33) |
Thus, (n,v,w,u) becomes a global weak solution which exactly enjoys the conditions in Definition 5.1.
Lastly, we claim that this weak solution is virtually a solution in the classical sense. Our method is strongly inspired by Lemma 4.3 in [46]. By means of Lemmata 5.2 and 5.3, we obtain
{nε→n∈Cθ1,θ12loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞)),vε→v∈Cθ1,θ12loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2+θ1,1+θ12loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)),wε→w∈Cθ1,θ12loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2+θ1,1+θ12loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)),uε→u∈Cθ1,θ12loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞);R2)∩C2+θ1,1+θ12loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞);R2) | (5.34) |
with some θ1∈(0,1) and subsequence ε=εj. In view of (5.7) and the Hölder regularities provided by (5.34), n possesses the needed regularity properties of a well-established result concerning the gradient Hölder continuity [47], which entails
n∈C1+θ2,1+θ22loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)) for some θ2∈(0,1). | (5.35) |
Now, we consider the sub-problem nt−Δn=g(x,t) with boundary condition ∂n∂ν=h(x,t)⋅ν, where g:=−∇⋅(nu+nS(x,n,v,w)∇v) and h:=nS(x,n,v,w)∇v. As the desired Hölder estimates
‖g(x,t)‖Cα1,α12loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞))≤‖u⋅∇n‖Cα1,α12loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞))+‖nS(x,n,v,w)∇v‖Cα1,α12loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞))≤C1 for some α1∈(0,1) | (5.36) |
and
‖h(x,t)‖C1+α2,1+α22loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞))=‖nS(x,n,v,w)∇v‖C1+α2,1+α22loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞))≤C2 for some α2∈(0,1) | (5.37) |
are warranted by (5.34) and (5.35), invoking the standard parabolic regularity theory [48], we can find a θ3∈(0,1) such that
n∈C2+θ3,1+θ32loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)). | (5.38) |
This in combination with (5.34) yields a θ4∈(0,1) such that
{n∈Cθ4,θ42loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2+θ4,1+θ42loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)),v∈Cθ4,θ42loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2+θ4,1+θ42loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)),w∈Cθ4,θ42loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞))∩C2+θ4,1+θ42loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞)),u∈Cθ4,θ42loc(ˉΩ×[0,∞);R2)∩C2+θ4,1+θ42loc(ˉΩ×(0,∞);R2), | (5.39) |
which guarantees the sufficient Hölder regularity of (n,v,w,u) to be a solution in the classical sense and thereby completes the proof.
Finally, Theorem 1.1 is immediate.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. The statement follows from Lemma 5.4 in conjunction with Proposition 4.1.
The author would like to express his sincere thanks to anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and constructive suggestions which largely improved this work.
The author declares there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
N. Bellomo, A. Bellouquid, Y. Tao, M. Winkler, Toward a mathematical theory of Keller–Segel models of pattern formation in biological tissues, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 25 (2015), 1663–1763. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021820251550044X doi: 10.1142/S021820251550044X
![]() |
[2] |
T. Hillen, K. J Painter, A user's guide to PDE models for chemotaxis, J. Math. Biol., 58 (2009), 183–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-008-0201-3 doi: 10.1007/s00285-008-0201-3
![]() |
[3] |
E. F. Keller, L. A. Segel, Initiation of slime mold aggregation viewed as an instability, J. Theor. Biol., 26 (1970), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(70)90092-5 doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(70)90092-5
![]() |
[4] |
D. Horstmann, M. Winkler, Boundedness vs. blow-up in a chemotaxis system, J. Differ. Equations, 215 (2005), 52–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2004.10.022 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2004.10.022
![]() |
[5] |
S. Zhou, S. Zhang, C. Mu, Well-posedness and non-uniform dependence for the hyperbolic Keller-Segel equation in the Besov framework, J. Differ. Equations, 302 (2021), 662–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2021.09.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2021.09.006
![]() |
[6] |
L. Zhang, C. Mu, S. Zhou, On the initial value problem for the hyperbolic Keller-Segel equations in Besov spaces, J. Differ. Equations, 334 (2022), 451–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2022.06.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2022.06.026
![]() |
[7] | K. Osaki, A. Yagi, Finite dimensional attractor for one-dimensional Keller-Segel equations, Funkcialaj Ekvacioj, 44 (2001), 441–469. |
[8] |
M. Winkler, Finite-time blow-up in the higher-dimensional parabolic–parabolic Keller–Segel system, J. Math. Pures Appl., 100 (2013), 748–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2013.01.020 doi: 10.1016/j.matpur.2013.01.020
![]() |
[9] |
T. Cieślak, P. Laurençot, Finite time blow-up for a one-dimensional quasilinear parabolic–parabolic chemotaxis system, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré C, 27 (2010), 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2009.11.016 doi: 10.1016/j.anihpc.2009.11.016
![]() |
[10] |
T. Cieślak, C. Stinner, Finite-time blowup and global-in-time unbounded solutions to a parabolic–parabolic quasilinear Keller–Segel system in higher dimensions, J. Differ. Equations, 252 (2012), 5832–5851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2012.01.045 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2012.01.045
![]() |
[11] |
T. Cieślak, M. Winkler, Finite-time blow-up in a quasilinear system of chemotaxis, Nonlinearity, 21 (2008), 1057. https://doi.org/10.1088/0951-7715/21/5/009 doi: 10.1088/0951-7715/21/5/009
![]() |
[12] |
Y. Tao, M. Winkler, Boundedness in a quasilinear parabolic–parabolic Keller-Segel system with subcritical sensitivity, J. Differ. Equations, 252 (2012), 692–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2011.08.019 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2011.08.019
![]() |
[13] |
M. Winkler, Boundedness in the higher-dimensional parabolic-parabolic chemotaxis system with logistic source, Commun. Partial Differ. Equations, 35 (2010), 1516–1537. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605300903473426 doi: 10.1080/03605300903473426
![]() |
[14] |
S. Ishida, K. Seki, T. Yokota, Boundedness in quasilinear Keller–Segel systems of parabolic–parabolic type on non-convex bounded domains, J. Differ. Equations, 256 (2014), 2993–3010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2014.01.028 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2014.01.028
![]() |
[15] | M. A. Herrero, J. J. Velázquez, A blow-up mechanism for a chemotaxis model, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa-classe Sci., 24 (1997), 633–683. |
[16] |
J. Zheng, Boundedness of solutions to a quasilinear parabolic–elliptic Keller–Segel system with logistic source, J. Differ. Equations, 259 (2015), 120–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2015.02.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2015.02.003
![]() |
[17] |
K. Fujie, T. Senba, Application of an Adams type inequality to a two-chemical substances chemotaxis system, J. Differ. Equations, 263 (2017), 88–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2017.02.031 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2017.02.031
![]() |
[18] |
R. L. Miller, Demonstration of sperm chemotaxis in echinodermata: Asteroidea, Holothuroidea, Ophiuroidea, J. Exp. Zool., 234 (1985), 383–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402340308 doi: 10.1002/jez.1402340308
![]() |
[19] |
I. Tuval, L. Cisneros, C. Dombrowski, C. Wolgemuth, J. O. Kessler, R. E. Goldstein, Bacterial swimming and oxygen transport near contact lines, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 102 (2005), 2277–2282. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406724102 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0406724102
![]() |
[20] |
M. Winkler, How far do chemotaxis-driven forces influence regularity in the Navier-Stokes system?, Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 369 (2017), 3067–3125. http://doi.org/10.1090/tran/6733 doi: 10.1090/tran/6733
![]() |
[21] |
J. Zheng, A new result for the global existence (and boundedness) and regularity of a three-dimensional Keller-Segel-Navier-Stokes system modeling coral fertilization, J. Differ. Equations, 272 (2021), 164–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2020.09.029 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2020.09.029
![]() |
[22] |
M. Winkler, Global mass-preserving solutions in a two-dimensional chemotaxis-Stokes system with rotational flux components, J. Evol. Equations, 18 (2018), 1267–1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00028-018-0440-8 doi: 10.1007/s00028-018-0440-8
![]() |
[23] |
M. Winkler, Stabilization in a two-dimensional chemotaxis-Navier–Stokes system, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 211 (2014), 455–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-013-0678-9 doi: 10.1007/s00205-013-0678-9
![]() |
[24] |
M. Winkler, Global large-data solutions in a chemotaxis(-Navier)-Stokes system modeling cellular swimming in fluid drops, Commun. Partial Differ. Equations, 37 (2012), 319–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605302.2011.591865 doi: 10.1080/03605302.2011.591865
![]() |
[25] |
M. Winkler, Global weak solutions in a three-dimensional chemotaxis–Navier–Stokes system, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré C, 33 (2016), 1329–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2015.05.002 doi: 10.1016/j.anihpc.2015.05.002
![]() |
[26] |
R. Duan, A. Lorz, P. Markowich, Global solutions to the coupled chemotaxis-fluid equations, Commun. Partial Differ. Equations, 35 (2010), 1635–1673. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605302.2010.497199 doi: 10.1080/03605302.2010.497199
![]() |
[27] |
M. Chae, K. Kang, J. Lee, Global existence and temporal decay in Keller-Segel models coupled to fluid equations, Commun. Partial Differ. Equations, 39 (2014), 1205–1235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605302.2013.852224 doi: 10.1080/03605302.2013.852224
![]() |
[28] |
J. G. Liu, A. Lorz, A coupled chemotaxis-fluid model: global existence, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré C, 28 (2011), 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2011.04.005 doi: 10.1016/j.anihpc.2011.04.005
![]() |
[29] |
Y. Wang, M. Winkler, Z. Xiang, Global classical solutions in a two-dimensional chemotaxis-Navier-Stokes system with subcritical sensitivity, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci., 18 (2018), 421–466. https://doi.org/10.2422/2036-2145.201603_004 doi: 10.2422/2036-2145.201603_004
![]() |
[30] |
Y. Wang, Z. Xiang, Global existence and boundedness in a Keller–Segel–Stokes system involving a tensor-valued sensitivity with saturation: The 3D case, J. Differ. Equations, 261 (2016), 4944–4973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2016.07.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2016.07.010
![]() |
[31] |
J. Liu, Y. Wang, Global weak solutions in a three-dimensional Keller–Segel–Navier–Stokes system involving a tensor-valued sensitivity with saturation, J. Differ. Equations, 262 (2017), 5271–5305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2017.01.024 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2017.01.024
![]() |
[32] |
Y. Ke, J. Zheng, An optimal result for global existence in a three-dimensional Keller–Segel–Navier–Stokes system involving tensor-valued sensitivity with saturation, Calculus Var. Partial Differ. Equations, 58 (2019), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-019-1568-2 doi: 10.1007/s00526-019-1568-2
![]() |
[33] |
J. Zheng, Eventual smoothness and stabilization in a three-dimensional Keller–Segel–Navier–Stokes system with rotational flux, Calculus Var. Partial Differ. Equations, 61 (2022), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-021-02164-6 doi: 10.1007/s00526-021-02164-6
![]() |
[34] |
Y. Wang, Global weak solutions in a three-dimensional Keller–Segel–Navier–Stokes system with subcritical sensitivity, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 27 (2017), 2745–2780. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202517500579 doi: 10.1142/S0218202517500579
![]() |
[35] |
T. Black, Global solvability of chemotaxis–fluid systems with nonlinear diffusion and matrix-valued sensitivities in three dimensions, Nonlinear Anal., 180 (2019), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2018.10.003 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2018.10.003
![]() |
[36] |
J. Zheng, An optimal result for global existence and boundedness in a three-dimensional Keller-Segel-Stokes system with nonlinear diffusion, J. Differ. Equations, 267 (2019), 2385–2415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2019.03.013 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2019.03.013
![]() |
[37] | H. Sohr, The Navier-Stokes Equations, An Elementary Functional Analytic Approach, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2001. |
[38] |
P. Yu, Blow-up prevention by saturated chemotactic sensitivity in a 2D Keller-Segel-Stokes system, Acta Appl. Math., 169 (2020), 475–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10440-019-00307-8 doi: 10.1007/s10440-019-00307-8
![]() |
[39] |
Y. Tao, M. Winkler, A chemotaxis-haptotaxis model: The roles of nonlinear diffusion and logistic source, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 43 (2011), 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1137/100802943 doi: 10.1137/100802943
![]() |
[40] |
J. Lankeit, Locally bounded global solutions to a chemotaxis consumption model with singular sensitivity and nonlinear diffusion, J. Differ. Equations, 262 (2017), 4052–4084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2016.12.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2016.12.007
![]() |
[41] | L. C. Evans, Partial differential equations, American Mathematical Soc, 2010. Available from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11294483348318394484&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33 |
[42] |
J. Zheng, Y. Ke, Blow-up prevention by nonlinear diffusion in a 2D Keller-Segel-Navier-Stokes system with rotational flux, J. Differ. Equations, 268 (2020), 7092–7120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2019.11.071 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2019.11.071
![]() |
[43] |
M. Winkler, Boundedness and large time behavior in a three-dimensional chemotaxis-Stokes system with nonlinear diffusion and general sensitivity, Calculus Var. Partial Differ. Equations, 54 (2015), 3789–3828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-015-0922-2 doi: 10.1007/s00526-015-0922-2
![]() |
[44] |
M. M. Porzio, V. Vespri, Hölder estimates for local solutions of some doubly nonlinear degenerate parabolic equations, J. Differ. Equations, 103 (1993), 146–178. https://doi.org/10.1006/jdeq.1993.1045 doi: 10.1006/jdeq.1993.1045
![]() |
[45] |
J. Simon, Compact sets in the space Lp(0,T;B), Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 146 (1986), 65–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01762360 doi: 10.1007/BF01762360
![]() |
[46] |
T. Li, A. Suen, M. Winkler, C. Xue, Global small-data solutions of a two-dimensional chemotaxis system with rotational flux terms, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 25 (2015), 721–746. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202515500177 doi: 10.1142/S0218202515500177
![]() |
[47] |
G. M. Lieberman, Hölder continuity of the gradient of solutions of uniformly parabolic equations with conormal boundary conditions, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 148 (1987), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01774284 doi: 10.1007/BF01774284
![]() |
[48] | O. A. Ladyzenskaja, V. A. Solonnikov, N. N. Uraíceva, Linear and Quasi-Linear Equations of Parabolic Type, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1968. |
1. | Kai Gao, Global bounded weak solutions in a two-dimensional Keller-Segel-Navier-Stokes system with indirect signal production and nonlinear diffusion, 2024, 529, 0022247X, 127595, 10.1016/j.jmaa.2023.127595 | |
2. | Kai Gao, Seong Tae Jhang, Shaoguang Shi, Jiashan Zheng, Blow-up prevention by subquadratic and quadratic degradations in a three-dimensional Keller–Segel–Stokes system with indirect signal production, 2025, 423, 00220396, 324, 10.1016/j.jde.2024.12.045 | |
3. | Yuxin Yan, Zhongping Li, Global boundedness in a chemotaxis-Stokes system with nonlinear diffusion mechanism involving gradient dependent flux limitation and indirect signal production, 2025, 0022247X, 129621, 10.1016/j.jmaa.2025.129621 |