Handbook-prehled

```Mathematical issues concerning the
Navier-Stokes equations and some of their
generalizations
By J. Málek1 and K. R. Rajagopal2
1
Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Mathematical Institute,
Sokolovská 83, 186 75 Prague 8, Czech Republic
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843, USA
incompressible fluids with both constant, and shear or pressure dependent viscosity
that includes the Navier-Stokes fluid as a special subclass.
We begin with a description of such fluids within the framework of a continuum.
We then discuss various ways in which the response of a fluid can depart from that
of a Navier-Stokes fluid. Next, we introduce a general thermodynamic framework
that has been successful in describing the disparate response of continua that includes those of inelasticity, solid-to-solid transformation, viscoelasticity, granular
materials, blood and asphalt rheology etc. Here, it leads to a novel derivation of the
constitutive equation for the Cauchy stress for fluids with constant, or shear or pressure, or density dependent viscosity within a full thermo-mechanical setting. One
advantage of this approach consists in a transparent treatment of the constraint of
incompressibility.
We then concentrate on mathematical analysis of three-dimensional unsteady
flows of fluids with shear dependent viscosity that includes the Navier-Stokes model
and Ladyshenskaya’s model as special cases.
We are interested in the issues connected with mathematical self-consistency of
the models, i.e., we are interested in knowing whether 1) flows exist for reasonable,
but arbitrary initial data and for all instants of time, 2) flows are uniquely determined, 3) the velocity is bounded and 4) the large-time behavior of all possible
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
2
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
flows can be captured by a finite dimensional, small (compact) set attracting all
flow trajectories exponentially.
For simplicity, we eliminate a choice of boundary conditions and their influence
on flows assuming that all functions are spatially periodic with zero mean value
over periodic cell. All results could be however extended to internal flows where the
tangent component of the velocity satisfies Navier’s slip at the boundary. Most of
the results hold also for no-slip boundary conditions.
While the mathematical consistency understood in the above sense of the NavierStokes model in three dimension is not clear yet, we will show that Ladyzhenskaya’s
model and some of its generalization enjoy all above properties for certain range of
parameters. Briefly, we also discuss further results related to further generalizations
of the Navier-Stokes equations.
Keywords: incompressible fluid, Navier-Stokes fluid, non-Newtonian fluid,
rheology, mathematical analysis
The contribution of J. Málek to this work is a part of the research project MSM 0021620839
financed by MSMT. K. R. Rajagopal thanks the National Science Foundation for its
support. A part of this research was performed during the stay of J. Málek at Department
of Mathematics, Texas A&M University.
The authors thank Miroslav Bulı́ček for his continuous help in the process of the preparation of this work, and Petr Kaplický for his critical comments to earlier drafts of this
work.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
3
In memory of
March 7, 1922 - January 12, 2004
and
Jindřich Nečas
December 14, 1929 - December 6, 2002
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
4
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
Chapter A
Incompressible Fluids With Shear, Pressure and Density Dependent
Viscosity from Point of View of Continuum Physics
Contents
1. Introduction
7
1.1 What is a fluid?
7
1.2 Navier-Stokes fluid model
9
1.3 Departures From Newtonian Behavior
11
2. Balance equations
19
2.1 Kinematics
19
2.2 Balance of Mass - Incompressibility - Inhomogenity
21
2.3 Balance of Linear Momentum
22
2.4 Balance of Angular Momentum
23
2.5 Balance of Energy
23
2.6 Further Thermodynamic Considerations (The Second Law). Reduced
dissipation equation
23
2.7 Isothermal flows at uniform temperature
26
2.8 Natural Configurations
27
3. The Constitutive Models For Compressible and Incompressible NavierStokes Fluids and Some of their Generalizations
28
3.1 Standard approach in continuum physics
28
3.2 Alternate approach
29
4. Boundary Conditions
31
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
5
Chapter B
Mathematical Analysis of Flows of Fluids With Shear, Pressure and
Density Dependent Viscosity
Contents
1. Introduction
35
1.1 A taxonomy of models
35
1.2 Mathematical self-consistency of the models
37
1.3 Weak solution: a natural notion of solution for PDEs of the continuum
physics
38
1.4 Models and their invariance with respect to scaling
41
2. Definitions of (suitable) weak solutions
43
2.1 Assumptions concerning the stress tensor
43
2.2 Function spaces
44
2.3 Definition of Problem (P) and its (suitable) weak solutions
45
2.4 Useful inequalities
47
3. Existence of a (suitable) weak solution
49
3.1 Formulation of the results and bibliographical notes
3.2 Definition of an approximate Problem (P
ε,η
49
) and apriori estimates
51
3.3 Solvability of an approximative problem
54
3.4 Further uniform estimates w.r.t ε and η
56
3.5 Limit ε → 0
58
3.6 Limit η → 0, the case r ≥
3.7 Limit η → 0, the case
8
5
11
5
<r<
60
11
5
3.8 Continuity w.r.t. time in weak topology of
61
L2per
65
3.9 (Local) Energy equality and inequality
66
3.10 Attainment of the initial condition
67
4. On smoothness of flows
67
4.1 A survey of regularity results
67
72
4.3 Boundedness of the velocity
74
4.4 Fractional higher differentiability
74
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
6
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
4.5 Short-time or small-data existence of ”smooth” solution
75
5. Uniqueness and large-data behavior
77
5.1 Uniquely determined flows described by Ladyzhenskaya’s equations
77
5.2 Large-time behavior - the method of trajectories
80
6. On structure of possible singularities for flows of Navier-Stokes fluid
83
7. Other incompressible fluid models
86
7.1 Fluids with pressure-dependent viscosity
86
7.2 Fluids with pressure and shear dependent viscosities
87
7.3 Inhomogeneous incompressible fluids
88
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
7
Chapter A
Incompressible Fluids With Shear, Pressure and
Density Dependent Viscosity from Point of View
of Continuum Physics
1. Introduction
1.1. What is a fluid?
The meaning of words provided in even the most advanced of dictionaries, say
the Oxford English Dictionary [1], will rarely serve the needs of a scientist or technologist adequately and this is never more evident than in the case of the meaning
assigned to the word “fluid” in its substantive form: “A substance whose particles
move freely among themselves, so as to give way before the slightest pressure.”
The inadequacy, in the present case, stems from the latter part of the sentence
which states that fluids cannot resist pressure; more so as the above definition is
immediately followed by the classification: “Fluids are divided into liquids which
are incompletely elastic, and gases, which are completely so.”. With regard to the
first definition, as “Fluids” obviously include liquids such as water, which under
normal ranges of pressure are essentially incompressible and can support a purely
spherical state of stress without flowing the definition offered in the dictionary is,
if not totally wrong†, at the very least confounding. Much, if not all of hydrostatics
† One could take the point of view that no body is perfectly incompressible and thus the body
does deform, ever so slightly, due to the application of pressure. The definition however cannot be
developed thusly as the intent is clearly that the body suffers significant deformation due to the
slightest application of the pressure.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
8
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
is based on the premise that most liquids are incompressible. Next, with regard to
the classification of liquids being ”incompletely elastic”, we have to bear in mind
that all real gases are not ”completely elastic”. The ideal gas model is of course
purely elastic.
What then does one mean by a fluid? When we encounter the word “Fluid” for
the first time in a physics course at school, we are told that a “fluid” is a body that
takes the shape of a container. This meaning assigned to a fluid, can after due care,
be used to conclude that a fluid is a body whose symmetry group is the unimodular
group†. Such a definition is also not without difficulty. While a liquid takes the
shape of the container partially if its volume is less than that of the container,
a gas expands to always fill a container. The definition via symmetry groups can
handle this difficulty in the sense that it requires densities to be constant while
determining the symmetry group. However, this places an unnecessary restriction
with regard to defining gases, as this is akin to defining a body on only a small
subclass of processes that the body can undergo. We shall not get into a detailed
discussion of these subtle issues here.
Another definition for a fluid that is quite common, specially with those conversant with the notion of stress, is that a fluid is a body that cannot support a
shear stress, as opposed to pressure as required by the definition in [1]. A natural
question that immediately arises is that of time scales. How long can a fluid body
not support a shear stress? How does one measure this inability to support a shear
stress? Is it with the naked eye or is it to be inferred with the aid of sophisticated
instruments? Is the assessment to be made in one second, one day, one month or
one year? These questions are not being raised merely from the philosophical standpoint. They have very practical pragmatic underpinnings. It is possible, say in the
time scale of one hour, one might be unable to discern the flow or deformation that
a body undergoes, with the naked eye. This is indeed the case with regard to the
experiment on asphalt that has been going on for over seventy years (see Murali
Krishnan and Rajagopal [62] for a description of the experiment). The earlier definition for the fluid cannot escape the issue of time scale either. One has to contend
with how long it takes to attain the shape of the container.
† This statement is not strictly correct. A special subclass of fluids, those that are referred to as
“Simple fluids” admit such an interpretation (see Noll [101], Truesdell and Noll [143]). However, it
is possible that there exist anisotropic fluids whose symmetry group is not the unimodular group
(see Rajagopal and Srinivasa [113]).
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
9
The importance of the notion of time scales was recognized by Maxwell. He
observes [89]: “In the case of a viscous fluid it is time which is required, and if
enough time is given, the very smallest force will produce a sensible effect, such as
would require a very large force if suddenly applied. Thus a block of pitch may be so
hard that you cannot make a dent in it by striking it with your knuckles; and yet it
will in the course of time flaten itself by its weight, and glide downhill like a stream
of water”. The key words in the above remarks of Maxwell are “if enough time is
given”. Thus, what we can infer at best is whether a body is more or less fluid-like,
i.e., within the time scales of the observation of our interest does a small shear stress
produce a sensible deformation or does it not. Let us then accept to “understand”
a “Fluid” as a body that, in the time scale of observation of interest, undergoes
discernible deformation due to the application of a sufficiently small shear stress‡.
1.2. Navier-Stokes fluid model
The popular Navier-Stokes model traces its origin to the seminal work of Newton [99] followed by the penetrating studies by Navier [92], Poisson [103] and StVenant [120], culminating in the definitive study of Stokes [135]†. In his immortal
Principia, Newton [99] states: “The resistance arising from the want of lubricity
in parts of the fluid is, other things being equal, proportional to the velocity with
which the parts of the fluid are separated from one another.” What is now popularly referred to as the Navier-Stokes model implies a linear relationship between the
shear stress and the shear rate. However, it was recognized over a century ago that
this want of lubricity need not be proportional to the shear stress. Trouton [141]
observes “the rate of flow of the material under shearing stress cannot be in simple proportion to shear rate”. However, the popular view persisted and was that
‡ We assume we can agree on what we mean by the time scale of observation of interest. It
is also important to recognize that if the shear stress is too small, its effect, the flow, might not
be discernible. Thus, we also have to contend with the notion of a spatial scale for a discerning
movement and a force scale for discerning forces.
† It is interesting to observe what Stokes [135] has to say concerning the development of the
fluid model that is referred to as the Navier-Stokes model. Stokes remarks: “I afterward found
that Poisson had written a memoir on the same subject, and on referring to it found that he
had arrived at the same equations. The method which he employed was however so different from
mine that I feel justified in laying the later before this society . . . . The same equations have been
obtained by Navier in the case of an incompressible fluid (Mém. de l’Académie, t. VI, p. 389), but
his principles differ from mine still more than do Poisson’s.”
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
10
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
the rate of flow was proportional to the shear stress as evidenced by the following
remarks of Bingham [10]: “ When viscous substance, either a liquid or a gas, is
subjected to a shearing stress, a continuous deformation results which is, within
certain restrictions directly proportional to the shearing stress. This fundamental
law of viscous flow . . . .” Though Bingham offers a caveat “within certain restrictions”, his immediate use of the terms “fundamental law of viscous flow” clearly
indicates how well the notion of the proportional relations between a kinematical
measure of flow and the shear stress was ingrained in the fluid dynamicist of those
times.
We will record below, for the sake of discussion, the classical fluid models that
bear the names of Euler, and Navier and Stokes.
Homogeneous Compressible Euler Fluid:
T = −p(%)I .
(A.1.1)
Homogeneous Incompressible Euler Fluid:
T = −pI ,
trD = 0 .
(A.1.2)
Homogeneous Compressible Navier-Stokes Fluid:
T = −p(%)I + λ(%) (trD) I + 2µ(%)D .
(A.1.3)
Homogeneous Incompressible Navier-Stokes Fluid:
T = −pI + 2µD ,
trD = 0 .
(A.1.4)
In the above definitions, T denotes the Cauchy stress, % is the density, λ and
µ the bulk and shear moduli of viscosity and D the symmetric part of the velocity gradient. In equations (A.1.1) and (A.1.3) the pressure is defined through an
equation of state, while in (A.1.2) and (A.1.4), it is the reaction force due to the
constraint that the fluid be incompressible.
Within the course of this article we will confine our mathematical discussion
mainly to the incompressible Navier-Stokes fluid model (A.1.4) and many of its
generalizations.
A model that is not of the form (A.1.3) and (A.1.4) falls into the category of
(compressible and incompressible) non-Newtonian fluids†. This exclusive definition
† Navier-Stokes fluids are usually referred to in the fluid mechanics literature as Newtonian
fluids. The equations of motions for Newtonian fluids are referred to as the Navier-Stokes equations.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
11
leads to innumerable fluid models and choices amongst them have to be based on
observed response of real fluids that cannot be adequately captured by the above
models. This leads us to a discussion of these observations.
1.3. Departures From Newtonian Behavior
We briefly list several typical non-Newtonian responses. In their description,
detailed characterizations are given to those phenomena and corresponding models
whose mathematical properties will be discussed in this paper. A reader interested
in a more details on non–Newtonian fluids is referred for example to the monographs
Truesdell and Noll [143], Schowalter [125] or Huilgol [54], or to the articles of J.M.
Burgers in [14], or to the review article by Rajagopal [115].
Shear-Thinning/Shear-Thickening
Let us consider an unsteady simple shear flow in which the velocity field v is
given by
v = u(y, t)i ,
(A.1.5)
in a Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z) with base vectors (i, j, k), respectively, t
denoting the time. We notice that (A.1.5) automatically meets
div v = trD = 0,
(A.1.6)
and the only non-zero component for the shear stress corresponding to (A.1.3) or
(A.1.4) is given by
Txy (y, t) = µu,y (y, t)
where u,y :=
du
,
dy
(A.1.7)
i.e., the shear stress varies proportionally with respect to the gradient of the velocity,
the constant of proportionality being the viscosity. Thus, the graph of the shear
stress versus the velocity gradient (in this case the shear rate) is a straight line (see
curve 3 in Fig. 1).
Let us consider a steady shearing flow, i.e., a flow wherein u = u(y) and κ :=
u,y = constant at each point of the container occupied by the fluid. It is observed
that in many fluids there is a considerable departure from the above relationship
(A.1.7) between the shear stress and the shear rate. In some fluids it is observed
that the relationship is as depicted by the curve 1 in Fig. 1, i.e. the generalized
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
12
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
Figure 1. Shear Thinning/Shear Thickening
Figure 2. Generalized viscosity
viscosity which is defined through
µg (κ) :=
Txy
,
κ
(A.1.8)
is monotonically increasing (cf. curve 1 in Fig. 2). Thus, in such fluids, the viscosity
increases with the shear rate and they are referred to as shear-thickening fluids.
On the other hand there are fluids for which the relationship between the shear
stress and the shear rate is as depicted by curve 2 in Fig. 1. In such fluids, the
generalized viscosity decreases with increasing shear rate and for this reason such
fluids are called shear-thinning fluids. The Newtonian fluid is thus a very special
fluid. It neither shear thins nor shear thickens.
The models with shear dependent viscosity are used in many areas of engineering
science such as geophysics, glaciology, colloid mechanics, polymer mechanics, blood
and food rheology, etc. An illustrative list of references for such models and their
applications is given in [87].
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
13
Normal Stress Differences In Simple Shear Flows
Next, let us compute the normal stresses along the x, y and z direction for
the simple shear flow (A.1.5). A trivial calculation leads to, in the case of models
(A.1.3) and (A.1.4),
Txx = Tyy = Tzz = −p ,
and thus
Txx − Tyy = Txx − Tzz = Tyy − Tzz = 0 .
That is the normal stress differences are zero in a Navier-Stokes fluid. However, it
can be shown that some of the phenomena that are observed during the flows of
fluids such as die-swell, rod-climbing, secondary flows in cylindrical pipes of noncircular cross-section, etc., have as their basis non-zero differences between these
normal stresses.
Stress-Relaxation
When subject to a step change in strain ε (see Fig. 3 left), that results in a
simple shear flow (A.1.5) to ε̇ drawn at Fig. 3 right the stress σ := Txy in bodies
modeled by (A.1.3) and (A.1.4) suffers an abrupt change that is undefined at the
instant the strain has suffered a change and is zero at all other instants (see Fig. 4
right). On the other hand, there are many bodies that respond in the manner shown
in Fig. 5. The graph at right depicts the fluid-like behavior as no stress is necessary
to maintain a fixed strain, in the long run. The graph at left represents solid-like
response. The Newtonian fluid model is incapable of describing stress-relaxation,
a phenomenon exhibited by many real bodies. The important fact to recognize is
that a Newtonian fluid stress relaxes instantaneously (see Fig. 4 right)†.
Creep
Next, let us consider a body that is subject to a step change in the stress (see
Fig. 6). In the case of a Newtonian fluid the strain will increase linearly with time
(see Fig. 7 at right). However, there are many bodies whose strain will vary as
depicted in Fig. 8. The curve at left depicts solid-like behavior while the curve at
right depicts fluid-like behavior. The response, which is referred to as “creep” as
† This does not mean that it has instantaneous elasticity.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
14
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
Figure 3. Stress-Relaxation test: response to a step change in strain (picture at left). The
picture at right sketches its derivative.
Figure 4. Shear Stress Response to a step change in strain for linear spring (at left) and
Navier-Stokes fluid (at right)
Figure 5. Stress-Relaxation for more realistic materials
the body flows while the stress is held constant. A Newtonian fluid creeps linearly
with time. Many real fluids creep non-linearly with time.
Jump discontinuities in stresses
Yield stress
Bodies that have a threshold value for the stress before they can flow are supposed to exhibit the phenomenon of “yielding”, see Fig. 9. However, if one takes
the point of view that a fluid is a body that cannot sustain shear, then by definition
there can be no stress threshold to flow, which is the basic premise of the notion of
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
15
Figure 6. Creep test
Figure 7. Deformation response to step change of shear stress for linear spring (left) and
Newtonian fluid (right)
Figure 8. Creep of solid-like and fluid-like materials
a “yield stress”. This is yet another example where the importance of time scales
comes into play. It might seem, with respect to some time scale of observation, that
the flow in a fluid is not discernible until a sufficient large stress is applied. This
does not mean that the body in question can support small values of shear stresses,
indefinitely. It merely means that the flow that is induced is not significant. A Newtonian fluid has no threshold before it can start flowing. A material responding as
a Newtonian fluid once the yield stress is reached is called the Bingham fluid.
Activation criterion
It is possible that in some fluids, the response characteristics can change when
a certain criterion, that could depend on the stress, strain rate or other kinematical
quantitites, is met. An interesting example of the same is phenomena of coagulation
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
16
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
Figure 9. Yield Stress
Figure 10. Activation and Deactivation of Fluids with Shear Dependent Viscosity
modelled as jump discontinuities in stress
or dissolution of blood. Of course, here issues are more complicated as complex
chemical reactions are taking place in the fluid of interest, blood.
Platelet activation is followed by their interactions with a variety of plasma
proteins that leads to the aggregation of platelets which in turn leads to coagulation,
i.e., the formation of clots. The activated platelets also serve as sites for enzyme
complexes that play an important role in the formation of clots. These clots, as well
as the original blood, are viscoelastic fluids, the clot being significantly more viscous
that regular blood. In many situations the viscoelasticity is not consequential and
can be ignored and the fluid can be approximated as a generalized Newtonian fluid.
While the formation of the clot takes a finite length of time, we can neglect this with
respect to a time scale of interest associated with the flowing blood. As the viscosity
has increased considerably over a sufficiently short time, in the simple shear flow,
the fluid could be regarded as suffering a jump discontinuity as depicted in Fig. 10
at left. On deforming the clot further, we notice a most interesing phenomenon. At
a sufficiently high stress, dissolution of the clot takes place and the viscosity now
undergoes a significant decrease close to its original value as depicted in Fig. 10 at
right . Thus, in general ”activation” can lead to either an increase of decrease in
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
17
viscosity over a very short space of time whereby we can think of it as a jump. See
[3] for more details.
Pressure-Thickening fluids - Fluids With Pressure Dependent Viscosities
Except for the activation criterion, the above departures from Newtonian response are at the heart of what is usually referred to as non-Newtonian fluid mechanics. We now turn to a somewhat different departure from the classical Newtonian model. Notice that the models (A.1.3) and (A.1.4) are explicit expressions
for the stress, in terms of kinematical variable D, and the density % in the case
of (A.1.3). If the equation of state relating the “thermodynamic pressure” p and
the density % is invertible, then we could express λ and µ as functions of the pressure. Thus, in the case of a compressible Navier-Stokes fluid the viscosity µ clearly
depends on the pressure. The question to ask is if, in fluids that are usually considered as incompressible liquids such as water under normal operating conditions,
the viscosity could be a function of the pressure? The answer to this question is an
unequivocal yes by virtue of the fact that when the range of pressures to which the
fluid is subject to is sufficiently large, while the density may vary by a few percent,
the viscosity could vary by several orders of magnitude, in fact as much a factor
of 108 ! Thus, it is reasonable to suppose a liquid to be incompressible while at the
same time the viscosity is pressure dependent.
In the case of an incompressible fluid whose viscosity depends on both the
pressure (mean normal stress) and the symmetric part of the velocity gradient, i.e.,
when the stress is given by the representation
T = −pI + µ(p, D)D .
(A.1.9)
As p = − 31 trT, it becomes obvious that we have an implicit relationship between
T and D, and the constitutive relation is of the form
f(T, D) = 0 ,
(A.1.10)
i.e., we have an implicit constitutive equation.
It immediately follows from (A.1.10) that
∂f
∂f
Ṫ +
Ḋ = 0 ,
∂T
∂D
(A.1.11)
[A(T, D)]Ṫ + [B(T, D)]Ḋ = 0 .
(A.1.12)
which can be expressed as
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
18
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
The constitutive relation (A.1.12) is more general that (A.1.10) as an implicit equation of the form (A.1.12) need not be integrable to yield an equation of the form
(A.1.10).
A further generalization within the context of implicit constitutive relations for
compressible bodies is the equation
g(%, T, D) = 0 .
(A.1.13)
Before we get into a more detailed discussion of implicit models for fluids let
us consider a brief history of fluids with pressure dependent viscosity. Stokes [135]
recognized that in general the viscosity could depend upon the pressure. It is clear
from his discussion that he is considering liquids such as water. Having recognized
the dependence of the viscosity on the pressure, he makes the simplifying assumption “If we suppose µ to be independent of the pressure also, and substitute . . . “.
Having made the assumption that the viscosity is independent of the pressure, he
feels the need to substantiate that such is indeed the case for a restricted class of
flows, those in pipes and channels, according to the experiments of DuBuat [26]:
“Let us now consider in what cases it is allowable to suppose µ to be independent
of the pressure. It has been concluded by DuBuat from his experiments on the
motion of water in pipes and canals, that the total retardation of the velocity due
to friction is not increased by increasing the pressure . . . . I shall therefore suppose
that for water, and by analogy for other incompressible fluids, µ is independent of
the pressure.”
While the range of pressures attained in DuBuat’s experiment might justify the
assumption made by Stokes for a certain class of problems, one cannot in general
make such an assumption. There are many technologically significant problems
such as elastohydrodynamics (see Szeri [136]) wherein the fluid is subject to such a
range of pressure that the viscosity changes by several orders of magnitude. There
is a considerable amount of literature concerning the variation of viscosity with
pressure and an exhaustive discussion of the literature before 1931 can be found in
the authoritative treatise on the physics of high pressure by Bridgman [12].
Andrade [5] suggested the viscosity depends on the pressure, density and temperature in the following manner
µ(p, %, θ) = A%
1/2
exp
B
(p + D%2 )
θ
,
(A.1.14)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
19
where A, B and D are constants. In the processes where the temperature is uniformly constant, in the case of many liquids, it would be reasonable to assume that
the liquid is incompressible and the viscosity varies exponentially with the pressure.
This is precisely the assumption that is made in studies in elastohydrodynamics.
One can carry out a formal analysis based on standard representation theorems
for isotropic functions (see Spencer [133]) that requires that the (A.1.10) satisfying
for all orthogonal tensors Q
g(%, QTQT , QDQT ) = Qg(%, T, D)QT
take the implicit constitutive relation
α0 I + α1 T + α2 D + α3 T2 + α4 D2 + α5 (TD + DT)
+ α6 (T2 D + DT2 ) + α7 (TD2 + D2 T) + α8 (T2 D2 + D2 T2 ) = 0 ,
(A.1.15)
where the material moduli αi i = 0, . . . , 8 depend on
%, trT, trD, trT2 , trD2 , trT3 , trD3 , tr(TD), tr(T2 D), tr(D2 T), tr(T2 D2 ) .
The model
T = −p(%)I + β(%, trT, trD2 )D
is a special subclass of models of the form (A.1.15). The counterpart in the case of
an incompressible fluid would be
T = −pI + µ(p, trD2 )D ,
trD = 0.
(A.1.16)
We shall later provide a thermodynamic basis for the development of the model
(A.1.16).
2. Balance equations
2.1. Kinematics
We shall keep our discussion of kinematics to a bare minimum. Let B denote the
abstract body and let κ : B → E, where E is a three dimensional Euclidean space, be
a placer and κ(B) the configuration of the body. We shall assume that the placer is
one to one. By a motion we mean a one parameter family of placers (see Noll [100]).
It follows that if κR (B) is some reference configuration, and κt (B) a configuration
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
20
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
at time t, then we can identify the motion with a mapping χκR : κR (B)×R → κt (B)
such that†
x = χκR (X, t) .
(A.2.1)
We shall suppose that χκR is sufficiently smooth to render the operations defined
on it meaningful. Since χκR is one to one, we can define its inverse so that
X = χ−1
κR (x, t) .
(A.2.2)
Thus, any (scalar) property ϕ associated with an abstract body B can be expressed
as (analogously we proceed for vectors or tensors)
ϕ = ϕ(P, t) = ϕ̂(X, t) = ϕ̃(x, t) .
(A.2.3)
We define the following Lagrangean and Eulerian temporal and spatial derivatives:
ϕ̇ :=
∂ ϕ̂
,
∂t
ϕ,t :=
∂ ϕ̃
,
∂t
∂ ϕ̂
,
∂X
∇X ϕ =
∇x ϕ :=
∂ ϕ̃
.
∂x
(A.2.4)
The Lagrangean and Eulerian divergence operators will be expressed as Div and
div, respectively.
The velocity v and the acceleration a are defined through
v=
∂χκR
∂t
a=
∂ 2 χ κR
,
∂t2
(A.2.5)
and the deformation gradient FκR is defined through
F κR =
∂χκR
.
∂X
(A.2.6)
The velocity gradient L and its symmetric part D are defined through
L = ∇x v ,
D=
1
(L + LT ) .
2
(A.2.7)
It immediately follows that
L = ḞκR F−1
κR .
(A.2.8)
It also follows from the notations and definitions given above, in particular from
(A.2.4) and (A.2.5) that
ϕ̇ = ϕ,t + ∇x ϕ · v .
(A.2.9)
† It is customary to denote x and X which are points in an Euclidean space as bold face
quantities. We however choose not to do so. On the other hand, all vectors, and higher order
tensors are indicated by bold face.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
21
2.2. Balance of Mass - Incompressibility - Inhomogenity
Z
The balance of mass in its Lagrangean form states that
Z
%R (X)dX =
%(x, t)dx
for all PR ⊂ κR (B) with Pt := χκR (PR , t) ,
PR
Pt
(A.2.10)
which immediately leads to, using the Substitution theorem,
%(x, t) det FκR (X, t) = %R (X) .
A body is incompressible if
Z
Z
dX =
dx
for all PR ⊂ κR (B)
det FκR (X, t) = 1
for all X ∈ κR (B) .
PR
(A.2.11)
Pt
(A.2.12)
If det FκR is continuously differentiable with respect to time, then by virtue of the
identity
we conclude, since det FκR
d
det FκR = div v det FκR ,
dt
6= 0 that
div v(x, t) = 0
for all t ∈ R and x ∈ κt (B) .
(A.2.13)
It is usually in the above form that the constraint of incompressibility is enforced
in fluid mechanics.
From the Eulerian perspective, the balance of mass takes the form
Z
d
% dx = 0
for all Pt ⊂ κt (B) .
dt Pt
(A.2.14)
It immediately follows that
%,t + (∇x %) · v + % div v = 0 ⇐⇒ %,t + div(%v) = 0 .
(A.2.15)
If the fluid is incompressible, it immediately follows from (A.2.15) that
%,t + (∇x %) · v = 0 ⇐⇒ %̇ = 0 ⇐⇒ %(t, x) = %(0, X) = %R (X) .
(A.2.16)
That is, for a fixed particle, the density is constant, as a function of time. However,
the density of a particle may vary from one particle to another. The fact that the
density varies at certain location in space, does not imply that the fluid is not
incompressible. This variation is due to the fact that the fluid is inhomogeneous,
a concept that has not been grasped clearly in fluid mechanics (see Anand and
Rajagopal [4] for a discussion).
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
22
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
2.3. Balance of Linear Momentum
The balance of linear momentum that originates from the second law of Newton in classical mechanics applied to each subset Pt = χκR (PR , t) of the current
configuration takes the form
Z
Z
Z
d
ρv dx =
ρb dx +
TT n dS ,
dt Pt
Pt
∂Pt
(A.2.17)
where T denotes the Cauchy stress that is related to the surface traction t through
t = TT n, and b denotes the specific body force. It then leads to the balance of
linear momentum in its local Eulerian form:
%v̇ = div TT + %b .
(A.2.18)
First, considering the case when κt (B) = κR (B) for all t ≥ 0 and setting Ω :=
κR (B), it is not difficult to conclude at least for incompressible fluids, that (A.2.17)
and (A.2.14) imply that
Z
Z h
Z
i
d
T
ρv dx +
(ρv)(v · n) − T n dS =
ρb dx ,
dt O
∂O
O
Z
Z
d
ρ(v · n)dS = 0,
ρ dx +
dt O
∂O
(A.2.19)
(A.2.20)
valid for all (fixed) subsets O of Ω.
When compared to (A.2.17), this formulation is more suitable for further consideration in those problems where the velocity field v is taken as a primitive field
defined on Ω × h0, ∞) (i.e. it is not defined through (A.2.5)).
To illustrate this convenience, we give a simple analogy from classical mechanics:
consider a motion of a mass-spring system described by the second order ordinary
differential equations for the displacement from the equilibrium and compare it with
a free fall of the mass captured by the first order ordinary differential equations for
the velocity. In fluid mechanics, the velocity field is typically taken as primitive
variable.
Second, the derivation of (A.2.18) from (A.2.17) and similarly (A.2.15) from
(A.2.14) requires certain smoothness of particular terms. In analysis, the classical
formulations of the balance equations (A.2.18) and (A.2.15) are usually starting
points for definition of various kinds of solutions. Following Oseen [102] (see also
[34], [35]), we want to emphasize that the notion of a weak solution (or suitable
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
23
weak solution) is very natural for equations of continuum mechanics, since their
weak formulation can be directly obtained from the original formulations of the
balance laws (A.2.14) and (A.2.17) or better (A.2.19) and (A.2.20). This comment
is equally applicable to the other balance equation of continuum physics as well.
2.4. Balance of Angular Momentum
In the absence of internal couples, the balance of angular momentum implies
that the Cauchy stress is symmetric, i.e.,
T = TT .
(A.2.21)
2.5. Balance of Energy
The local form of the balance of energy is
%˙ = T · ∇v − div q + %r ,
(A.2.22)
where denotes the internal energy, q denotes the heat flux vector and r the specific
2.6. Further Thermodynamic Considerations (The Second Law). Reduced
dissipation equation
To know how a body is constituted and to distinguish one body from another,
we need to know how bodies store energy. How, and how much of, this energy that
is stored in a body can be recovered from the body. How much of the working on a
body is converted to energy in thermal form (heat). What is the nature of the latent
energy that is associated with the changes in phase that the body undergoes. What
is the nature of the latent energy (which is different in general from latent heat). By
what different means does a body produce the entropy? These are but few of the
pieces of information that one needs to describe the response of the body. Merely
knowing this information is insufficient to describe how the body will respond to
external stimuli. A body’s response has to meet the basic balance laws of mass,
linear and angular momentum, energy and the second law of thermodynamics.
Various forms for the second law of thermodynamics have been proposed and are
associated with the names of Kelvin, Plank, Clausius, Duhem, Caratheodory and
others. Essentially, the second law states that the rate of entropy production has to
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
24
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
be non-negative†. A special form of the second law, the Claussius-Duhem inequality,
has been used, within the context of a continua, to obtain restrictions on allowable
constitutive relations (see Coleman and Noll [20]). This is enforced by allowing the
body to undergo arbitrary processes in which the second law is required to hold. The
problem with such an approach is that the constitutive structure that we ascribe
to a body is only meant to hold for a certain class of processes. The body might
behave quite differently outside this class of processes. For instance, while rubber
may behave like an elastic material in the sense that the stored energy depends
only on the deformation gradient and this energy can be completely recovered in
processes that are reasonably slow in some sense, the same rubber if deformed at
exceedingly high strain rates crystallizes and not only does the energy that is stored
not depend purely on the deformation gradient, all the energy that was supplied to
the body cannot be recovered. Thus, the models for rubber depend on the process
class one has in mind and this would not allow one to subject the body to arbitrary
process. We thus find it more reasonable to assume the constitutive structures for
the rate of entropy production, based on physical grounds, that are automatically
non-negative.
Let us first introduce the second law of thermodynamics in the form
%θη̇ ≥ − div q +
q · (∇x θ)
+ %r ,
θ
(A.2.23)
where η denotes the specific entropy.
On introducing the specific Helmholtz potential ψ through
ψ := − θη ,
and using the balance of energy (A.2.22), we can express (A.2.23) as
T · L − %ψ̇ − %θ̇η −
q · (∇x θ)
≥ 0.
θ
(A.2.24)
The above inequality is usually referred to as the dissipation inequality. This inequality is commonly used in continuum mechanics to obtain restrictions on the
constitutive relations. A serious difficulty with regard to such an approach becomes
immediately apparent. No restrictions whatsoever can be placed on the radiant
heating. More importantly, the radiant heating is treated as a quantity that adjusts itself to meet the balance of energy. But this is clearly unacceptable as the
† There is a disagreement as to whether this inequality ought to be enforced locally at every
point in the body, or only globally, even from the point of view of statistical thermodynamics.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
25
radiant heating has to be a constitutive specification. How a body responds to radiant heating is critical, especially in view of the fact that all the energy that our
world receives is in the form of electromagnetic radiation which is converted to
energy in its thermal form (see Rajagopal and Tao [114] for a discussion of these
issues). As we shall be primarily interested in the mechanical response of fluids, we
shall ignore the radiant heating altogether, but we should bear in mind the above
observation when we consider more general processes.
We shall define the specific rate of entropy production ξ through
ξ := T · L − %ψ̇ − %θ̇η −
q · (∇x θ)
.
θ
(A.2.25)
We shall make constitutive assumptions for the rate of entropy production ξ and
require that (A.2.25) hold in all admissible processes (see Green and Nagdhi [48]).
Thus, the equation (A.2.25) will be used as a constraint that is to be met in all
admissible processes. We shall choose ξ so that it is non-negative and thus the
second law is automatically met.
We now come to a crucial step in our thermodynamic considerations. From
amongst a class of admissible non-negative rate of entropy productions, we choose
that which is maximal. This is asking a great deal more than the second law of
thermodynamics. The rationale for the same is the following. Let us consider an
isolated system. For such a system, it is well accepted that its entropy becomes a
maximum and the system would reach equilibrium. The assumption that the rate
of entropy production is a maximum ensures that the body attains its equilibrium
as quickly as possible. Thus, this assumption can be viewed as an assumption of
economy or an assumption of laziness, the system tries to get to the equilibrium
state as quickly as possible, i.e., in the most economic manner. It is important to
recognize that this is merely an assumption and not some deep principle of physics.
The efficacy of the assumption has to be borne out by its predictions and to date
the assumption has led to meaningful results in a wide variety of material behavior (see results pertinent to viscoelasticity [112], [113], classical plasticity ([109],
[110]), twinning ([107], [108]), solid to solid phase transition [111]), crystallization
in polymers ([117], [118]), single crystal supper alloys [104], etc.).
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
26
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
2.7. Isothermal flows at uniform temperature
Here, we shall restrict ourselves to flows that take place at constant temperature
for the whole period of interest at all points of the body. Consequently, the equations
governing such flows for a compressible fluid are
%̇ = −% div v
%v̇ = div T + %b ,
(A.2.26)
while for an incompressible fluid they take the form
div v = 0 ,
%̇ = 0 ,
%v̇ = div T + %b .
(A.2.27)
Note that (A.2.24) and (A.2.25) reduce to
T · D − %ψ̇ = ξ
and ξ ≥ 0 .
(A.2.28)
In order to obtain a feel for the structure of the constitutive quantities appearing in (A.2.28), we consider first the Cauchy stress for the incompressible and
compressible Euler fluid, and then for the incompressible and compressible NavierStokes fluid. Note that Euler fluids are ideal fluids in that there is no dissipation in
any process undergone by the fluid, i.e., ξ ≡ 0 in all processes.
Compressible Euler fluid. Since ξ ≡ 0 and (A.1.1) implies
T · L = −p(%)I · L = −p(%)trL = −p(%)trD = −p(%) div v ,
the reduced thermo-mechanical equation (A.2.28) simplifies to
%ψ̇ = −p(%) div v .
(A.2.29)
This suggests that it might be appropriate to consider ψ of the form
ψ = Ψ(%) .
(A.2.30)
In fact, since an ideal fluid is an elastic fluid, it follows that its specific Helmoltz
free energy ψ depends only on the deformation gradient F. If we suppose that the
symmetry group of a fluid is the unimodular group, then the balance of mass could
lead one to conclude that ψ depends on the density %.
Using (A.2.26)1 , we then have from (A.2.30)
ψ̇ = Ψ,% (%)%̇ = −%Ψ,% (%) div v ,
(A.2.31)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
27
and we conclude from (A.2.29) and (A.2.31) that
p(%) = %2 Ψ,% (%) .
(A.2.32)
Incompressible Euler fluid. Since we are dealing with a homogeneous fluid we have
% ≡ %∗ , where %∗ is a positive constant. We also have
Ψ̇(%∗ ) = 0 ,
T · L = −pI · L = −p(%) div v = 0 ,
and ξ ≡ 0 .
Thus, each term in (A.2.28) vanishes and (A.2.28) clearly holds.
Compressible Navier-Stokes fluid. Consider T of the form (A.1.3) and ψ of the
form (A.2.30) fulfilling (A.2.32). Denoting Cδ the deviatoric (traceless) part of any
tensor C, i.e., Cδ = C − 31 (trC)I, then we have
ξ = T · L − %ψ̇
= −p(%) div v + 2µ(%)D · D + λ(%)(trD)2 + %2 Ψ,% (%)
= 2µ(%)D · D + λ(%)(trD)2
2
= 2µ(%)Dδ · Dδ + λ(%) + µ(%) (trD)2 .
3
2
Note that the second law of thermodynamics is met if µ(%) ≥ 0 and λ(%) + µ(%) ≥
3
0.
Incompressible Navier-Stokes fluid. Similar considerations as those for the case of
a compressible Navier-Stokes fluid imply
ξ = 2µD · D = 2µ|D|2 .
Note that for both the incompressible Euler and Navier-Stokes fluid we have
1
p = − trT .
3
2.8. Natural Configurations
Most bodies can exist stress free in more than one configuration and such
configurations are referred to as ”natural configurations” (see Eckart [28], Rajagopal [116]).Given a current configuration of a homogeneously deformed body,
the stress-free configuration that the body takes on upon the removal of all external stimuli is the underlying ”natural configuration” corresponding to the current
configuration of the body. As a body undergoes a thermodynamic process, in general, the underlying natural configuration evolves. The evolution of this underlying
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
28
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
natural configuration is determined by the maximization of the entropy production
(see how this methodology is used in viscoelasticity ([112], [113]), classical plasticity
([109], [110]), twinning ([107], [108]), solid to solid phase transition [111]), crystallization in polymers ([117], [118]), single crystal super alloys [104]). In the case of
the both incompressible and compressible Navier-Stokes fluids and the generalizations discussed here, the current configuration κt (B) itself serves as the natural
configuration.
3. The Constitutive Models For Compressible and
Incompressible Navier-Stokes Fluids and Some of their
Generalizations
3.1. Standard approach in continuum physics
The starting point for the development of the model for a homogeneous compressible Navier-Stokes fluid is the assumption that the Cauchy stress depends on
the density and the velocity gradient, i.e.,
T = f(%, L) .
(A.3.1)
It follows from the assumption of frame-indifference that the stress can depend on
the velocity gradient only through its symmetric part, i.e.,
T = f(%, D) .
(A.3.2)
The requirement the fluid be isotropic then implies that
f(%, D) = α1 I + α2 D + α3 D2 ,
(A.3.3)
where αi = αi (%, ID , IID , IIID ), and
ID = trD,
IID =
1
[(trD)2 − trD2 ] ,
2
IIID = det D .
If we require that the stress be linear in D, then we immediately obtain
T = −p(%)I + λ(%)(trD)I + 2µ(%)D ,
(A.3.4)
which is the classical homogeneous compressible Navier-Stokes fluid.
Starting with the assumption that the fluid is incompressible and homogeneous,
and
T = g(L)
(A.3.5)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
29
a similar procedure leads to (see Truesdell and Noll [143])
T = −pI + 2µD .
(A.3.6)
The standard procedure for dealing with constraints such as incompressibility,
namely that the constraint reactions do no work (see Truesdell [142]) is fraught
with several tacit assumptions (we shall not discuss them here) that restrict the
class of models possible. For instance it will not allow the material modulus µ
to depend on the Lagrange multiplier p. The alternate approach presented below
attempts to avoid such drawbacks. Another general alternative procedure established in purely mechanical context has been recently developed in Rajagopal and
Srinivasa [106].
3.2. Alternate approach
We provide below an alternate approach for deriving the constitutive relation for
a homogeneous compressible and an incompressible Navier-Stokes fluid. Instead of
assuming a constitutive equation for the stress as the starting point, we shall start
assuming forms for the Helmholtz potential and the rate of dissipation, namely two
scalars.
We first focus on the derivation of the constitutive equation for the Cauchy
stress for the compressible Navier-Stokes fluid supposing that
ψ(x, t) = Ψ(%(x, t)) .
(A.3.7)
and
ξ = Ξ(D) = 2 µ(%)D · D + λ(%)(trD)2
2
= 2 µ(%)|Dδ |2 + (λ(%) + µ(%))(trD)2 ,
3
2
where µ(%) ≥ 0 , λ(%) + µ(%) ≥ 0 .
3
(A.3.8)
With such a choice of ξ the second law is automatically met, and (A.2.28) takes
the form (cf. (A.2.31))
ξ = (T + %2 Ψ,% (%)I) · D .
(A.3.9)
For a fixed T there are plenty of D’s that satisfy (A.3.8) and (A.3.9). We pick a
D such that D maximizes (A.3.8) and fulfils (A.3.9). This leads to a constrained
maximization that gives the following necessary condition
∂Ξ
∂Ξ
− λ1 (T + %2 Ψ,% (%)I −
) = 0,
∂D
∂D
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
30
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
or equivalently
1 + λ1 ∂Ξ
= (T + %2 Ψ,% (%)I) .
(A.3.10)
λ1 ∂D
To eliminate the constraint we take scalar product of (A.3.10) with D. Using
(A.3.9), (A.3.10) and the fact that
∂Ξ
= 2(2µ(%)D + λ(%)(trD)I) ,
∂D
we find that
1 + λ1
=
λ1
1
Ξ
= .
2
·D
∂Ξ
∂D
(A.3.11)
(A.3.12)
Inserting (A.3.11) and (A.3.12) into (A.3.10) we obtain
T = −%2 Ψ,% (%)I + 2µ(%)D + λ(%)(trD)I .
(A.3.13)
Finally, setting p(%) = %2 Ψ,% (%) we obtain the Cauchy stress for compressible
Navier-Stokes fluid, cf. (A.1.3).
Next, we provide a derivation for an hierarchy of incompressible fluid models
that generalize the incompressible Navier-Stokes fluid in the following sense: the
viscosity can not only be a constant, but it can be a function that may depend
on the density, the symmetric part of the velocity gradient D specifically through
D · D, or the mean normal stress, i.e. the pressure p := − 13 trT, or it can depend
on any or all of them. We shall consider the most general case within this setting
by assuming that
ξ = Ξ(p, %, D) = 2ν(p, %, D · D) D · D .
(A.3.14)
Clearly, if ν ≥ 0 then automatically ξ ≥ 0, ensuring that the second law is complied
with.
We assume that the specific Helmoltz potential ψ is of the form (A.3.7). By
virtue of the fact that the fluid is incompressible, i.e.,
trD = 0 ,
(A.3.15)
we obtain %̇ = 0, ψ̇ vanishes in (A.2.28) and we have from (A.2.28)
T · D = Ξ.
(A.3.16)
Following the same procedure as that presented above, in case of a compressible
fluid, we maximize Ξ with respect to D that is subject to the constraints (A.3.15)
and (A.3.16). As the necessary condition for the extremum we obtain the equation
(1 + λ1 )Ξ,D − λ1 T − λ0 I = 0 ,
(A.3.17)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
31
where λ0 and λ1 are the Lagrange multipliers due to the constraints (A.3.15) and
(A.3.16). We eliminate them as follows. Taking the scalar product of (A.3.17) with
D, and using (A.3.15) and (A.3.16) we obtain
1 + λ1
Ξ
=
.
λ1
Ξ,D · D
(A.3.18)
Note that
Ξ,D = 4 ν(p, %, D · D) + ν,D (p, %, D · D)D · D D .
(A.3.19)
Consequently, trΞ,D = 0 by virtue of (A.3.15). Thus, taking the trace of (A.3.17)
we have
−
λ0
= −p
λ1
1
with p = − trT .
3
(A.3.20)
Using (A.3.17)–(A.3.20), we finally find that (A.3.17) takes the form
T = −pI + 2 ν(p, %, D · D)D .
(A.3.21)
Mathematical issues related to the system (A.2.27) with the constitutive equation
(A.3.21) will be discussed in the second part of this treatise. The fluid given by
(A.3.21) has the ability to shear thin, shear thicken and pressure thicken. After
adding the yield stress or activation criterion, the model could capture phenomena
connected with the development of discontinuous stresses. On the other hand, the
model (A.2.27) together with (A.3.21) cannot stress relax or creep in a non-linear
way, neither can it exhibit nonzero normal stress differences in a simple shear flow.
4. Boundary Conditions
No aspect of mathematical modeling has been neglected as that of determining
appropriate boundary conditions. Mathematicians seem especially oblivious to the
fact that boundary conditions are constitutive specifications. In fact, boundary
conditions require an understanding of the nature of the bodies that are divided by
the boundary. Boundaries are rarely sharp, with the constituents that abut either
side of the boundary invariably exchanging molecules. In the case of the boundary
between two liquids or a gas and a liquid this molecular exchange is quite obvious,
it is not so in the case of a reasonably impervious solid boundary and a liquid. The
ever popular “no-slip” (adherence) boundary condition is supposed to have had the
imprimatur of Stokes behind it, but Stokes’ opinions concerning the status of the
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
32
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
“no-slip” condition are nowhere close to unequivocal as many investigators lead one
to believe. A variety of suggestions were put forward by the pioneers of the field,
Bernoulli, DuBuat, Navier, Poisson, Girard, Stokes and others, as to the condition
that ought to be applied on the boundary between an impervious solid and a liquid.
One fact that was obvious to all of them was that boundary conditions ought to
be derived, just as constitutive relations are developed for the material in the bulk,
even more so. This is made evident by Stokes [135] who makes this obvious with his
remarks: “Besides the equations which must hold good at any point in the interior
of the mass, it will be necessary to form also the equations which must be satisfied
at the boundary.” After emphasizing the need to derive the equations that ought to
be applied at a boundary, Stokes [135] goes on to derive a variety of such boundary
conditions.
That Stokes [135] was in two minds about the appropriateness of the “no-slip”
boundary condition is evident from his following remarks: “DuBuat found by experiment that when the mean velocity of water flowing through a pipe is less than
one inch in a second, the water near the inner surface of the pipe is at rest. If
these experiments may be trusted, the conditions to be satisfied in the case of small
velocities are those which first occurred to me . . . .”, but he goes on to add: “I have
said that when the velocity is not small the tangential force called into action by
the sliding of water over the inner surface of the pipe varies nearly the square of
the velocity . . . .”. The key words that demand our attention are “the sliding of
water over the inner surface”. Sliding implies that Stokes believed that the fluid is
slipping at the boundary. That he was far from convinced concerning the applicability of the “no-slip” condition is made crystal clear when he remarks: “The most
interesting questions concerning the subject require for their solution a knowledge
of the conditions which must be satisfied at the surface of solid in contact with the
fluid, which, except in the case of very small motions, are unknown.”. To Stokes
the determination of appropriate boundary conditions was an open problem.
An excellent concise history concerning boundary conditions for fluids can be
found in Goldstein [47]. We discuss briefly some of the boundary conditions that
have been proposed for a fluid flowing past a solid impervious boundary.
Navier [92] derived a slip condition which can be duly generalized to the condition
v · τ = −K(Tn · τ ) ,
K ≥ 0,
(A.4.1)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
33
where n is the unit outward normal vector and τ stands for a tangent vector at
the boundary point; K is usually assumed to be a constant but it could however
be assumed to be a function of the normal stresses and the shear rate, i.e.,
K = K(Tn · n, |D|2 ) .
(A.4.2)
The above boundary conditions, when K > 0, is referred to as the slip boundary
condition. If K = 0, we obtain the classical “no-slip” boundary condition.
Another boundary condition that is sometimes used, especially when dealing
with non-Newtonian fluids, is the “threshold-slip” condition. This takes the form
|Tn · τ | ≤ α|Tn · n| =⇒ v · τ = 0 ,
|Tn · τ | > α|Tn · n| =⇒ v · τ 6= 0
and − γ
v·n
= Tn · τ ,
|v · n|
(A.4.3)
where γ = γ(Tn · n, v · τ ).
The above condition implies that fluid will not slip until the ratio of the magnitude of shear stress and the magnitude of the normal stress exceeds a certain value.
When it does exceed that value, it will slip and the slip velocity will depend on
both the shear and normal stresses. It is also possible to require that γ depends on
|D|2 .
A much simpler condition that is commonly used is
v·τ =

 v0τ

0
if |Tn · τ | > β ,
(A.4.4)
if |Tn · τ | ≤ β .
Thus the fluid will slip if the shear stress exceeds a certain value. Here, v0τ are
given scalar functions for each τ generating the tangent space at the boundary.
If the boundary is permeable, then in addition to the possibility of v · τ not
being equal to zero, we have to specify the normal component of the velocity v · n.
Several flows have been proposed for flows past porous media, however we shall not
discuss them here.
In order to understand characteristic features of particular terms appearing in
the system of PDEs, as well as their natural dependence, it is convenient to eliminate
completely the presence of the boundary and boundary conditions on the flow, i.e.,
on the solution.
This can be realized in two way:
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
34
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
1) Assume that the fluid occupies the whole three-dimensional space with the velocity vanishing at |x| → +∞. Then starting with an initial-condition
v(0, ·) = v0 ∈ R3
(A.4.5)
we are interested in knowing the properties of the velocity and the pressure of
governing equations at any instant of the time t > 0 and any position x ∈ R3 .
2) Assume that for T, L ∈ (0, ∞)
vi , p :[0, T ] × R3 → R are L-periodic at each direction xi ,
Z
Z
p dx = 0.
i = 1, 2, 3
vi dx = 0,
with
Ω
(A.4.6)
Ω
Here Ω = (0, L) × (0, L) × (0, L) is a periodic cell.
The advantage of the second case consists in the fact that we work on domain
with a compact closure.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
35
Chapter B
Mathematical Analysis of Flows of Fluids With
Shear, Pressure and Density Dependent Viscosity
1. Introduction
1.1. A taxonomy of models
The objective of this chapter is to provide a survey of results regarding the mathematical analysis of the system of partial differential equations for the (unknown)
density ρ, the velocity v = (v1 , v2 , v3 ) and the pressure (mean normal stress) p,
partial differential equations being
ρ,t + ∇ρ · v = 0,
div v = 0,
ρ(v,t + div(v ⊗ v)) = −∇p + div(2ν(p, ρ, |D(v)|2 )D(v) + ρb,
(B.1.1)
focusing however mostly on some of its simplifications specified below. The system (B.1.1) is exactly the system (A.2.27) with the constitutive equations (A.3.21)
whose interpretation from the perspective of non-Newtonian fluid mechanics and
the connection to compressible fluid models were discussed in Chapter A. Unlike
(A.2.27) and (A.3.21) we use a different notation in order to express the equations
in the form (B.1.1). First of all, owing to the incompressibility constraint, we have
v̇ = v,t + [∇x v]v = v,t + div(v ⊗ v),
where the tensor product a ⊗ b is the second order tensor with components
(a ⊗ b)ij = ai bj
for any
a = (a1 , a2 , a3 ), b = (b1 , b2 , b3 ).
Next note that in virtue of to (B.1.1)2 , we can rewrite (B.1.1)1 as ρ,t + div(ρv) = 0.
We also explicitly use the notation D(v) instead of D in order to clearly identify our
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
36
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
interest concerning the velocity field. As discussed in Chapter A, the model (B.1.1)
includes a lot of special important cases particularly for homogeneous fluids†. Note
that for the case of a homogeneous fluid,(B.1.1) reduces to
div v = 0,
v,t + div(v ⊗ v) = −∇p + div(2ν(p, |D(v)|2 ))D(v)) + b, (B.1.2)
p
1
ρ0 , and relabelling the dynamic pressure ρ0
2
ν(p,ρ0 ,|D(v)| )
again as p and ν(p, |D(v)|2 ), respectively.
ρ0
obtained by multiplying (B.1.1)2 by
and the dynamic viscosity
For later reference, we give a list of several special models contained as a special
subclasses of (B.1.2):
a) Fluids with pressure dependent viscosity where ν is independent of the
shear rate, but depends on the pressure p:
div v = 0,
v,t + div(v ⊗ v) − div(ν(p)[∇v + (∇v)T ]) = −∇p + b;
(B.1.3)
b) Fluids with shear dependent viscosity with the viscosity independent of
the pressure:
div v = 0,
v,t + div(v ⊗ v) − div S(D(v)) = −∇p + b;
(B.1.4)
here we introduce the notation
S(D(v)) = 2ν(|D(v)|2 )D(v).
(B.1.5)
This class of fluids includes:
c) Ladyzhenskaya’s fluids‡ with ν(|D(v)|2 ) = ν0 + ν1 |D(v)|r−2 , where r > 2 is
fixed, ν0 and ν1 are positive numbers:
div v = 0,
v,t +div(v⊗v)−ν0 4v−2ν1 div(|D(v)|r−2 D(v)) = −∇p+b (B.1.6)
d) Power-law fluids with ν(|D(v)|2 ) = ν1 |D(v)|r−2 where r ∈ (1, ∞) is fixed and
ν1 is a positive number:
div v = 0,
v,t + div(v ⊗ v) − 2ν1 div(|D(v)|r−2 D(v)) = −∇p + b
(B.1.7)
† Recall that in our setting a fluid is homogeneous if for some positive number ρ 0 the density
fulfils ρ(x, t) = ρ0 for all time instants t ≥ 0 and all x ∈ κt (B).
‡ For r = 3 this system of PDEs is frequently called Smagorinski’s model of turbulence, see
[131]. Then ν0 is molecular viscosity and ν1 is the turbulent viscosity.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
37
e) Navier-Stokes fluids with ν(p, |D(v)|2 ) = ν0 (ν0 being a positive number):
div v = 0,
v,t + div(v ⊗ v) − ν0 4v = −∇p + b.
(B.1.8)
The equations of motions (B.1.8) for a Navier-Stokes fluid are referred to as the
Navier-Stokes equations (NSEs), the equations (B.1.6) for a Ladyzhenskaya’s fluid
will be referred to as the Ladyzhenskaya’s equations. A fluid captured by Ladyzhenskaya’s equations reduces to NSEs (B.1.8) by taking ν1 = 0 in (B.1.6) and to powerlaw fluids by setting ν0 = 0. Note also that setting r = 2 in the Ladyzhenskaya’s
equations we again obtain NSEs with the constant viscosity 2(ν0 + ν1 ).
1.2. Mathematical self-consistency of the models
Irrespective of how accurately a model of our choice approximates the real behavior of a fluid, mathematical analysis is interested in questions concerning its
mathematical self-consistency‡.
We say that a model is mathematically self-consistent if it exhibits at least the
following properties:
(I) large-time and large-data existence: Completing the model by a reasonable set
of boundary conditions and considering a smooth, but arbitrary initial data, the
model should admit a solution for all positive time instants.
(II) large-time and large-data uniqueness: The motion is fully determined by its
initial, boundary and other data and depends on them continuously; particularly,
such a motion is unique for a given set of data.
(III) large-time and large-data regularity: The physical quantities, such as the
velocity in the case of fluids, are bounded.
These three requirements thus form a minimal set of mathematical properties
that one would like any evolutionary model of (classical) mechanics to exhibit,
particularly any of the models (B.1.3) up to (B.1.8).
A discussion of the current state of results with regard the properties (I), (II)
and (III) for the above models forms the backbone of the remaining part of this
article. Towards purpose, we eliminate the influence of the boundary by considering
spatially periodic problem only, cf.(A.4.6). On the other hand, we do not apply tools
that are just suitable for periodic functions (such as Fourier series) but rather use
‡ See a video record of Caffarelli’s presentation of the 3rd millenium problem ”Navier-Stokes
and smoothness”[15].
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
38
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
tools and approaches that can be used under more general conditions for other
boundary-value problem, as well.
1.3. Weak solution: a natural notion of solution for PDEs of the continuum
physics
The tasks (I)-(III) require to know what is meant by solution. We obtain a
hint from the balance of linear momentum for each (measurable) subset of the
body (A.2.17), as recognized already by Oseen [102]. Note that (A.2.19) requires
some integrability of the first derivatives of the velocity and the integrability of
the pressure, while the classical formulation† (B.1.8) is based on the knowledge of
the second derivatives of v and the gradient of p. Oseen [102] not only observed
this discrepancy between (A.2.19) and (B.1.8), but he also proposed and derived
a notion of weak solution directly from the original formulation‡ of the balance of
linear momentum (A.2.19).
To be more specific, following the procedure outlined by Oseen [102] (for other
approaches see also [34] p. 55, and [35]) it is possible to conclude directly from
(A.2.19) and (A.2.20) that ρ, v and T fulfil for all t > 0
−
Z tZ
0
Z
(ρv)(τ, x) · ϕ,τ (τ, x) dx dτ + (ρv)(t, x) · ϕ(t, x) dx
Ω
Z
Z tZ
(ρv ⊗ v) · ∇ϕ dx dτ
− (ρv)(0, x) · ϕ(0, x) dx −
0
Ω
Ω
Z tZ
Z tZ
+
T · ∇ϕ dx dτ =
ρb · ϕ dx dτ
Ω
0
∞
for all ϕ ∈ D −∞, +∞; Cper
−
Z tZ
0
Ω
3 0
Ω
and
Z
ρ(τ, x)ξ,t (τ, x) dx dτ +
ρ(t, x)ξ(t, x) dx
Ω
Ω
Z
Z tZ
−
ρ(0, x)ξ(0, x) dx −
ρv · ∇ξ dx dτ = 0
Ω
(B.1.9)
0
(B.1.10)
Ω
∞
for all ξ ∈ D −∞, +∞; Cper
.
Identities (B.1.9) and (B.1.10) are exactly weak forms of the equations (B.1.1).
Neither Oseen nor later on Leray [74] used the word ”weak” in their understanding
of solution, but both of them work with it. While Oseen established the results
† Oseen in his monograph [102] treats the Navier-Stokes fluids and their linearizations only.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
39
concerning local-in-time existence, uniqueness and regularity for large data, Leray
[74] proved large-time and large-data existence for weak solutions of the NavierStokes equations, verifying thus (I), leaving as open the tasks (II) and (III).
These tasks are still unresolved to our knowledge. The tasks (II) and (III) for the
Navier-Stokes equation (B.1.8) represent the third millenium problem of the Clay
Mathematical Institute [33].
The next issue concerns the function spaces where the solution satisfying (B.1.9)
and (B.1.10) are to be found.
There is an interesting link between the constitutive theory via the maximization of the entropy production presented in Chapter A and the choice of function
spaces where weak solutions are constructed. We showed earlier how the form of the
constitutive equation for the Cauchy stress can be determined knowing the constitutive equations for the specific Helmoltz free energy ψ and for the rate of dissipation
ξ by maximizing w.r.t D’s fulfilling the reduced thermomechanical equation and
the divergenceless condition as the constraint. Here, we show that the form of ψ
determines function spaces for ρ, while the form of ξ determines the function space
for v. This link would become even more transparent for more complex problems
([88] for example).
Consider ψ and ξ of the form
ψ = Ψ(ρ)
and
ξ = 2ν(p, ρ, D · D)D · D.
(B.1.11)
Assume that ρ fulfills
0 ≤ sup
0≤t≤T
and
0≤
Z
T
0
Z
Z
ρΨ(ρ(t, x)) dx < ∞,
(B.1.12)
Ω
ν(p, ρ, D(v) · D(v))D(v) · D(v) dxdt < ∞.
(B.1.13)
Ω
If for example Ψ(ρ) = ργ with γ > 1 and ν(p, ρ, D(v) · D(v)) = ν0 , then (B.1.12)
and (B.1.13) imply that
ρ ∈ L∞ (0, T ; Lγ+1
per )
and
D(v) ∈ L2 (0, T ; L2per ).
(B.1.14)
In general, depending on specific structure of Ψ, (B.1.12) implies that
ρ ∈ L∞ (0, T ; XΨ ) for some space XΨ .
(B.1.15)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
40
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
If Ψ(ρ) = ργ , then XΨ = Lγ+1
per . Similarly, depending on the form of ν, one can
conclude that
D(v) ∈ Ydis or v ∈ Xdis for certain function spaces Ydis and Xdis , respectively.
1,2
(Ω)).
In case of the constant viscosity Ydis = L2 (0, T ; L2per ) and Xdis = L2 (0, T ; Wper
Note that the reduced thermomechanical equation (A.2.28) requires that
T · D(v) = ξ + ρψ̇ = 2ν(p, ρ, D(v) · D(v))D(v) · D(v) + ρΨ̇(ρ).
Now, if we formally set ϕ = v in (B.1.9) we obtain
Z
Z
Z
1 d
2
%|v| dx +
T · D(v) dx =
%b · v dx
2 dt Ω
Ω
Ω
(B.1.16)
(B.1.17)
and using Eq. (B.1.16) we see that the second term in (B.1.17) can be expressed as
Z
Z
Z
T(p, %, D(v)) · D(v)) dx =
Ξ(p, %, D(v)) dx +
%ψ̇ dx
Ω
Ω
Ω
Z
Z
d
(%ψ) dx
=
Ξ(p, %, D(v)) dx +
Ω dt
Z
ZΩ
d
2
2
=
%ψ dx ,
ν(p, %, |D(v)| ) |D(v)| dx +
dt Ω
Ω
(B.1.18)
where we used the fact that %̇ = 0 (see (B.1.1)).
Assume that ρ0 and v0 are Ω-periodic functions satisfying (α1 , α2 being positive
constants)
% 0 ∈ XΨ
v0 ∈ L2 (Ω)
and α1 ≤ %0 ≤ α2 ,
and
div v0 = 0.
(B.1.19)
(B.1.20)
Then the fact that ρ fulfills the transport equation implies that
α1 ≤ ρ(x, t) ≤ α2
for all (x, t) ∈ Ω × (0, +∞).
(B.1.21)
Consequently, it follows from (B.1.17)-(B.1.18) and (B.1.19)-(B.1.20) that (for all
T > 0)
v ∈ L∞ (0, T ; L2per ) ∩ Xdis and ρ ∈ L∞ (0, T ; XΨ ).
(B.1.22)
Specific description depends on the behavior of the viscosity with respect to D, p
and ρ respectively. See Subsection 7.3 for further details.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
41
1.4. Models and their invariance with respect to scaling
Solutions of the equations for power-law fluids (B.1.7) considered for r ∈ (1, 3)
are invariant with respect to the scaling
r−1
2
vλ (t, x) = λ 3−r v(λ 3−r t, λx),
r−1
(B.1.23)
2
pλ (t, x) = λ2 3−r p(λ 3−r t, λx).
It means that if (v, p) solves (B.1.7) with b = 0, then (v λ , pλ ) solves (B.1.7) as
well. Note that NSEs are also included by setting r = 2 in (B.1.7).
Applying this scaling we may magnify the flow near the point of interest located
inside the fluid domain. Studying the behavior of the averaged rate of dissipation
d(v) defined through
d(v) :=
Z
0
−1
Z
ξ(D(v)) dx dt = 2ν1
B1 (0)
Z
0
−1
Z
|D(v)|r dx dt
(B.1.24)
B1 (0)
for d(vλ ) as λ → ∞, we can give the following classification of the problem:






→
0
supercritical,






if d(vλ ) → A ∈ (0, ∞) as λ → ∞
then the problem is
critical,








→∞
 subcritical.
Roughly speaking, we may say that for a subcritical problem the zooming (near
possible singularity) is penalized by d(vλ ) as λ → ∞, while for supercritical case
the energy dissipated out the system is insensitive measure of this magnification.
Because of this, standard regularity techniques based on difference quotient
methods should in principle works for subcritical case, while supercritical problems
are difficult to handle without any additional information and they are even difficult
to treat since weak formulation are not suitable for the application of finer regularity
techniques. The Navier-Stokes equations in three spatial dimension represent a
supercritical problem.
In order to overcome a drawback of ”supercritical” problems to fully exploit fine
regularity techniques, Caffareli, Kohn and Nirenberg [16] introduced the notion of
suitable weak solution, and established its existence. A key new property of thus
suitable form of weak solution is the local energy inequality.
For (B.1.1) this is formally achieved by taking a sum of two identities: the first
one is obtained by setting ϕ = vφ in (B.1.9) and the second one by setting ξ =
|v|2
2 φ
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
42
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
∞
in (B.1.10), with φ ∈ D(−∞, +∞; Cper
) satisfying φ(x, t) ≥ 0 for all t, x. The local
Z
Z tZ
1
(ρ|v|2 φ)(x, t) dx +
(T · D(v)φ) (x, τ ) dx dτ ≤
2 Ω
0
Ω
Z
Z Z
1 t
1
ρ|v|2 (v · ∇φ + φ,t ) (x, τ ) dx dτ (B.1.25)
ρ0 (x)|v0 (x)|2 φ(0, x) dx +
2 Ω
2 0 Ω
Z tZ
−
(Tv · ∇φ − ρb · vφ) (x, τ ) dx dτ.
0
Ω
Using this tool, Caffarelli, Kohn and Nirenberg [16] were able to give a significant
improvement in characterizing the structure of possible singularities for the NavierStokes equations in three dimensions. (Section 6 addresses this issue.)
Since in three spatial dimension d(vλ ) defined through (B.1.24) fulfils
d(vλ ) = 2ν1 λ
5r−11
3−r
Z
0
− 12
λ 3−r
Z
|D(v1 )|r dy dτ,
r ∈ (1, 3)
(B.1.26)
B1/λ (0)
we see that the evolutionary equations for power-law fluids represent a subcritical
11
5 . Thus, the power-law fluids model should be mathematically
≥ 11
5 . The same is true for the Ladyzhenskaya’s equations (B.1.6)
problem as r >
treatable for r
which has in comparison with the power-law fluid model one better property: the
viscosity ν(D) = ν0 + ν1 |D|r−2 and consequently the corresponding nonlinear operator − div((ν0 + ν1 |D(v)|r−2 )D(v)) are not degenerate (while for power-law fluid,
ν(D) = ν1 |D|r−2 as |D| → 0 degenerates for r > 2, and becomes singular for r < 2).
The Ladyzhenskaya’s equations with r ≥
11
5
are mathematically self-consistent;
large-time existence of weak solution (task (I)) has been proved by Ladyzhenskaya
(see [72], [65]), she also established large-time uniqueness (task (II)) for r ≥
Task (II) and (III) for r ≥
11
5
5
2.
were completed by Bellout, Bloom and Nečas in
[8], Málek, Nečas and Růžička in [83] and by Málek, Nečas, Rokyta and Růžička
in [81], although the boundedness of the velocity is perhaps explicitly stated in this
contribution for the first time. The results in [83] give however the most difficult
steps in this direction. Sections 3,4 and 5 focus on this topic.
Mathematical self-consistency of the Ladyzhenskaya’s equations (and some of
its generalization) is the central issue of this contribution. After introducing the
notion of weak solution and suitable weak solution to equations for fluids with shear
dependent viscosity (B.1.4) that includes the NSEs, Ladyzhenskaya’s equations and
power-law fluids as special cases, we deal with large-time existence of these models
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
43
in Section 3 and using two methods we establish the existence of suitable weak
solution for r > 59 , and the existence of weak solution satisfying only global energy
inequality for r > 85 .
Regularity of such solution is studied in Section 4 and established for r ≥
Particularly, if r ≥
11
5
11
5 .
we conclude that the velocity is bounded. We also outline
how the higher differentiability technique can be used as a tool in the existence
theory. Uniqueness and large-time behavior is addressed in Section 5.
The short Section 6 gives a survey of the results dealing with structure of possible
singularities of flows for the Navier-Stokes fluid.
The final Section 7 states briefly results on large-time and large-data existence
for further models namely for homogeneous fluid with pressure dependent viscosity
and for inhomogeneous fluids with density or shear dependent viscosity.
2. Definitions of (suitable) weak solutions
Before giving a precise formulation of (suitable) weak solution to the system of
PDEs (B.1.4)-(B.1.5) describing unsteady flows of fluids with shear dependent viscosity, we need to specify the assumptions characterizing the structure of the tensor
S = 2ν(|D(v)|2 )D(v), and to define function spaces we work with.
2.1. Assumptions concerning the stress tensor
Let us compute the expression
3
X
∂Sij (A)
∂S(A)
· (B ⊗ B) :=
Bij Bkl
∂A
∂Akl
i,j,k=1
for the Cauchy stress of Ladyzhenskaya’s fluids and for power-law fluids. In the case
we have
S(A) = 2 ν0 + ν1 |A|r−2 A
(r > 2)
(B.2.1)
∂S(A)
· (B ⊗ B) = 2 ν0 + ν1 |A|r−2 |B|2 + 2ν1 (r − 2)|A|r−4 (A · B)2 ,
∂A
(B.2.2)
which implies
∂S(A)
· (B ⊗ B) ≥ 2 ν0 + ν1 |A|r−2 |B|2 ≥ C1 1 + |A|r−2 |B|2
∂A
(B.2.3)
with C1 = 2 min(ν0 , ν1 )
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
44
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
and
∂S(A)
· (B ⊗ B) ≤ C2 1 + |A|r−2 |B|2 with C2 = 2 max(ν0 , ν1 (r − 1)) , (B.2.4)
∂A
while for power-law fluids (set ν0 = 0 in (B.2.2))

 2ν1 |A|r−2 |B|2
∂S(A)
· (B ⊗ B) ≥
 2ν (r − 1)|A|r−2 |B|2
∂A
1
if r ≥ 2
(B.2.5)
if r < 2
and

 2ν1 (r − 1)|A|r−2 |B|2
∂S(A)
· (B ⊗ B) ≤
 2ν |A|r−2 |B|2
∂A
1
if r ≥ 2
(B.2.6)
if r < 2.
Motivated by the inequalities (B.2.3)-(B.2.4) for Ladyzhenskaya’s fluid and (B.2.5)(B.2.6) for the power-law fluid we put the following assumption on S.
Let κ be either 0 or 1. We assume that
3×3
S : R3×3 → R3×3 with S(0) = 0 fulfils S ∈ C 1 R3×3
,
(B.2.7)
and there are two positive constants C1 and C2 such that for a certain r ∈ (1, ∞)
3×3
and for all 0 6= A, B ∈ Rsym
∂S(A)
C1 κ + |A|r−2 |B|2 ≤
· (B ⊗ B) ≤ C2 κ + |A|r−2 |B|2 .
∂A
(B.2.8)
We also use convention that κ = 0 if r < 2.
2.2. Function spaces
We primarily deal with functions defined on R3 that are periodic with the pe∞
riodic cell Ω = (0, L)3 . The space Cper
consists of smooth Ω-periodic functions.
Let r be such that 1 ≤ r < ∞. The Lebesgue space Lrper is introduced as the
R
∞
closure of Cper
-functions with Ω f (x) dx = 0 where the closure is made w.r.t. the
R
1,r
norm k · kr , where kf krr = Ω |f (x)|r dx. The Sobolev space Wper
is the space of
Ω-periodic Lebesgue-measurable functions f : R3 → R such that ∂xi f exists in
1,r
a weak sense and f and ∂xi f belong to Lrper . Both Lrper and Wper
are Banach
1
1
R
R
r
r
spaces with the norms kf kr := Ω |f (x)| dx and kf k1,r := Ω |∇x f (x)|r dx r ,
respectively.
Let (X, k · kX ) be a Banach space of scalar functions defined on Ω. Then X 3
represents the space of vector-valued functions whose all components belong to X.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
Also, X ∗ denotes the dual space to X. For r 0 =
1,r ∗
.
r
r−1 ,
45
−1,r
we usually write Wper
1,r
1,r
We also introduce the space Wper,div
being a closed subspace of Wper
3
0
defined
as the closure (w.r.t the norm k · k1,r ) of all smooth Ω-periodic functions v with the
1,r
1,r
zero mean value such that div v = 0. Note that Wper,div
= {v ∈ Wper
, div v = 0}.
If Y is any Banach space, T ∈ (0, ∞) and 1 ≤ q ≤ ∞, then Lq (0, T ; Y ) denotes
the Bochner space formed by functions g : (0, T ) → Y such that, for 1 ≤ q < ∞,
q1
R
T
is finite. The norm in L∞ (0, T ; Y ) is defined as
kgkLq (0,T ;Y ) := 0 kg(t)kqY dt
infimum of supt∈[0,T ]\E kg(t)kY , where infimum is taken over all subsets E of [0, T ]
having zero Lebesgue measure.
Also, if X is a reflexive Banach space, then Xweak denotes the space equipped
with the weak topology. Thus, for example
n
o
C(0, T ; Xweak ) ≡ ϕ ∈ L∞ (0, T ; X); hϕ(·), hi ∈ C(h0, T i) for all h ∈ X ∗ .
Let 1 < α, β < ∞. Let X be a Banach space, and let X0 , X1 be separable and
reflexive Banach spaces satisfying X0 ,→,→ X ,→ X1 . Then the Aubin-Lions lemma
[76] says that the space
W := v ∈ Lα (0, T ; X0); v,t ∈ Lβ (0, T ; X1)
is compactly embedded into Lα (0, T ; X), i.e., W ,→,→ Lα (0, T ; X).
2.3. Definition of Problem (P) and its (suitable) weak solutions
Our main task is to study the mathematical properties of Problem (P) consisting
of:
• four partial differential equations (B.1.4) with S satisfying (B.2.7)-(B.2.8),
• the spatially periodic requirement (A.4.6),
• the initial condition
in R3 .
v(0, ·) = v0 (·)
(B.2.9)
Let T > 0 be fixed, but arbitrary number. We assume that given functions b
and v0 fulfil
1,r
b ∈ Lr (0, T ; Wper
)
and
∞ ∗
div v0 = 0 in (Cper
)
∗
0
0
−1,r
= Lr (0, T ; Wper
),
and
v0 ∈ L2per .
(B.2.10)
(B.2.11)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
46
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
Let (B.2.7) and (B.2.8) hold.
We say that (v, p) = (v1 , v2 , v3 , p) is a suitable weak solution to Problem (P)
provided that
5r
5r
1,r
v ∈ C(0, T ; L2weak (Ω)) ∩ Lr (0, T ; Wper,div
) ∩ L 3 (0, T ; L 3 );

 0
0
0
11

−1,r 0
 Lr (0, T ; Wper
 Lr (0, T ; Lrper )
,
for r ≥
)
5
v,t ∈
and
p
∈
5r
−1, 5r
11
 L 5r

6
6 (0, T ; W
 L 5r
6 (0, T ; L 6 )
)
per
for r <
;
per
5
lim kv(t) − v0 k22 = 0;
t→0+
Z
(B.2.12)
(B.2.13)
(B.2.14)
T
hv,t (t), ϕ(t)i − ((v ⊗ v)(t), ∇ϕ(t)) + (S(D(v(t))), D(ϕ(t)))
0
−(p(t), div ϕ(t)) dt =
Z
T
1,s
for all ϕ ∈ Ls (0, T ; Wper
)
hb(t), ϕ(t)i dt
0
5r
6
11
11
and s =
if
<r<
;
5
5r − 6
5
5
Z tZ
Z
1
2
|v| φ (t, x) dx +
S(D(v)) · D(v)φ dx dτ
2 Ω
0
Ω
Z t
Z
Z tZ
1
|v|2
2
≤
φ,t dx dτ +
hb, vφi dτ
|v0 (x)| φ(0, x) dx +
2 Ω
0
0
Ω 2
Z tZ 2
|v|
+
v + pv − S(D(v))v · ∇φ dx dτ
2
0
Ω
(B.2.15)
with s = r if r ≥
(B.2.16)
∞
valid for all φ ∈ D(−∞, +∞; Cper
), φ ≥ 0 and for almost all t ∈ (0, T i.
5r
5r
• If r ≥ 3, the assertion v ∈ L 3 (0, T ; L 3 ) in (B.2.12) can be improved. For
example, if r > 3, v being in Lr (0, T ; W 1,r ) implies v ∈ Lr (0, T ; C 0,
r−3
3r
). Since our
interest is focused on r ∈ (1, 3) we do not discuss this alternative in what follows.
• Note that (B.2.12) and (B.2.13) ensure that all terms in (B.2.15) have sense for
r > 65 , while all terms in (B.2.16) are finite if r > 59 .
• Note that taking φ ≡ 1, one can conclude from (B.2.16) the standard energy
inequality
1
kv(t)k22 +
2
Z
t
0
1
(S(D(v)), D(v)) dτ ≤ kv0 k22 +
2
Z
t
hb, vi dτ
(B.2.17)
0
has sense provided that the right hand side is finite.
We say that (v, p) is weak solution to Problem (P) if (B.2.12)–(B.2.15) and
(B.2.17) hold.
• For the NSEs, local energy inequality takes slightly different form due to the
linearity of S that allows to perform the integration per parts once more. This
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
47
gives
1
2
Z
2
|v| φ (t, x) dx + ν0
Ω
1
≤
2
Z
Z tZ
0
Z
2
|∇v|2 φ dx dτ
Ω
tZ
pv · ∇φ dx dτ +
|v0 (x)| φ(0, x) dx +
0
Ω
Ω
Z tZ
|v|2
+
(φ,t + ν0 4φ + v · ∇φ) dτ
0
Ω 2
Z
t
hb, vφi dτ
(B.2.18)
0
∞
valid for all φ ∈ D(−∞, +∞; Cper
), φ ≥ 0 and for almost all t ∈ (0, T i.
• Note that for r ≥
11
5
we can set ϕ = v or ϕ = vφ in (B.2.15) and derive (B.2.16)
11
5 ,
we have v ∈ C(0, T ; L2per )
1,r
1,r ∗
that follows from the fact that v ∈ Lr (0, T ; Wper
) and v,t ∈ Lr (0, T ; Wper
) .
and (B.2.17) in the form of equality. Also, for r ≥
• Notice that the assumption (B.2.8) holds for the Ladyzhenskaya’s equations with
κ = 1, and for power-law fluids with κ = 0.
2.4. Useful inequalities
We first obtain several inequalities that are consequences of (B.2.7) and (B.2.8).
Since
(S(A) − S(B)) · (A − B) =
=
Z
Z
1
d
Sij (B + s(A − B))ds (A − B)ij
ds
1
∂Sij
(B + s(A − B))(A − B)kl (A − B)ij ds,
∂Akl
0
0
it follows from the first inequality in (B.2.8) that
Z 1
(κ + |B + s(A − B)|r−2 )ds|A − B|2 ≥ 0. (B.2.19)
(S(A) − S(B)) · (A − B) ≥ C1
0
If r ≥ 2, (B.2.19) then implies (see Lemma 5.1.19 in [81] or [23])

 |A − B|r
if κ = 0,
(S(A) − S(B)) · (A − B) ≥ C3
 |A − B|2 + |A − B|r if κ = 1.
Consequently, for A = D(u) and B = D(v) we have

 kD(u − v)krr
((S(D(u)) − S(D(v)), D(u − v)) ≥ C3
 kD(u − v)k2 + kD(u − v)kr
2
r
(B.2.20)
if κ = 0,
if κ = 1.
(B.2.21)
If r < 2 (and κ = 0), we show below that (B.2.19) implies
(S(D(u)) − S(D(v)), D(u − v)) kD(u) + D(v)kr2−r ≥ C4 kD(u − v)k2r . (B.2.22)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
48
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
Consequently, setting v ≡ 0 in (B.2.21) and (B.2.22) we conclude
(S(D(u)), D(u)) ≥ C5 kD(u)krr .
(B.2.23)
In fact it directly follows from (B.2.19) that S is strictly monotone, i.e.
(S(A) − S(B)) · (A − B) > 0 if A 6= B.
Also, if D(u), D(v) ∈ Lr (0, T ; Lr (Ω)3×3 ), (B.2.22) and Hölder’s inequality lead to
Z
T
0
kD(u − v)krr dt
Z
≤ C6
T
(S(D(u)) − S(D(v)), D(u − v)) dt
0
(B.2.24)
! r2
To see (B.2.22) we use Hölder inequality and inequality |B + s(A − B)| ≤ |A| + |B|
valid for all s ∈ (0, 1) in the following calculation, where D(s) abbreviates D(v) +
sD(u − v):
kD(u − v)krr =
=
Z Z
Ω
≤c
Z h
1
Z
|D(u) − D(v)|r dx
Ω
|D(s)|r−2 ds |D(u − v)|2
0
r2 Z
1
|D(s)|r−2 ds
0
(S(D(v)) − S(D(u))) · (D(u − v)) dx
≤
Z h
i r2 Z Z
Ω
Ω
(S(D(v)) − S(D(u))) · (D(u − v)) dx
Ω
−r
2
i r2
dx
1
|D(s)|
r−2
0
2−r
kD(u) + D(v)kr 2
ds
−r
2−r
dx
2−r
2
r
which implies (B.2.22).
Analogously, we could check that for r ∈ (1, 2) and θ ∈ ( 1r , 1) it holds for D(u),
D(v) ∈ Lr (0, T ; Lr (Ω)3×3 )
Z
T
0
kD(u − v)krθ
rθ dt ≤ C̃6
Z
T
0
Z
[S(D(u)) − S(D(v)) · D(u − v))]θ dx dt
Ω
! r2
(B.2.25)
r
where C̃6 depends on |Ω| and T , and the L -norms of D(u) and D(v).
It also follows from (B.2.7) and (B.2.8):
S(A) = S(A) − S(0) =
≤ C2
Z
1
Z
1
0
d
S(sA) ds =
ds
Z
1
0
∂S(sA)
· A ds
∂A
(κ + sr−2 |A|r−2 ) ds |A| ≤ C2 κ|A| + C2
0
1
|A|r−1 .
r−1
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
49
Consequently, using the convection that κ = 0 if r < 2, we have
|S(A)| ≤ C2 κ|A| + C2
1
|A|r−1 ≤ C0 (κ + |A|)r−1 .
r−1
(B.2.26)
If r ∈ (1, +∞), Korn’s inequality states, see [98] or [91] that there is CN > 0
such that
1,r
k∇ukr ≤ CN kD(u)kr for all u ∈ Wper
or W01,r .
(B.2.27)
3. Existence of a (suitable) weak solution
3.1. Formulation of the results and bibliographical notes
The aim of this section is to establish the following result on large-time and
large-data existence of suitable weak solution to unsteady flows of fluids with shear
dependent viscosity.
Theorem 3.1. Assume that S : R3×3 → R3×3 satisfies (B.2.7) and (B.2.8) with
fixed parameter r. Let also b and v0 fulfil (B.2.10) and (B.2.11), respectively. If
r>
8
,
5
(B.3.1)
then there is a weak solution to Problem (P).
r>
9
,
5
(B.3.2)
then there is a suitable weak solution to Problem (P).
Finally, if
r≥
11
,
5
(B.3.3)
then the local energy equality hold and v ∈ C(0, T ; L2per ).
Mathematical analysis of (B.1.4)-(B.1.5) was initiated by Ladyzhenskaya (see
[72], [65]) who prove the existence of weak solution for r ≥
11
5
treating homogeneous
Dirichlet (i.e. no-slip) boundary condition. Her approach based on a combination
of monotone operator theory together with the compactness arguments works for
easier boundary-value problems, as spatial periodic problem or Navier’s slip as well.
Provided that the viscosity depends on the full velocity gradient, i.e. ν = ν(|∇v|2 ),
the same results are presented in the book of Lions [76]. For a complementary
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
50
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
The following table gives an overview of the results and methods available in
two and general dimensions. We discuss below the results in three dimensions in
detail.
Spatially-periodic problem

monotone operators
+ compactness

monotone operators
∞
+L -function

regularity technique
d=2
d≥3
⇒
r≥2
r ≥1+
⇒
r>
3
2
r≥
2(d + 1)
d+2
[43]
⇒
r>1
r>
3d
d+2
[81]
?
[58]
(higher-differentiability)
C 1,α − regularity ⇒
Dirichlet problem (No-slip boundary)

monotone operators
+ compactness

regularity technique
r≥
4
3
⇒
r≥2
⇒
r≥
(higher-differentiability)
C 1,α − regularity ⇒
3
2
r≥2
r ≥1+
Refs.
2d
d+2
2d
d+2
r ≥ 2 (d = 3)
?
[65],[76]
[72], [65], [76]
[57], [82]
[56].
Note that Theorem 3.1 covers also the large-time and large-data existence for
the NSEs, the results obtained for the Cauchy problem in the fundamental article by
Leray [74], and extended to bounded domains with no-slip boundary conditions by
Hopf [52] and to notion of suitable weak solution by Caffarelli, Kohn and Nierenberg
[16]. The technique of monotone operators [65] or [76] however does not cover these
results (as (B.3.3) does not include r = 2).
This gap in the existence theory was filled by the result presented by Málek,
Nečas, Rokyta and Růžička in [81], see [8] and [83] for the first appearance. The
method based on the regularity technique to obtain fractional higher differentiability gives, among other results, the existence of weak solution for r fulfilling (B.3.2).
This concerns the spatially periodic problem (A.4.6). For no-slip boundary conditions, the existence for r ≥ 2 is established in [82]. The idea of this method will be
explained in Section 4.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
51
Later on in [43], using the facts that the nonlinear operator is strictly monotone
and only L∞ -test function are permitted, Frehse, Málek and Steinhauer extended
in some sense the existence theory for non-linear parabolic systems with L1 -right
hand side performed for example in [11] and proved the existence of weak solution
for r > 58 . In the following subsection the proof of Theorem 3.1 is established using
the approach from [65] for r ≥
11
5
and from [43] for r ∈ ( 85 , 11
5 ). Note that the last
result for r ∈ ( 58 , 2) for no-slip boundary conditions is not completely solved yet.
Frehse and Málek conjecture in [42] that one can exploit the restriction that only
Lipschitz test function are admissible and establish the existence of weak solution
for r > 65 . See [44] for details on this technique for time independent problems.
3.2. Definition of an approximate Problem (P ε,η ) and apriori estimates
R
Let η > 0 and ε > 0 be fixed. If u ∈ L1loc (R3 ), then u∗ω η := η13 R3 ω x−y
u(y) dy
η
R
with ω(·) ∈ D(B1 (0)), ω ≥ 0, ω being radially symmetric, B1 (0) ω = 1, is the standard regularization of a function u.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
52
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
We consider Problem (P ε,η ) to find (v, p) := (vε,η , pε,η ) such that†
div v + ε|p|α p = 0

2−r

α =
r−1
with

 α = 5r − 12
6
11
,
5
11
for r <
,
5
for r ≥
v,t + div ((v ∗ ω η ) ⊗ v) − div S(D(v)) = −∇p + b,
(B.3.10)
(B.3.11)
and (vε,η , pε,η ) are Ω-periodic functions fulfilling (A.4.6) and each vε,η starts with
the initial value specified in (B.2.9).
Note that (B.3.10)-(B.3.11) is tantamount to
1
α+1
div v 1
v,t + div ((v ∗ ω ) ⊗ v) − div S(D(v)) −
∇
= b, (B.3.12)
α
ε
| div v| α+1
η
with p := −
1
ε
1
α+1
α
| div v|− α+1 div v defined after solving for v = vε,η (B.3.12)
together with (B.2.9) and (A.4.6). This kind of approximation is in the literature
called quasi-compressible approximation or the problem with penalized divergenceless constraint. Although in (B.3.12) three non-linear operators appear, the solvability of (A.3.10) is not difficult due to the fact that the first operator div ((v ∗ ω η ) ⊗ v)
is compact, the second and third one (for ε > 0 fixed) are monotone and the fol† There is a clear hint regarding the choice of α. Applying formally div to (B.1.4) 2 with b = 0,
we obtain
p = (−4)−1 div div (v ⊗ v − S(D(v))) .
(B.3.4)
Since the energy inequality implies that
1,r
v ∈ L∞ (0, T ; L2per ) ∩ Lr (0, T ; Wper
),
2(3r−q)
q(5r−6)
the interpolation inequality kukq ≤ kuk2
v∈L
5r
3
3r q−2
kuk q3r5r−6
3−r
(B.3.5)
(for r < 3) leads to
5r
3
(0, T ; Lper
).
(B.3.6)
Consequently
v⊗v ∈L
Due to (B.2.26), S(D(v)) behaves as
|∇v|r−1
5r
6
5r
6
).
(0, T ; Lper
(B.3.7)
and thus
0
0
S(D(v)) ∈ Lr (0, T ; Lrper ).
(B.3.8)
It thus follows from (B.3.4), (B.3.7) and (B.3.8) that
p ∈ Lq (0, T ; Lqper )
If r ≥
11
,
5
then q =
r
r−1
while for r <
11
,
5
where q = min
q=
5r
.
6
5r
r
,
6 r−1
.
(B.3.9)
In both cases, we choose α in such way that
α + 2 = q.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
53
lowing estimates are available:




εkpkα+2


α+2


1 d
2
1
kvk2 +
S(D(v)) · D(v) dx + α+1
α+2
1


2 dt
Ω


k div vk α+1

α+2 
ε
α+1
Z
(B.3.13)
= hb, vi ≤ kbk−1,r0 k∇vkr .
Note that
α+2=


 r0
5r


6
,





r
1
r
−
1 and
α+1=
5r
−
6


6
α+2
=
α+1 

11
5 .
for
11
r<
5
r≥
5r
5r − 6
(B.3.14)
Inequality (B.2.23) and Korn’s inequality (B.2.27) then allow us to conclude
from (B.3.13) that
sup kvε,η (t)k22 +
t∈[0,T ]
Z
T
0
k∇vε,η (t)krr dt + ε
Z
T
0
kpε,η (t)kα+2
α+2 dt+
1
1+α
Z T
α+2
1
+
k div vε,η (t)k α+1
α+2 dt ≤ K,
ε
α+1
0
(B.3.15)
where K is an absolute constant depending on kbkLr0 (0,T ;W −1,r0 ) , kv0 k2 and the
per
constant C0−1 from (B.2.26).
It follows from the first two terms (implying that vε,η belongs to L∞ (0, T ; L2per )∩
1,r
Lr (0, T ; Wper
) uniformly w.r.t. ε and η) that for r ∈ (1, 3)
Z
T
5r
kvε,η k 5r3 dt ≤ K.
(B.3.16)
3
0
Due to (B.3.15) and (B.2.26) we also have
Z T
0
kS(D(v))krr0 dt ≤ K.
(B.3.17)
0
Looking at the equation (B.3.12) and using the estimates (B.3.15)–(B.3.17) we
0
0
−1,r
see that the third and fifth term belong to Lr (0, T ; Wper
(Ω)) (even uniformly
0
η
−1,r 0
w.r.t. ε and η), the second term div (v ∗ ω ) ⊗ v) belongs to Lr (0, T ; Wper
(Ω))
uniformly w.r.t. ε and η for r ≥
11
5 ,
5r
11
5
−1, 5r
it belongs to L 6 (0, T ; Wper 6 (Ω))
−α
1
(again uniformly w.r.t. ε and η). The term (ε)− α+1 div | div v| α+1 (div v) I also
0
0
for r <
−1,r
belongs to Lr (0, T ; Wper
(Ω)) for r ≥
11
5 ,
5r
−1, 5r
6
and to L 6 (0, T ; Wper
(Ω)) otherwise,
however not uniformly w.r.t. ε > 0.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
54
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
As a consequence of this consideration, we have
vε,η
,t
∈
 0
−1,r 0

 Lr (0, T ; Wper
)

−1, 5r
6
 L 5r
6 (0, T ; W
)
per
11
,
5
11
for r <
.
5
for r ≥
(B.3.18)
−α
1
Obviously, if we eliminate the term (ε)− α+1 div | div v| α+1 (div v) I using diver-
genceless test functions we obtain the estimates that are uniform w.r.t. ε. Doing
so, we obtain
Z
T
0
α+2
kvε,η
,t kW −1,α+2 dt ≤ K.
(B.3.19)
per,div
3.3. Solvability of an approximative problem
In this subsection ε and η are fixed, and thus we write (v, p) instead (v ε,η , pε,η ).
Based on (B.3.15) we set
X :=

1,r

 Lr (0, T ; Wper
)
11
,
5
11
.
if r <
5
if r ≥
5r
5r

 {u ∈ Lr (0, T ; W 1,r ); div u ∈ L 5r−6
(0, T ; L 5r−6 )}
per
Let {ωs }∞
s=1 be a basis of X. We construct a solution to (B.3.10)-(B.3.11), more
precisely to (B.3.12) via Galerkin approximations {vN }∞
N =1 being of the form
vN (t, x) =
N
X
s
cN
s (t)ω (x),
s=1
∞
where cN := {cN
s (t)}s=1 solve the system of ordinary differential equations:
d N s
(v , ω ) − ((vN ∗ ω η ) ⊗ vN , ω s ) + (S(D(vN )), D(ω s ))
dt
(B.3.20)
−α
1
+ 1 (| div vN | α+1 div vN , div ωs ) = hb, ω s i for s = 1, 2, . . . , N .
ε α+1
Due to linearity of the second component in all expressions, we obtain (B.3.13) for
vN that leads to (B.3.15), (B.3.16) and (B.3.17) for v N . Local-in-time existence of
solution to (B.3.20) follows from Caratheodory theory, global-in-time existence is
then consequence of (B.3.15), or its variant for v N . It also follows from (B.3.15),
N ∞
(B.3.17) and (B.3.18) that there is a subsequence {vn }∞
n=1 ⊂ {v }N =1 and v ∈
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
0
55
0
X ∩ L∞ (0, T ; L2per ), S ∈ Lr (0, T ; Lr (Ω)3×3 ) and P ∈ Lα+2 (0, T ; Lα+2) such that
vn * v
vn,t * v,t
S(D(vn )) * S
n
n
P (v ) := | div v |
−α
α+1
n
div v * P
weakly in X
*-weakly in L∞ (0, T ; L2per ),
−1,α+2
weakly in Lα+2 (0, T ; Wper
),
0
weakly in L
(B.3.22)
0
(B.3.23)
(0, T ; Lα+2
per ),
(B.3.24)
weakly in Lr (0, T ; Lr (Ω)3×3 ),
α+2
(B.3.21)
and thanks to Aubin-Lions compactness lemma (cf. [81], Lemma 1.2.48 or [76],
Section 1.5)
vn → v strongly in Lr (0, T ; Lqper ) for all q ∈ h1,
3r
).
3−r
(B.3.25)
Simple arguments then lead to the conclusion that v, S and P fulfil (for almost
all t ∈ (0, T i)
Z (
t
0=
0
)
1
α+1
1
hv,t , ϕi − ((v ∗ ω ) ⊗ v, ∇ϕ) + (S, D(ϕ)) +
(P , div ϕ) − hb, ϕi dτ
ε
(B.3.26)
η
for all ϕ ∈ X. Particularly, for ϕ = v we have
#
1
α+1
Z t"
1
1
2
2
0 = (kv(t)k2 − kv0 k2 ) +
(P , div v) − hb, vi dτ.
(S, D(v)) +
2
ε
0
(B.3.27)
Since for ψ ∈ X:
0≤
Z
t
(S(D(vn ))−S(D(ψ)), D(vn )−D(ψ))+
0
1
α+1
1
(P (vn )−P (ψ), div(vn −ψ))
ε
we use the equation (B.3.13) with vn instead of v to replace the term
Z
t
(S(D(vn )), D(vn )) +
0
1
α+1
1
(P (vn ), div vn )dτ
ε
and pass to the limit as n → ∞. Using (B.3.21)-(B.3.25) we conclude
#
1
α+1
Z t"
1
0≤
(S − S(D(ψ)), D(v) − D(ψ)) +
(P − P (ψ), div(v − ψ)) dτ
ε
0
(B.3.28)
for all ψ ∈ X.
A possible choice ψ = v ± λϕ, λ > 0, and continuity of the operators in (B.3.28)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
56
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
(for λ → 0+ ) then imply
0=
Z
t
(S − S(D(v)), D(ϕ)) +
0
1
α+1
1
(P − P (v), div ϕ) dτ,
ε
(B.3.29)
that says
)
1
α+1
1
(P , div ϕ) dτ
(S, D(ϕ)) +
ε
)
1
α+1
Z t(
1
=
(S(D(v)), D(ϕ)) +
(P (v), div ϕ) dτ.
ε
0
Z t(
0
and (B.3.26) leads to the equation for (v, p) = (v ε,η , pε,η )
Z
t
hv,t , ϕi − ((v ∗ ω η ) ⊗ v, ∇ϕ) + (S(D(v)), D(ϕ)) dτ
0
+
1
Z t α+1
1
ε
0
|
valid for all ϕ ∈ X.
| div v|
{z
=:−p
−α
1+α
div v, div ϕ dτ =
}
Z
t
hb, ϕi dτ
(B.3.30)
0
3.4. Further uniform estimates w.r.t ε and η
Recall first that {vε,η } fulfil (B.3.15), (B.3.17) and (B.3.19) where K is independent of ε and η. Next, we focus on the uniform estimates of the pressure
pε,η := −
1
−α
1
ε α+1
| div vε,η | 1+α div vε,η . We start with taking in (B.3.30) ϕ = ∇hε,η ,
where hε,η solves
4h
ε,η
= |p
ε,η α ε,η
3
| p
in R , h
ε,η
being Ω-periodic,
Z
hε,η (x) dx = 0
(B.3.31)
Ω
with the estimate
khε,η k2,q ≤ Ckpε,η kα+1
(α+1)q
q ∈ (1, ∞),
(B.3.32)
where C is independent of ε and η, but it may depend on q and L. As the result
we obtain
Z t
Z t
ε,η
ε,η α+2
kp kα+2 dτ ≤
hvε,η
idτ
,t , ∇h
0
0
Z tZ
+
|vε,η ||vε,η ∗ ω η ||∇(2) hε,η |dx dτ
0
Ω
Z tZ
|S(D(vε,η ))||D(∇hε,η )|dx dτ := I1 + I2 + I3 .
+
0
(B.3.33)
Ω
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
57
Terms I2 and I3 and (B.3.32) suggest to set q such that q(α + 1)-norm for p on right
hand side of (B.3.32) equals to (α + 2)-norm of p on the left hand side of (B.3.33).
This gives q :=
α+2
α+1
and it is easy to check that using (B.3.16) and (B.3.17), I2 and
I3 are then controlled†
Focusing on I1 , we observe first that vε,η can be decomposed into the sum
v
vε,η = vε,η
div + ∇g
ε,η
(Helmholtz decomposition)
(B.3.34)
where
ε,η
div vε,η
div = 0,
v
vε,η
div and g
and
−4g
ε,η
Thus,
gv
ε
vε,η
= − div v
ε,η
= ε|p
ε,η α ε,η
| p
are Ω − periodic
Z
,
ε,η
gv
(B.3.35)
dx = 0.
(B.3.36)
Ω
= −hε,η as follows from (B.3.31) and (B.3.36) and unique solvability of
the Laplace equation in the considered class of functions. Consequently
Z t
Z t
Z t
vε,η
g,t
ε,η
vε,η
ε,η
, ∇(−hε,η )i dτ
hvε,η
h∇g
,
∇h
idτ
=
−ε
h∇
,
∇h
i
dτ
=
,t
,t
ε
0
0
0
Z t
vε,η
g,t
ε,η
ε,η
1
1 d
= −ε
k∇
k22 dτ = − (kg v (t)k22 − kg v (0)k22 ) ≤ 0
2
dt
ε
2ε
0
(B.3.37)
ε,η
as 4g v
(0) = div vε,η (0) = 0 ⇒ g v
ε,η
(0) = 0. (The reader may wish to perform
ε,η
this argument how to treat the term I1 first for smooth approximations (vε,η
m , pm )
and then pass to the limit as m → ∞, whereas vε,η
m follows from the density of
1
α
1,r
α+1 | div vε,η |− α+1 div vε,η .)
smooth functions in Lr (0, T ; Wper
) and pε,η
m := −(ε)
m
m
Thus, it follows from (B.3.33)-(B.3.37) that†
Z T
kpε,η kα+2
α+2 dτ ≤ K.
(B.3.38)
0
Consequently, we can strengthen (B.3.19) to conclude from (B.3.30) that
Z T
α+2
(B.3.39)
kvε,η
,t kW −1,α+2 dτ ≤ K.
per
0
† To be more explicit, considering for example the term I3 we have
Z t
1 Z t
Z
α+1
α+2
α+2
α+2
|I3 | ≤
kS(D(vε,η ))kα+2
≤ KC
k∇2 hε,η k α+1
α+2 dτ
α+2 dτ
0
0
α+1
t
0
kpε,η kα+2
α+2 dτ
α+1
α+2
,
where we used the fact that α + 2 ≥ r 0 for arbitrary r > 1.
† Note that this step can be repeated without any change for the Navier’s boundary conditions,
it is however open in general for no-slip boundary conditions due to the fact that ∇h is not an
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
58
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
The estimates (B.3.38) and (B.3.39) are uniform w.r.t. η. If we however relax
this requirement and use the fact that v ∗ ω η is a smooth function for η > 0 fixed
we obtain, proceeding as above,
Z T
0
and
Z
T
0
kpε,η krr0 dτ ≤ C(η −1 )
r
kvε,η
,t k
0
−1,r
Wper
0
0
(B.3.40)
dτ ≤ C(η −1 ).
(B.3.41)
3.5. Limit ε → 0
For fixed η > 0, we establish in this section the existence of (suitable) weak
solution to the problem


div v = 0, v,t + div((v ∗ ω η ) ⊗ v) − div(S(D(v))) = −∇p + b



Z
Z

p dx = 0 for i = 1, 2, 3
vi dx =
vi , p Ω − periodic with
(P η )

Ω
Ω




v(0, ·) = v0 in Ω,
if the parameter r appearing in (B.2.8) fulfils
r>
8
.
5
(B.3.42)
Using the estimates (B.3.15), (B.3.17), (B.3.40) and (B.3.41) uniform w.r.t. ε > 0,
an letting ε → 0 we can find a sequence {vn , pn } chosen from {vε,η , pε,η }, and a
limit element {v, p} := {vη , pη } such that
vn * v
vn,t * v,t
vn → v
1,r
weakly in Lr (0, T ; Wper
) and *-weakly in L∞ (0, T ; L2per )
0
0
−1,r
weakly in Lr (0, T ; Wper
)


Lr (0, T ; Lq ) for all q ∈ h1, 3r )
per
3−r
strongly in

Ls (0, T ; Lsper ) for all s ∈ h1, 5r )
3
S(D(vn )) * S
0
0
weakly in Lr (0, T ; Lrper )
(B.3.43)
(B.3.44)
(B.3.45)
(B.3.46)
and
pn * p
0
0
weakly in Lr (0, T ; Lrper ).
(B.3.47)
It also follows from the fourth term in (B.3.15) (as ε → 0) that
div v = 0
a.e. in (0, T ) × Ω.
(B.3.48)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
59
Consider (B.3.30) for {vn , pn } instead of {v, p} = {vε,η , pε,η }, we can pass to the
limit as n → ∞ and obtain with help of (B.3.43)-(B.3.47)
Z tn
0
o
hv,t , ϕi − ((v ∗ ω η ) ⊗ v, ∇ϕ) + (S(D(v)), D(ϕ)) − (p, div ϕ) dτ
Z t
1,r
hb, ϕidτ
for all ϕ ∈ Lr (0, T, Wper
).
=
(B.3.49)
0
provided that we show that
S = S(D(v))
a.e. in (0, T ) × Ω.
(B.3.50)
For this purpose, we consider again (B.3.30) for (v n , pn ) and set ϕ = vn −v therein.
Then
Z
T
0
hvn,t − v,t , vn − vidt +
=−
Z
T
Z
T
(S(D(vn )) − S(D(v)), D(vn − v))dt
0
hv,t , vn − vidt + (S(D(v)), D(vn − v))dt + hb, vn − vidt
0
−
Z
T
((vn ∗ ω η ) ⊗ vn , ∇(vn − v))dt.
(B.3.51)
0
Let n → ∞. The first term on the right hand side of (B.3.51) vanishes due to
RT
weak convergence (B.3.43), the last integral that equals to 0 (div(vn ∗ ω η )vn , vn −
RT
v)dt + 0 ((vn ∗ ω η ) ⊗ (vn − v), ∇vn ) also vanishes since (B.3.45) and |∇vn | |vn | is
uniformly integrable if r > 58 .
Consequently, using (B.3.51) and (B.2.20) resp. (B.2.21), we have†
lim
n→∞
Z
T
0
kD(vn ) − D(v)krr dt = 0,
(B.3.52)
Thus D(vn ) → D(v) a.e. in (0, T )×Ω (at least for subsequence) and Vitali’s Lemma
(see [81] Lemma 2.1 or Dunford and Schvartz [27]) and (B.3.17) give S(D(vn )) →
S(D(v)) a.e. in (0, T ) × Ω that implies (B.3.50).
† We also used the fact that
Z
T
n
hvn
,t − v,t , v − vidt =
0
1 n
1
1
kv (T ) − v(T )k22 − kvn (0) − v(0)k22 = kvn (T ) − v(T )k22 .
2
2
2
This requires to check that vn (0) = v(0) = v0 . We skip it however here and show it later for more
difficult case.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
60
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
∞
Taking ϕ = vφ, φ ∈ D(−∞, ∞; Cper
) in (B.3.49) we conclude the local energy
equality
Z tZ
Z
1
|v|2 φ (t, x) dx +
S(D(v)) · D(v)φ dx dτ
2 Ω
0
Ω
Z
Z Z
Z t
1
1 t
=
|v0 (x)|2 φ(0, x) dx +
|v|2 φ,t dx dτ +
hb, vφi dτ
2 Ω
2 0 Ω
0
Z tZ 2
|v|
η
+
(v ∗ ω ) + pv − S(D(v))v · ∇φ dx dτ
2
0
Ω
(B.3.53)
Also taking ϕ = v in (B.3.49) we have global energy equality
Z t
Z t
1
1
kv(t)k22 +
(S(D(v)), D(v)) dτ = kv0 k22 +
hb, vidτ
2
2
0
0
(B.3.54)
and thanks to lower-semicontinuity of the norms w.r.t. weak convergence it follows
from (B.3.15),(B.3.16), (B.3.17), (B.3.38) and (B.3.39) that (v, p) = (vη , pη ) fulfils
the following estimates that are uniform w.r.t. η > 0:
Z T
Z T
5r
kvη k 5r3 dt ≤ K,
k∇vη krr dt +
sup kvη (t)k22 +
t∈[0,T ]
Z
Z
Z
T
0
kS(D(vη ))krr0 dt ≤ K,
0
T
0
T
0
kpη kα+2
α+2
dt ≤ K
(B.3.56)
with α + 2 =
kvη,t kα+2
dt ≤ K.
W −1,α+2


 r0

 5r
6
11
5 ,
11
5
11
if r <
5
if r ≥
(B.3.57)
(B.3.58)
per
3.6. Limit η → 0, the case r ≥
If r ≥
(B.3.55)
3
0
0
11
5
the available uniform estimates coincides with those needed to pass
to the limit in Subsection 3.5. Thus, we proceed as above. The quadratic convective
term requires
vn → v
strongly in L2 (0, T ; L2 (Ω)).
(B.3.59)
This follows from the Aubin-Lions lemma provided that
r>
6
,
5
which is of course trivially fulfilled here (and also in the next Subsection). The
other argument coincides with those used in Subsection 3.5. For r ≥
11
5 ,
we have
thus the existence of weak solution fulfilling energy equality, local energy equality,
etc. The proof of Theorem 3.1 in the case r ≥
11
5
is complete.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
3.7. Limit η → 0, the case
8
5
<r<
61
11
5
5r
5r
3
We start observing that if u ∈ L 3 (0, T ; Lper
) and ∇u ∈ Lr (0, T ; Lrper ) then
[∇u](u ∗ ω η ) ∈ L1 (0, T ; L1per )
(B.3.60)
uniformly w.r.t. η > 0 provided that
r≥
Thus, introducing for r >
8
5
8
.
5
(B.3.61)
and δ ∈ (0, 85 (r − 85 )) the space of divergenceless
functions
1,r
Xδ := {ϕ ∈ Lr (0, T ; Wper,div
)∩L
1+δ
δ
1+δ
δ
)} ,
(0, T ; Lper
(B.3.62)
and using the fact that
−((v ∗ ω η ) ⊗ v, ∇ϕ) = ([∇v](v ∗ ω η ), ϕ),
(B.3.63)
it follows from (B.3.49) that
kvη,t kXδ∗ ≤ K
uniformly w.r.t. η > 0.
(B.3.64)
Letting η tend to zero, and using (B.3.55)-(B.3.58), (B.3.64) and the Aubin-Lions
compactness lemma, we find a subsequence {(vk , pk )}k∈N and ”its weak limit”
{(v, p)} such that (r <
11
5 )
1,r
weakly in Lr (0, T ; Wper
) and *-weakly in L∞ (0, T ; L2per ),
vk * v
(B.3.65)
−1, 5r
6
5r
6
)and in Xδ∗ ,
vk,t * v,t
weakly in L (0, T ; Wper
vk → v
strongly in Lr (0, T ; Lqper ) for all q ∈ h1,
(B.3.66)
3r
),
3−r
6
strongly in Ls (0, T ; L2per ) for all s > 1, if r > ,
5
vk → v
vk → v
a.e. in (0, T ) × Ω,
pk * p
6
),
weakly in L 6 (0, T ; Lper
5r
0
(B.3.67)
(B.3.68)
(B.3.69)
5r
(B.3.70)
0
and there is S ∈ Lr (0, T ; Lrper ) so that
S(D(vk )) * S
0
0
weakly in Lr (0, T ; Lrper )..
(B.3.71)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
62
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
Also, it follows from (B.3.68) that
vk (t) → v(t)
strongly in L2per for all t ∈ [0, T ] \ N,
(B.3.72)
where N has zero one-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
In order to identify S with S(D(v)) we showed in previous sections that this
follows from
Z TZ
(S(D(vn )) − S(D(v))) · (D(vn ) − D(v)) dx dt = 0 ,
lim
n→∞
0
(B.3.73)
Ω
using the fact that this integral operator is uniformly monotone (note that it would
suffice to know that this operator is strictly monotone).
Here, we will show a condition weaker than (B.3.73), namely:
1
for every ε∗ > 0 and for some θ ∈ ( , 1) there is a subsequence
r
(*)
k ∞
{vn }∞
n=1 of {v }k=1 such that
Z TZ h
iθ
(S(D(vn )) − S(D(v))) · (D(vn ) − D(v)) dx dt ≤ ε∗ .
lim
n→∞
0
Ω
Once (*) is proved, we take ε∗m → 0 and for each m ∈ N select gradually (not
relabelled) subsequences so that the Cantor diagonal sequence (again not relabelled)
fulfils
D(vn ) → D(v)
a.e. in (0, T ) × R3 .
(B.3.74)
Vitali’s theorem and (B.3.74) then imply S = S(D(v)) a.e. in (0, T ) × R3 . The
convergences (B.3.65)-(B.3.71) and (B.3.74) clearly suffice to pass to the limit from
the weak formulation of Problem (P η ) to the weak form of Problem (P).
It remains to verify (*). For this purpose we set
g k := |∇vk |r + |∇v|r + (|S(D(vk ))| + |S(D(v))|)(|D(vk )| + |D(v)|) . (B.3.75)
Clearly g k ≥ 0 and
0≤
Z
T
0
Z
g k dx dt ≤ K.
(K > 1)
(B.3.76)
Ω
We prove the following property (K is referred to (B.3.76))
for every ε∗∗ > 0 there is L ≤
(**)
ε∗∗
k ∞
, {vn }∞
n=1 ⊂ {v }k=1 and
K
sets E n := {(x, t) ∈ (0, T ) × Ω; L2 ≤ |vn (t, x) − v(t, x)| < L} such that
Z
g n dx dt ≤ ε∗∗ .
E
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
To see it, we fix ε∗∗ ∈ (0, 1), set L1 =
ε∗
K
63
and take N ∈ N such that for N ε∗∗ > K
(K refers to (B.3.76)). Defining iteratively Li = L2i−1 for i = 2, 3, . . . N , we set
E k,i = {(t, x) ∈ (0, T ) × Ω; L2i ≤ |vk (t, x) − v(t, x)| < Li } (i = 1, 2, . . . N.)
For k ∈ N fixed, E k,i are mutually disjoint. Consequently,
N Z
X
i=1
g k dx dt ≤ K.
E k,i
As N ε∗∗ > K, for each k ∈ N there is i0 (k) ∈ {1, . . . N } such that
Z
g k dx dt ≤ ε∗∗ .
E k,i0 (k)
However, i0 (k) are taken from finite set of indices. Then, there has to be a sequence
{vn } ⊂ {vk } such that i0 (n) = i∗0 for each n (i∗0 ∈ {1, 2, . . . N } fixed). The property
∗
(**) is then proved setting L = Li∗0 and E n = E n,i0 .
Returning to our aim to verify (*), we consider (vn , pn ) satisfying (B.3.49),
(B.3.53), (B.3.54) and having all convergence properties stated in (B.3.65)-(B.3.71)
and (**), and we set ϕ in (B.3.49) of the form
n
|v − v|
,1
− ∇z n ,
ϕn := hn − ∇z := (vn − v) 1 − min
L
(B.3.77)
where L comes from (**), and z n solves for
n
|v − v|
,1
= div hn
f n := div (vn − v) 1 − min
L
the problem
−4z n = f n
z n being Ω-periodic ,
Z
z n dx = 0.
(B.3.78)
Ω
We summarize the properties of hn , z n and ϕn . Introducing Qn through Qn :=
{(t, x) ∈ (0, T ) × Ω; |vn (t, x) − v(t, x)| < L} we note first that
hn = 0
on (0, T ) × Ω \ Qn ,
(B.3.79)
for all (t, x) ∈ (0, T ) × Ω.
(B.3.80)
and
|h(t, x)| ≤ L
Consequently, owing to (B.3.69) and Lebesgue’s theorem we have for all s ∈ h1, ∞)
Z
T
0
khn kss dt → 0
as n → ∞,
(B.3.81)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
64
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
and due to Ls -theory for the Laplace-operator, it follows from (B.3.78) that
Z
T
k∇z n kss → 0
0
as n → ∞.
(B.3.82)
From (B.3.81) and (B.3.82) it follows (ϕn defined in (B.3.77))
Z
T
0
kϕn kss dt → 0
as n → ∞.
(B.3.83)
Next, (χZ denotes the characteristic function of a set Z)
f n = div hn = (vn − v) ·
(vn − v)j ∇(vn − v)j
χQ n .
L
|vn − v|
Splitting Qn into E n (introduced in (**)) and its complement, and using the fact
that |f n |r ≤ |∇(vn − v)|r ≤ |∇vn |r + |∇v|r on E n and |f n |r ≤ L(|∇vn |r + |∇v|r ≤
ε∗
n r
K (|∇v |
+ |∇v|r ) on Qn \ E n we conclude from (**) that
Z
T
0
kf n krr,Qn dt ≤ 2ε∗ ,
(B.3.84)
and using Lr -regularity for the Laplace operator and (B.3.78)
Z
T
k∇(2) z n krr,Qn dt ≤ 2Creg ε∗ .
(B.3.85)
1,r
weakly in Lr (0, T ; Wper
) and also in Xδ ,
(B.3.86)
0
Note also that
ϕn * 0
where Xδ is defined in (B.3.62).
Inserting ϕn of the form (B.3.77) into (B.3.49) we obtain (note that the term
with pressure vanishes as div ϕn = 0)
Z
T
0
hvn,t
n
− v,t , ϕ i dt +
Z
T
=−
−
(S(D(vn )) − S(D(v)), D(ϕn )) dt
0
Z
Z
T
0
T
1
((vn ∗ ω n )[∇vn ], ϕn ) dt +
0
hv,t , ϕn i dt −
Z
Z
T
hb, ϕn i dt
(B.3.87)
0
(S(D(v)), D(ϕn )) dt.
0
It is not difficult to see that all terms on the right hand side of (B.3.87) tend
to 0: the first one due to (B.3.60) and (B.3.83), the third one due to the fact that
v,t ∈ Xδ∗ and (B.3.86) holds, and the second and fourth terms also due to (B.3.86).
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
Let H : h0, ∞) → R satisfies H(0) = 0 and H 0 (s) = (1 − min(
65
√
s
L , 1)).
Then the
first term on the left hand side is non-negative as
Z T
Z T
hvn,t − v,t , hn i dt = H(|vn − v|2 (T )) ≥ 0.
hvn,t − v,t , ϕn i dt =
0
0
We thus conclude from (B.3.87) that
Z
(S(D(vn )) − S(D(v)))(D(vn ) − D(v))) dx dt
lim
n→∞ Qn
Z
(B.3.88)
(|S(D(vn ))| + |S(D(v))|) |∇(vn − v)| + |∇(2) z n | dx dt .
≤ lim
n→∞
Qn
Arguing analogously asin the derivation of
Z
(S(D(vn )) − S(D(v)))(D(vn ) − D(v))) dx dt ≤ Cε∗
lim
n→∞
Since
Z
0
T
(B.3.89)
Qn
Z h
Ω
iθ
(S(D(vn )) − S(D(v)))(D(vn − v)) dx dt
Z
Z
[. . .]θ dx dt
[. . .]θ dx dt +
=
(0,T )×Ω\Qn
Qn
Hölder
≤
Z
+
[. . .] dx dt
Qn
Z
θ
|Qn |1−θ
[. . .] dx dt
(0,T )×Ω\Qn
!θ
|{(t, x); |vn − v| > L}|1−θ ≤ C ∗ ε∗ ,
where we apply (B.3.89) to handle the first term and the convergence in measure
to treat the second term, we finally conclude that (*) holds.
3.8. Continuity w.r.t. time in weak topology of L2per
With all convergences established in previous sections, particularly with (B.3.65)(B.3.70) and (B.3.74), it is straightforward to conclude that (v, p) fulfils weak identity (B.2.15). Taking here ϕ of the form
1,s
ϕ(τ, x) = χht0 ,ti (τ )ϕ̃(x), where ϕ̃ ∈ Wper
and t0 , t ∈ h0, T i,
we obtain
(v(t), ϕ̃) − (v(t0 ), ϕ̃) =
Z
t
(v(τ ) ⊗ v(τ ), ∇ϕ̃) − (S(D(v)), D(ϕ̃))
t0
+ hb(τ ), ϕ̃i + (p(τ ), div ϕ̃) dτ.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
66
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
This implies (for r > 65 )
|(v(t), ϕ̃) − (v(t0 ), ϕ̃)| ≤ c
Z t
t0
kv(τ )k25r + k∇v(τ )krr−1 + kb(τ )k−1,r0
3
+ kp(τ )kα+2 dτ kϕ̃k1,s .
(B.3.90)
Using also Hölder’s inequalities over time, we have
5r6
Z t
5r
5r−6
3
5r
|(v(t), ϕ̃) − (v(t0 ), ϕ̃)| ≤ c |t − t0 |
kv(τ )k 5r dτ
3
t0
+ |t − t0 |
+ |t − t0 |
1
r
1
r
Z
Z
α+1
+ |t − t0 | α+2
t
t0
t
t0
Z
k∇v(τ )krr
dτ
0
kb(τ )kr−1,r0
t
t0
r10
dτ
r10
kp(τ )kα+2
α+2 dτ
1
α+2
kϕ̃k1,s .
(B.3.91)
Since all integrals are finite, (B.3.91) leads to the conclusion that (v(·), ϕ̃) is con1,s
(Ω). In other words,
tinuous at t0 for all ϕ̃ ∈ Wper
1,s ∗
v ∈ C(0, T ; (Wper
)weak )
(B.3.92)
or
lim (v(t) − v(t0 ), ϕ̃) = 0
t→t0
1,s
for all ϕ̃ ∈ Wper
and for all t0 ∈ h0, T i
(B.3.93)
1,s
Since v ∈ L∞ (0, T ; L2per ) and Wper
is dense in L2per , we see that v ∈ C(h0, T i; L2weak ),
which is (B.2.12)1 .
3.9. (Local) Energy equality and inequality
If r ≥
11
5 ,
(B.2.15) permits to take ϕ = v or ϕ = vφ which implies both energy
equality and its local version. If
11
5
> r > 58 , we take lim supn→∞ of (B.3.54) where
v means vn , and t ∈ h0, T i \ N with N introduced in (B.3.72). Since
• lim sup{an + bn } ≥ lim sup{an } + lim inf {bn },
n→∞
n→∞
n→∞
Z tZ
Z tZ
•
S(D(v)) · D(v) dx dτ ≤ lim inf
S(D(vn )) · D(vn ) dx dτ,
0
•
vn0
n→∞
Ω
0
Ω
n
= v (0) for all n ∈ N,
• (B.3.72) and (B.3.65) hold,
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
67
we see that energy inequality (B.2.17) directly follows.
Similarly we argue letting n → ∞ in (B.3.53). Here we in addition need to pass
to the limit in terms
Z tZ 0
Ω
|vn |2 n
1
(v ∗ ω n ) + pn vn
2
· ∇φ dx dτ,
that follows from (B.3.68), (B.3.69) and (B.3.55)3 provided that
r>
9
.
5
3.10. Attainment of the initial condition
The property (B.2.14) is an easy consequence of energy inequality (B.2.17) and
the following operations
kv(t) − v0 k22 = kv(t)k22 + kv0 k22 − 2(v(t), v0 )
= kv(t)k22 − kv0 k22 − 2(v(t) − v0 , v0 )
Z t
(B.2.17)
≤ −2
[(S(D(v)), D(v)) − hb, vi] dτ − 2(v(t) − v0 , v0 ).
0
(B.3.94)
Letting t → 0+ in (B.3.94) we conclude (B.2.14) from (B.2.12)1 and the fact that
(S(D(v)), D(v)) − hb, vi ∈ L1 (0, T ).
4. On smoothness of flows
4.1. A survey of regularity results
The alternate topic of this section can be higher differentiability of weak solution
(v, p) of Problem (P).
For simplicity, we set
b = 0.
Since we deal with spatially periodic problem we are free of technical difficulties
due to localization.
For j = 1, 2, 3, ej denotes the basis vector in R3 (ej = (δ1j , δ2j , δ31 ), δij being
the Kronecker delta). Let δ0 > 0 be fixed. Introducing for h ∈ (0, δ0 ) the notation
j
4hj z(t, x) = z [+he ] (t, x) − z(t, x) := z(t, x + hej ) − z(t, x),
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
68
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
it is not difficult to observe that (B.2.15) implies
Z h
i
j
S(D(v))[+he ] − S(D(v)) · D(ϕ) dx
(B.4.1)
Ω
j
= (4hj v) ⊗ v[+he ] , ∇ϕ + v ⊗ 4hj v, ∇ϕ + 4hj p, div ϕ ,
h[4hj v],t , ϕi +
1,s
) with s = r if r ≥
that holds for all ϕ ∈ Ls (0, T ; Wper
11
5
and s =
5r
5r−6
if
6
5
≤r<
11
5
almost everywhere in (0, T ). It is a direct consequence of these requirements on ϕ
11
5 .
in (B.4.1) and (B.2.15) that we can put ϕ = 4hj v in (B.4.1) only if r ≥
In
order to relax such an apriori bound on r, we can use instead of (B.4.1) the weak
formulation of Problem (P η ). Then for (v, p) = (vη , pη ) we have
Z h
i
j
S(D(v))[+he ] − S(D(v)) · D(ϕ) dx = 4hj p, div ϕ
(B.4.2)
Ω
j
+ ((4hj v) ∗ ω η ) ⊗ v[+he ] , ∇ϕ + (v ∗ ω η ) ⊗ 4hj v, ∇ϕ
h[4hj v],t , ϕi +
1,r
valid for a.a. t ∈ (0, T ) and for all ϕ ∈ Lr (0, T ; Wper
).
In (B.4.2), we are allowed to take ϕ = 4hj v in (B.4.2), having the same restriction on r needed for the solvability of (B.4.2), i.e., r > 85 . We aim to obtain higher
differentiability estimates uniformly w.r.t. η > 0. Inserting ϕ = 4hj v into (B.4.2),
noting that div 4kj v = 0 implying that the term involving the pressure as well as
the last term appearing in (B.4.2) vanish, we obtain
j
j
1 d
k4hj vk22 + S(D(v))[+he ] − S(D(v)), [D(v)][+he ] − D(v)
2 dt
= − (4hj v ∗ ω η ) ⊗ 4hj v, ∇v[+he
j
]
(B.4.3)
≤ k∇vkr k4hj vk22r .
r−1
Using (B.2.21) for r ≥ 2 (or (B.2.22) for r < 2), it follows from (B.4.3) that
1 d
k4hj vk22 + k4hj D(v)k22 + k4hj D(v)krr ≤ k∇vkr k4hj vk22r .
r−1
2 dt
(B.4.4)
If one concludes from (B.4.4) some higher differentiability estimates (even fractional
ones suffice), the compact embedding theorem (the Aubin-Lions lemma) then lead
to almost everywhere convergence for the velocity gradients. We can then pass to
limit, as η → 0, from (B.3.49) to (B.2.15). The higher differentiability estimates
thus represent another method to establish the large-time and large-data existence
of weak solution to Problem (P).
Carrying on the original contribution by Málek, Nečas and Růžička [83] and
Bellout, Bloom and Nečas [8], see also [81], where however smoother approximations
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
69
of Problem (P) are considered†, it seems very likely that the outlined procedure
is workable and one can thus find (fractional) higher differentability estimates for
r > 95 . It is of interest to mention that this range for r’s coincides with that required
for the existence of suitable weak solution.
To be more precise, the following results are in place (see [83], [8], [81], [84]).
11
5
Theorem 4.1. (i) If r ≥
then there is a weak solution (v, p) to Problem (P)
fulfilling




sup k∇v(t)k22
t∈h0,T i
Z
Z
T
(κk∇
0
T
2
vk22
+
kD(v)kr
N
2 ,r
r
(Ω)
+
k∇vkr3r )
kv,t k22 dt + sup k∇v(t)krr


dt
t∈h0,T i
0




sup kv,t k22
t∈h0,T i
κ
Z
T
0
k∇v,t k22 dt +
Z
T
0
Z
Ω


|D(v)|r−2 |D(v,t )|2 dx dt
≤ C(k∇v0 k2 )
(B.4.5)
≤ C(k∇v0 kr )
(B.4.6)
≤ C(kv0 k2,q ),
(B.4.7)
where κ = 0 or 1 according to (B.2.8), q > 3 and
kzkN α,r :=
sup
0<h≤δ0
Z
Ω
|z(x + h) − z(x)|r
dx
hαr
r1
.
(ii) if r ∈ h2, 11
5 ) then there is a weak solution (v, p) to Problem (P) such that v
fulfills
κ
Z
T
k∇
0
2
2 3r−5
vk2 r+1 dt
+
Z
T
k∇vk
0
r2 (3r−5)
3(r2 −3r+4)
W s,r
dt < ∞
2
s ∈ (0, ),
r
(B.4.8)
(iii) if r ∈ ( 95 , 2) then there is (v, p) to Problem (P) such that v fulfills
Z
T
r(5r−9)
2 +8r−9)
k∇2 vkr(−r
dt ≤ ∞.
(B.4.9)
0
In particular, for the spatially-periodic problem described by the Navier-Stokes
equations in three dimensions, it follows from Theorem 4.1 that (set r = 2 in
† In [83], the estimates are derived directly for Galerkin approximations using smooth basis of
functions. In [8] a multipolar fluid model is used as a smooth approximation. Both approximations
thus allow us to differentiate the equations of the approximative problems.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
70
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
(B.4.8)) there is a weak solution (v, p) such that
Z T
2/3
k∇2 vk2 dt < ∞,
(B.4.10)
0
the result established by Foias, Guillopé and Temam [37].
Regarding a no-slip boundary condition, Málek, Nečas and Růžička [82] considered the case r ≥ 2 with κ = 1 and showed that:
• if r ≥
9
4
(and r < 3) then there is a weak solution that fulfils
6
2
2,2
),
v ∈ L 2−r (0, T ; W 2, r+1 (Ω))3 ∪ L2 (0, T ; Wloc
Z
T
0
v,t ∈ L2 (0, T ; L2(Ω)3 ),
Z
(1 + |D(v)|)r−2 |D(∇v)|2 dx dt ≤ K
(B.4.11)
for all Ω0 ⊂⊂ Ω,
Ω0
• if r ∈ h2, 94 ) then
Z
T
2 2r−3
k∇2 vk 3 6r−1 dt ≤ K < ∞.
0
(B.4.12)
r+1
Note that (B.4.12) implies (B.4.10) even for Dirichlet (no-slip) boundary value
problem.
formal inequalities that form however essence of correct arguments. Details and
many extensions can be found† in [81], [82] and [24]. This cascade consists of three
levels of inequalities, considering the energy inequality as level zero.
Level 1: Differentiate (B.1.4)2 w.r.t. xs and scalarly multiply the result with
∂v
∂xs .
Level 2: Multiply (B.1.4)2 with v,t .
Level 3: Differentiate (B.1.4)2 w.r.t. time t and use v,t as the multiplier.
For r ≥
11
5
the procedure leads to (B.4.5)-(B.4.7). For the Navier-Stokes equa-
tions inequality (B.4.5) is not available and there is a plenty of results in literature
asking the question what are the conditions implying (B.4.5). The well-known are
so-called Prodi-Serrin conditions‡ saying that (B.4.5) holds provided that
v ∈ Lq (0, T ; Ls )
with
2 3
+ ≤ 1,
q
s
s ≥ 3.
(B.4.13)
If s > 3, the result is established by Serrin in [130]. The most interesting limiting
case L∞ (0, T ; L3) has been covered recently by Escauriaza, Seregin and Šverák
† Dealing with approximations different than those used in Section 3.
‡ Prodi asks for conditions implying uniqueness of weak solution, see [105]. It revealed that
the criterion coincides with that for regularity.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
71
([30], [31], [128]). Other regularity criteria are expressed in terms of the velocity
gradient (see [7] for example), the vorticity (see [18]), the pressure ([9], [93], [129]),
or just one component of the velocity ([95], [96]) or the velocity gradient (see [18],
[30]). The result in [61] and [134] extends (B.4.13) to the class L2 (0, T ; BM O).
The regularity criteria expressed in terms of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the
symmetric part of the velocity gradient were established in [96], [97].
While fractional higher differentiability result, as that mentioned in (B.4.10),
gives compactness of velocity gradient, say in all Lq (0, T ; Lqper ), q < 2, they do give
any improvement on the regularity of the velocity or its gradient alone. In terms
of our ”level” inequalities (Doering and Gibbon [25] talk about the ladder where
each split bar corresponds to a level above) for the Navier-Stokes equations in three
dimensions, it is not known how to make the first step from ground (level zero) to
the first rail (level 1). It is however proved that once the level 1 is achieved (in
fact (B.4.13) or other criteria suffice), L∞ (0, T ; L2per ) integrability of any spatial or
time derivatives of any order is available, provided that data (v 0 and b) are smooth
enough.
For Ladyzhenskaya’s equations, or for Problem (P) with κ = 1, Theorem 4.1
states that if r ≥
11
5 ,
the first three levels (B.4.5)-(B.4.9) (of the ladder) are accessi-
ble. It is however open how to proceed to high levels. More precisely, using (B.4.7)
and using (B.1.4) we rewrite Problem (P) as
div(v ⊗ v) − div S(D(v)) + ∇p = −v,t ∈ L∞ (0, T ; L2per ),
(B.4.14)
and we observe that we can apply the higher differentiability technique to almost
all time instants. Doing so we conclude that
Theorem 4.2. If r ≥
11
5
then there is (v, p) solution to Problem (P) (with κ = 1)
such that
sup k∇2 v(t)k22 + sup k∇v(t)kr
t
t
N
2 ,r
r
(Ω)
+ sup k∇v(t)kr3r ≤ K < ∞.
(B.4.15)
t
In particular, v is bounded in (0, T ) × R3 .
Thus, the task (III) large-time and large-data regularity is in sense given in
Subsection B.1.2 fulfilled. The question if then also ∇v is bounded or Hölder continuous has been however unanswered yet.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
72
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
In next subsections we formally establish (B.4.5)-(B.4.7), and also (B.4.15). We
also discuss related results on local-in-time existence of solutions with integrable
second derivatives.
In this part, we consider the Ladyzhenskaya’s equations (B.1.6). It means we
deal with the system (B.1.4) where S(D(v)) = ν0 + ν1 |D(v)|r−2 D(v). Note also
that (B.2.8) holds with κ = 1. In the sequel we sometimes use the specific structure
of S, sometimes we refer to (B.2.8).
• Derivation of (B.4.5). We formally differentiate (B.1.4) with respect to spatial
variable xs and take scalar product of the result with
∂v
∂xs .
After summing over
s = 1, 2, 3 and integrating by parts we obtain
Z
Z
1 d
∂S(D(v))
∂vk ∂vi ∂vi
k∇vk22 +
· D(∇v) ⊗ D(∇v) dx = −
. (B.4.16)
2 dt
∂D
∂x
s ∂xk ∂xs
Ω
Ω
Using (B.2.8) we conclude that
1 d
k∇vk22 + C1 k∇2 vk22 + C1 Jr (v) ≤ k∇vk33 ,
2 dt
where
Jr (v) =
Since
Z
(B.4.17)
|D(v)|r−2 |D(∇v)|2 dx.
Ω
Jr (v) ≥ c∗ k∇vkr3r ,
(B.4.18)
see [81], p. 227, and
Jr (v) ≥ c∗∗ kD(v)kr
N
2 ,r
r
,
(B.4.19)
see [84] for the proof, then (B.4.17) and the energy inequality (B.2.17) implies
(B.4.5) if r ≥ 3. If r < 3, then we incorporate the interpolation inequalities,
3−r
r−1
kzk3 ≤ kzkr 2 kzk3r2
2
r−1
(B.4.20)
r
3r−2
kzk3 ≤ kzk2 3r−2 kzk3r
,
3(1−α)
and use the splitting k∇vk33 = k∇vk3α
3 k∇vk3
for α ∈ h0, 1i. Then, we obtain
C1
1 d
k∇vk22 + C1 k∇2 k22 +
Jr (v) + C1∗ k∇vkr3r
2 dt
2
≤
r−1
3α
(3−r)+ 3r(1−α)
6(1−α) 3r−2
3α r−1
3r−2
k∇vkr 2 k∇vk2
k∇vk3r2
.
(B.4.21)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
Setting Q1 :=
3α (3−r)
2
r
3(1−α)
3r−2 ,
δ = Q11 .
+
Young’s inequality with
Q2 :=
3α r−1
2 r
73
r−1
and Q3 := 3(1 − α) 3r−2
, we apply
Requiring also that Q2 δ 0 = 1, i.e. Q2 + Q1 = 1,
we obtain
1 d
k∇vk22 + 2C1 k∇2 vk22 + C1 Jr (v) + C1∗ k∇vkrr ≤ ck∇vkrr k∇vk2λ
2 ,
2 dt
where
λ := 2
3−r
.
3r − 5
(B.4.22)
(B.4.23)
Since
λ≤1⇔r≥
11
,
5
we obtain (B.4.5) applying Gronwall lemma.
• Derivation of (B.4.6). The scalar multiplication of (B.1.4) with v,t and the integration over Ω leads to
kv,t k22 − (div S(D(v)), v,t ) + (v,t ⊗ v, ∇v) = 0 .
(B.4.24)
Using the specific form of S and the integration by parts we obtain
kv,t k22 +
ν0 d
ν1 d
k∇vk22 +
kD(v)krr = (v,t ⊗ v, ∇v)
2 dt
r dt
1
≤ kv,t k22 + k |v| |∇v| k22 .
2
(B.4.25)
Since the estimate of the last term can be established with help of W 1,3r ,→ L∞
Z
|v|2 |∇v|2 dx ≤ kvk2∞ k∇vk22 ≤ C(sup k∇v(t)k22 )k∇vk23r ,
(B.4.26)
Ω
t
we see that (B.4.6) follows after integrating (B.4.25) over time and applying (B.4.5).
It is also possible to conclude from (B.4.24) that
kv,t (0)k22 ≤ C(kv0 k2,q ) .
(B.4.27)
• Derivation of (B.4.7). A formal differentiation of (B.1.4) with respect to time,
and a multiplication of the result with v,t leads to
Z
∂S(D(v))
1 d
2
kv,t k2 +
· D(v,t ) ⊗ D(v,t ) dx = (v,t ⊗ v, ∇v,t ),
2 dt
∂D
Ω
since (p,t , div v,t ) = 0 and (v⊗v,t , ∇v,t ) = (v, ∇
|v,t |2
2 )
= −(div v,
|v,t |2
2 )
(B.4.28)
= 0. Using
(B.2.8), and applying Hölder’s inequality to the right-hand side of (B.4.28) gives
Z
1 d
2
2
|D(v)|r−2 |D(v,t )|2 dx
kv,t k2 + κk∇v,t k2 +
2 dt
Ω
κ
2
(B.4.29)
≤ k∇v,t k2 + kvk2∞ kv,t k22
2
κ
≤ k∇v,t k22 + Ck∇vk23r kv,t k22 .
2
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
74
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
The Gronwall lemma and (B.4.27) completes the formal proof of (B.4.7).
4.3. Boundedness of the velocity
Derivation of (B.4.15). Since r ≥
11
5 ,
(B.4.5)-(B.4.7) hold. We proceed similarly
as in obtaining (B.4.16), the term with the time derivative v ,t is however treated
differently:
(∇v,t , ∇v) = −(v,t , 4v) ≤ kv,t k2 k∇2 vk2 .
Using then the Hölder inequality and (B.4.18) we have instead of (B.4.17)
C1 k∇2 vk22 + C1 Jr (v) + k∇vkr3r ≤ kv,t k22 + k∇vk33 .
r−1
(B.4.30)
3−r
The interpolation inequality kzk3 ≤ kzkr 2 kzk3r2 then gives
C1 k∇2 v(t)k22 +C1 Jr (v(t))+C1 k∇vkr3r ≤ kv,t (t)k22 +(k∇v(t)krr )
3 r−1
2r
(k∇v(t)kr3r )
3−r
2r
.
(B.4.31)
As supkv,t (t)k22 <
t
and 3−r
2r < 1, we
∞ due to (B.4.7) and
supk∇v(t)krr
t
2,2
obtain (B.4.15). Since W
< K ≤ ∞ owing to (B.4.6),
1
(Ω) ,→ C 0, 6 (Ω), we conclude from
(B.4.15) that
1
v ∈ L∞ (0, T ; C 0, 6 (Ω)).
(B.4.32)
In particular, v is bounded in (0, T ) × Ω.
4.4. Fractional higher differentiability
5
3
Let
<r<
11
5 (⇔
λ > 1). Since
Jr (v) ≥ C11

2
2
r


 κk∇ vk2 + kD(v)k


C
k∇2 vk2r
(1 + k∇vkr )2−r
N
2 ,r
r
(Ω)
if r ≥ 2
if r < 2,
it follows from (B.4.22), see [81] for details, that
κ
Z
0
T
kD(v)kr 2 ,r
k∇2 vk22
N r (Ω)
+
dt ≤ ∞
(1 + k∇vk22 )λ
(1 + k∇vk22 )λ
if r ≥ 2
(B.4.33)
if r < 2.
(B.4.34)
and
Z
T
0
k∇2 vk2r
1
dt ≤ ∞
(1 + k∇vkr )2−r (1 + k∇vk22 )λ
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
75
Hölder’s inequality and the energy inequality then leads to (B.4.8) and (B.4.10).
Using such estimates, we can then apply interpolation inequalities to obtain fractional higher differentiability with the exponent greater than one. For example, for
the Navier-Stokes equations we know from (B.4.8) and (B.2.12) that
Z T
Z T
2
3
dt < ∞.
kvk21,2 dt < ∞
and
kvk2,2
0
0
This then implies
Z
T
0
1
2
≥ 1 ⇔ s ≤ , s ∈ h0, 1i.
2s + 1
2
2
2s+1
dt < ∞
kvk1+s,2
and
4.5. Short-time or small-data existence of ”smooth” solution
Inequalities of the type (B.4.22) that can be rewritten in a simplified form
y 0 (t) ≤ g(t)y(t)λ ,
where
y(t) ≥ 0 and g ∈ L1 (0, T ),
(B.4.35)
serve, if λ > 1, as the key in proving either short-time and large-data or large-time
and small-data existence of ”smooth” solution.
Note that (B.4.22) takes the form of (B.4.35) with y(t) = k∇vk22 , g(t) = k∇vkrr
3−r
and λ = 2 3r−5
, and the energy inequality (B.2.17) implies that for all T > 0
Z
T
0
k∇vkrr ≤ ckv0 k22
(B.4.36)
If λ > 1, (B.4.35) is tantamount to
y(t) ≤
y(0)
1
(1 − I(t)(λ − 1)[y(0)]λ−1 ) λ−1
with I(t) :=
Z
t
g(τ ) dτ.
(B.4.37)
0
and we observe that
sup y(t) ≤ K < ∞
t
provided that
1 − I(t)(λ − 1)[y(0)]λ−1 ≥
1
.
2
(B.4.38)
In the case of (B.4.22), the condition (B.4.38) reads
Z t
2(λ−1)
k∇vkrr dτ )k∇v0 k2
≤ 1.
2(λ − 1)(
(B.4.39)
0
It follows from (B.4.36) that (B.4.39) holds for all t > 0 provided that
2(λ−1)
2(λ − 1)ckv0 k22 k∇v0 k2
≤ 1.
(B.4.40)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
76
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
1,2
Thus, if v0 ∈ Wper
fulfils (B.4.40), there is a solution v such that for all T > 0
sup k∇v(t)k22 ≤ 2k∇v0 k22 .
t∈(0,T )
Since
Rt
0
k∇vkrr dτ → 0 as t → 0+ , it also follows from (B.4.37) and (B.4.39) that
1,2
for any v0 ∈ Wper
there is t∗ > 0 such that weak solution v fulfils
sup k∇v(t)k22 ≤ 2k∇v0 k22 .
(B.4.41)
t∈(0,t∗ )
In order to have an explicite bound on the length t∗ , one can proceed slightly
differently starting again from the inequality (B.4.17). If we apply only the second
interpolation inequality from the (B.4.20) we obtain
3r
1 d
C1
6 r−1
3r−2
k∇vk22 + C1 k∇2 vk22 +
Jr (v) + k∇vkr3r ≤ ck∇vk2 3r−2 k∇vk3r
. (B.4.42)
2 dt
2
Since
3
3r−2
< 1 if and only if r > 53 , Young’s inequality leads to
d
6 r−1
k∇vk22 + 2C1 k∇2 vk22 + C1 Jr (v) + k∇vkr3r ≤ ck∇vk2 3r−5 .
dt
(B.4.43)
This is inequality of the type
y 0 ≤ cy µ
with µ =
3(r − 1)
> 1.
3r − 5
Proceeding as above we observe that (B.4.41) holds provided that
0 < t∗ ≤
1
2(µ−1)
2(µ − 1)k∇v0 k2
.
To summarize, the following results follow from (B.4.22) (and a discussion above
on level inequalities) for the Navier-Stokes equations and the Ladyzhenskaya’s equations.
• three-dimensional flows driven by Navier-Stokes equations starting with smooth
initial flow v0 are smooth on certain time interval (0, t∗ ). Also, if smooth initial
condition v0 fulfils (B.4.40), large-time and small-data existence of smooth solution
takes place. See [59] [76], [102], [22], [66], [77], [140] or [138].
• three-dimensional flows of power-law fluid or driven by Ladyzhenskaya’s equations
∗
with r ∈ ( 35 , 11
5 ) fulfil† (B.4.5)-(B.4.7) on certain (0, t ) for any smooth initial data.
In particular, v is bounded on (0, t∗ ), Also, if v0 fulfils (B.4.40), large-time (and
† Strictly speaking the inequalities (B.4.5)-(B.4.7) hold only for r ≥ 2. If r < 2, different norms
appear in (B.4.5)-(B.4.7) (see [81], [87]).
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
77
small-data) existence of flows v fulfilling (B.4.5)-(B.4.7) and (B.4.15) is valid. Again
v remains bounded provided v0 ∈ W 2,q , q > 3.
Large-time existence of C(0, T ; W 2,q )-solutions for small data v0 ∈ W 2,q , q > 3 is
also established in [2]. An improvement in the short-time and lasrge-data existence
from the range r >
5
3
up to r >
7
5
is presented in [24].
5. Uniqueness and large-data behavior
The aim, to show internal mathematical consistency for Ladyzhenskaya’s equations
if r ≥
11
5 ,
will be completed by establishing two results on continuous dependence
of flows on data, implying uniqueness. As a consequence, the asymptotic structure
of all possible flows as t → ∞ can be studied. We present results on existence of
exponential attractor. This is a compact set in the function space of initial conditions, invariant with respect to solution semigroup, having finite dimensional fractal
dimension and attracting all trajectories exponentially.
5.1. Uniquely determined flows described by Ladyzhenskaya’s equations
Theorem 5.1. Let (v1 , p1 ) and (v2 , p2 ) be two weak solutions to Problem (P)
corresponding to data (v10 , b1 ) and (v20 , b2 ), respectively. If
r≥
5
2
(B.5.1)
and
0
0
−1,r
vi0 ∈ L2per and bi ∈ (Lr (0, T ; Wper
))
(i = 1, 2),
(B.5.2)
then
sup kv1 (t) − v2 (t)k22 ≤ h(v10 − v20 , b1 − b2 )
(B.5.3)
t
where
h(ω0 , g, v20 , b2 )
:= c1
kω0 k22
+
Z
T
0
0
kgkr(W 1,r )∗
per
!
exp c2
kv20 k22
+
Z
T
0
0
kb2 kr(W 1,r )∗
per
!
.
Also,
Z
and
T
0
k∇(v1 − v2 )k22 + k∇(v1 − v2 )krr dt ≤ ch(v10 − v20 , b1 − b2 ),
Z
T
0
0
k∇(p1 − p2 )krr0 dt ≤ ch(v10 − v20 , b1 − b2 ).
(B.5.4)
(B.5.5)
In particular, Problem P is uniquely solvable in the class of weak solution.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
78
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
Proof: Taking the difference of (B.2.15) considered for (v 1 , p1 ) from (B.2.15) for
(v2 , p2 ) we come, for r ≥
11
5 ,
to the identity for ω = v2 − v1 and q = p2 − p1
hω ,t , ϕi + (S(D(v2 )) − S(D(v1 )), D(ϕ))
= (q, div ϕ) + hb2 − b2 , ϕi + (ω ⊗ v2 , ∇ϕ) + (v1 ⊗ ω, ∇ϕ)
(B.5.6)
1,r
valid for all ϕ ∈ Wper
and a.a. t ∈ h0, T i. Taking ϕ = ω and observing (q, div ω) = 0
and (v1 ⊗ ω, ∇ω) = 0, (B.5.6) implies
1 d
kωk22 + (S(D(v2 )) − S(D(v1 )), D(v2 − v1 ))
2 dt
1
2
(B.5.7)
2
= hb − b , ωi − (ω ⊗ ω, ∇v ).
Monotone properties of S, i.e. (B.2.21) and (B.2.22), Korn’s inequality and duality
estimates allow us to treat the term with b1 − b2 , then yield
Z
0
1 d
ν1
|ω|2 |∇v2 | dx. (B.5.8)
kωk22 + ν0 k∇ωk22 + k∇ωkrr ≤ ckb2 − b1 kr(W 1,r )∗ +
per
2 dt
2
Ω
Using also
Z
2r−3
r
Ω
|ω|2 |∇v2 | dx ≤ k∇v2 kr kωk22r ≤ k∇v2 kr kωk2
r−1
2r−3
3
kωk6r
3
≤ ck∇v2 kr kωk2 r k∇ωk2r
2r
ν0
≤ k∇ωk22 + ck∇v2 kr2r−3 kωk22 ,
2
it follows from (B.5.8) that
h
i
d
kωk22 + ν0 k∇ωk22 + ν1 k∇ωkrr
dt
2r
0
≤ c kb1 − b2 kr(W 1,r )∗ + k∇v2 kr2r−3 kωk22 .
(B.5.9)
per
Neglecting the terms standing in square brackets, the Gronwall lemma completes
then the proof of (B.5.3) provided that
2r
2r−3
≤ r, which is exactly the condition
2r
RT
(B.5.1). The energy inequality (B.2.17) and (B.2.23) to estimate 0 k∇v2 kr2r−3 dt
is also used.
Integrating (B.5.9) over time between 0 and T , using (B.5.3) to control supt kωk22
To conclude (B.5.5), we set ϕ := ∇h in (B.5.6), where h solves
Z
2−r
2−r
1
|q| r−1 q
4h = |q| r−1 q −
|Ω| Ω
Z
h dx = 0.
h is Ω − periodic,
(B.5.10)
Ω
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
79
Then,
1
1
.
kϕk1,r ≤ khk2,r ≤ ck |q| r−1 kr ≤ ckqkrr−1
0
(B.5.11)
Since hω ,t , ϕi = hω ,t , ∇hi = 0, (B.5.6) with ϕ = ∇h then leads to
Z
0
kqkrr0 ≤ c
|∇ω||∇ϕ| + (|D(v1 )| + |D(v2 )|)r−2 |D(ω)||D(ϕ)| dx
Ω
1
3r
3r k∇ϕkr
+ kb − b2 kW −1,r0 k∇ϕkr + kv1 + v2 k 2(2r−3)
kωk 3−r
(B.5.12)
per
1
≤ k∇ωk2 k∇ϕk2 + k∇ωkr k∇v +
∇v2 krr−2 k∇ϕkr
+ kb1 − b2 kW −1,r0 k∇ϕkr + kv1 + v2 k
per
3r
2(2r−3)
k∇ωkr k∇ϕkr .
5r
5r
1,r
3
)∩Lr (0, T ; Wper
),
Using (B.5.11), Young’s inequality, the fact that v 1 +v2 ∈ L 3 (0, T ; Lper
and finally (B.5.4), we obtain (B.5.5). Theorem 5.2. Let (v1 , p1 ) and (v2 , p2 ) be two weak solution to Problem (P) corresponding to data (v10 , b1 ) and (v20 , b2 ) respectively. If
r≥
11
,
5
(B.5.13)
(v10 , b1 ) fulfills (B.5.2) and
1,2
v20 ∈ Wper
(Ω) and b2 ∈ L2 (0, 2; L2per ),
then for all t ∈ (0, T i the inequalities (B.5.3)-(B.5.5) hold with
!
Z
h(ω 0 , g, v20 , b2 )
:= c1
kω0 k22
T
+
0
0
kgkr(W 1,r )∗
per
exp c2
kv20 k21,2
(B.5.14)
+
Z
T
0
kb2 k22
!
.
Consequently, a weak solution fulfilling in addition (B.4.5) is unique in the class of
weak solutions. In another words, if data fulfils (B.5.14) Problem (P) is uniquely
solvable.
Proof: Since (v20 , b2 ) fulfils (B.5.14), Theorem 4.1 implies
Z T
Z T
2 r
2 2
k∇v k3r dt ≤ c(k∇v0 k2 +
kb2 k22 dt).
0
0
Proceeding step by steps as in the proof of Theorem 5.1, we estimate the right hand
side of (B.5.8) as follows:
Z
2
2 2r−1
|ω|2 |∇v2 | dx ≤ k∇v2 k3r kωk2 6r ≤ k∇v2 k3r kωk2 2r k∇ωk2r
Ω
3r−1
2r
ν0
2r−1
≤ k∇ωk22 + ck∇v2 k3r
kωk22 .
2
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
80
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
As
2r
2r−1
≤ r for r ≥
11
5 ,
the remaining part of the proof coincides with that of
Theorem 5.1. Uniqueness of weak solution of Problem (P) for r ≥
[76], uniqueness for r ≥
11
5
5
2
is mentioned in [78] and [81].
5.2. Large-time behavior - the method of trajectories
Not only are the Navier-Stokes equations the first system of nonlinear partial
differential equations for which the methods of functional analysis were applied and
developed†, the Navier-Stokes equations, at least in two dimension, serve also as the
first system of equations of mathematical physics to which the theory of dynamical
systems was addressed and further extended‡. The restriction to two dimensional
flows is due to missing uniqueness and lack of regularity in three spatial dimensions.
Owing to uniquely determined flows (v, p) of the Navier-Stokes fluid in two
spatial dimensions, the mapping
St : L2per → L2per such that St v0 = v(t)
posses the semigroup property, i.e.,
S0 = Id and St+s = St Ss for all t, s ≥ 0.
(B.5.15)
We recall definitions of several basic notions. For later use, let (X, k · kX ) be
a normed spaces and St : X → X having the properties (B.5.15). A bounded
set B ⊂ X is said to be uniformly absorbing if for all B0 ⊂ X bounded there is
t0 = t(B0 ) such that St B0 ⊂ B for all t ≥ t0 . A set B̃ ⊂ X is positively invariant
w.r.t St if St B̃ ⊂ B̃ for all t ≥ 0. If there is a bounded set B ∗ ⊂ Y ,→,→ X that is
uniformly absorbing all bounded sets in X and that is positively invariant, then
A :=
\ [
St B ∗
s>0 t≥s
is called global attractor as it shares the following properties: (i) A is compact in
X, (ii) St A = A for all t ≥ 0, i.e., A is invariant w.r.t. St and (iii) A attracts all
† We can refer to [74], [52], [76], [65], [137], [22], [73], etc.
‡ As general reference, we can give [63], [39], [68], [21], [139], [50], [29], [46], [69].
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
81
bounded sets of X, which means that¶ for all B ⊂ X bounded
distX (St B, A) → 0 as t → ∞.
Compactness of the global attractor recalls for the question of the finite dimension
of large-time dynamics. For a compact set C ⊂ X, the fractal dimension dX
f (C) is
defined as
dX
f (C) := lim sup
ε→0+
where
NεX (C)
log NεX (C)
,
log 1ε
is the minimal number of ε-balls needed to cover C. According to
Foias and Olson [38] if dX
f (C) <
m
2 ,m
m
Hölder continuous mapping from R
∈ N, then C can be placed into the graph of a
onto C. This mapping is a projector if X is a
Hilbert space. Thus the finiteness of the fractal dimension dX
f (A) and its estimates
from above (and even more importantly from below) give a worth characterization
of large-time dynamics. The following elementary criterium holds (see [85], Lemma
1.3):
Let (Y, k · kY ) ,→,→ (X, k · kX ) and C ⊂ X be bounded.
(***)
If there is L : X → Y, being Lipschitz continuous on C,
and LC ⊂ C, then dX
f (C) < ∞.
To ensure an exponential rate of attraction, Eden, Foias, Nikolaenko and Temam
[29] enlarge the global attractor and introduce the notion called exponential attractor. This is a subset of B ∗ having the following properties: (i) E is compact in X,
(ii) E is positively invariant w.r.t. St , (iii) dX
f (E) < ∞ and (iv) there are α1 , α2 > 0
such that distX (St B ∗ , E) ≤ α1 e−α2 t for all t ≥ 0.
For two dimensional flows of the Navier-Stokes fluids, the existence of global
(minimal B) attractor A ⊂ L2per was established by Ladyzhenskaya in [63]. Estimates on its fractal dimension were first studied by Foias and Temam [40], see also
[68] for similar criterion. The up-to-date best estimates, based on the method of
Lyapunov exponents, are due to Constantin and Foias (see [22] for example). A
proof of the existence of exponential attractor is presented in [29].
It is natural to ask if the large-time dynamics of three-dimensional flows driven
by the Ladyzhenskaya’s equations share the same properties as two-dimensional
¶ The Hausdorff distance distX (A, B) of two sets A, B ⊂ X is defined as
distX (A, B) = sup inf kx − ykX .
x∈A y∈B
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
82
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
NSEs. The first result in this direction is due to Ladyzhenskaya [67] and [70] who
proved the existence of global attractor for r ≥ 52 , leaving however open the quaestion of its dimension. Need to say that neither Ladyzhenskaya criterion requiring
that orthonormal projectors commute with the nonlinear operator div(S(D(v))) nor
the method of Lyapunov exponents requiring the (not available) regularity results
for the linearized problem, can hardly be applicable to show finiteness of the fractal
dimension of attractors. The criterium (***) cannot be also used for X = L2per
1,2
and Y = Wper
. It is however elementary to verify (***) for X = L2 (0, `; L2per ) and
1,2
3,2 ∗
Y := {u ∈ L2 (0, `; Wper
), u,t ∈ L1 (0, `; (Wper
) )} where, ` > 0 is fixed.
This is the first motivation to work with the set of `-trajectories rather than
with single values v(t) ∈ L2per . The second motivation comes from uniqueness result
5
formulated in Theorem 5.2 for r ∈ h 11
5 , 2 ). We are not sure if just one trajectory
starts from any v0 ∈ L2per (Theorem 5.2 says it is true if v0 is smoother, namely
1,2
v0 ∈ Wper
). However, once we fix any `-trajectory starting at v0 ∈ L2per , we know
that it has uniquely defined continuation, as almost all values of the `-trajectory
1,2
belong to Wper
. Thus the operators
Lt : L2 (0, `; L2per ) → L2 (0, T ; L2per ),
(B.5.16)
that appends to any `-trajectory χ its uniquely defined shift at time t, have the
semigroup property (B.5.15).
Following Málek and Pražák [85], using the semigroup (B.5.16) it is not only
possible to find A` ⊂ L2 (0, `; L2per ), the global attractor with respect to the semigroup Lt and with help of (***) to show that its fractal dimension is finite, but
introducing A ⊂ L2per as set of all end-points of `-trajectories belonging to A` ,
it easily follows from Lipschitz (or at least Hölder) continuity of the mapping
e : χ ∈ A` → χ(`) ∈ A that A is attractor with respect to original dynamics,
with finite fractal dimension. The same approach gives also the existence of exponential attractor.
Theorem 5.3. Let b ∈ L2per be time independent. Consider Problem (P) with
r ≥
11
5
and κ = 1 in (B.2.8), and with v0 ∈ L2per . Then this dynamical system
possesses
• a global attractor A ⊂ L2per with finite fractal dimension,
• an exponential attractor E.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
83
X
2
In both cases, explicit upper bounds on dX
f (A) and df (E) with X = Lper are avail-
able.
We refer to Málek and Pražák [85] for explanation of the method of trajectories,
that originates in [78], and for the proof of Theorem 5.3. Explicit upper bounds on
L2
df per (A) are given in [86]. See also [13] for a comparison of the estimates for twodimensional flows obtained by the method of Lyapunov exponents on one hand and
the method (***) on the other hand.
As the extreme case of the method of trajectories one can consider Sell’s study
of ∞-trajectories of three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations, see [126], suitable
to treat ill-posed problem.
It is worth of mentioning a Ladyzhenskaya’s counterexample to uniqueness of
weak solutions to three-dimensional NSEs in a domain varying with time, see [64].
6. On structure of possible singularities for flows of
Navier-Stokes fluid
It is hardly possible to cover all aspects related to the mathematical analysis of the
Navier-Stokes equations. For other important aspects, different viewpoints and further references we refer the reader to the monographs by Constantin and Foias [22],
Temam [140], von Wahl [145], Lions [77], Sohr [132], Ladhyzenskaya [65], LemariéRieusset [73] and Cannone [17], as well as to the survey (or key) articles by Leray
[74], Serrin [130], Heywood [51], Galdi [45], Wiegner [146], Kozono [60], among
others.
Consider a (suitable) weak solution of the Navier-Stokes equations with b = 0
and with an initial condition v0 ∈ W k,2 (Ω) for all k ∈ N. Then, following also
discussion in Section 5, there is certainly T ∗ > 0 such that v is a smooth flow on
[0, T ∗]. Even more, such v is uniquely determined in class of weak solutions. Since
1,2
v ∈ L2 (0, ∞; Wper
) there is T ∗∗ such that v0 := v(T ∗∗ ) fulfils (B.4.40) implying
that v is smooth on [T ∗∗ , ∞). Thus possible singularities lie somewhere between
T ∗ and T ∗∗ . Set
σ = {t ∈ h0, ∞), lim sup k∇v(τ )k2 = +∞}.
τ →t
1,2
Since v ∈ L2 (0, ∞; Wper
), the Lebesgue measure of σ is zero.
The program to study the structure of possible singularities was initiated by
J. Leray [74], who showed that even 12 -Hausdorff dimension of σ is zero, h0, T i \ σ
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
84
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
can be written as
S∞
j=1 (aj , bj )
and if t∗ ∈ σ then kv(t)k1,2 ≥
√C
t∗ −t
as t → t∗− .
Leray proposed to construct a weak solution exhibiting the singularity at t ∗ in the
form†
v(t, x) = λ(t)U(λ(t)x), p(t, x) = λ2 (t)P (λ(t)x) with λ(t) =
p
2a(t∗ − t), (B.6.1)
where a > 0, and showed that if there is a nontrivial solution (U, P ) of the system
div U = 0,
−2aU + div(y ⊗ U) + div(U ⊗ U) − ν0 4U + ∇P = 0,
(B.6.2)
(y is a generic point of R3 ), and if U ∈ L∞ (R3 ) ∩ L2 (R2 ), then (v, p) of the form
(B.6.1) is a weak solution of the Navier-Stokes equations, being singular at t = t ∗ .
Based on an observation that
|U|2
2
+ P + ay · U satisfies the maximum principle,
Nečas, Růžička and Šverák [94] show that in the class of weak solutions satisfying
U ∈ L3 (R3 ), the system (B.6.2) admits only trivial solution, U ≡ 0. Tsai [144] prove
the same under more general assumptions namely if U ∈ Lq (R3 ) for q > 3 or if v
fulfils energy inequality considered on any ball B ⊂ R3 . Clearly, the implication U ∈
W 1,2 (R3 ) =⇒ U ≡ 0 follows from the result established in [94]. An elementary
proof of this implication is given in [79], where also so-called pseudo-selfsimilar
solutions are introduced. Their nonexistence is established in [90].
Note that v of the form (B.6.1) is not only in L∞ (0, T ; L2) but also in L∞ (0, T ; L3)
provided U ∈ L3 . Note also that the self-similar transformation (B.1.23) is meaningful in any conical domain. This recalls for the possibility to construct singular
solution of the form (B.6.1) in cones. Escauriaza, Seregin and Šverák [30], [32], [31]
show, using an approach different from that used in [94], that such solution does
not exist, at least at the half-space.
Consider all points (t, x) such that v is bounded (or Hölder continuous) at
certain parabolic neighborhood of (t, x). Let S be the complement of such set in
h0, +∞) × R3 . Scheffer [121], [122] and [123] started to study the Hausdorff dimension of the set of singularities S. Caffareli, Kohn and Nierenberg [16], introducing the notion of suitable weak solution and proving its existence, finalized these
studies by showing that one-dimensional parabolic Hausdorf measure of S is zero.
Simplification of the proof and certain improvements of the technique called partial
regularity can be found in [75], [71] and [127], or [19].
To give a better description of the result by Caffareli, Kohn and Nierenberg, we
recall the definition of (parabolic) Hausdorf measures and related statements.
† The form of (v, p) can be also motivated by the self-similar scaling (B.1.23).
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
For a countable collection Q =
S
i∈N
Bρi (yi ) in Rs , set S(α) =
85
P∞
i=1
ρα
i . Then
α-dimensional Hausdorf measure H α (F ) of a Borel set F ⊂ Rs is defined as
H α (F ) = lim inf {S(α); F ⊂
δ→0+ Q
∞
[
Bri (xi ), sup ri < δ}.
Similarly, for a countable collection Qpar =
Qri (ti , xi ) = {(τ, y); |τ − ti | <
i∈N
i=1
ri2 , |y
S
Qri (ti , xi ) of parabolic balls
P∞ α
− xi | < ri }, set S par (α) =
i=1 ri . Then
i∈N
α-dimensional parabolic Hausdorf measure P α (E) of a Borel set E ⊂ R × R3 is
defined as
P α (E) = lim inf
{S par (α); E ⊂
par
δ→0+ Q
∞
[
Qri (ti , xi ), sup ri < δ}.
i∈N
i=1
Clearly,
P α (E) = 0 ⇔ ∀ ε > 0 ∃Qpar =
∞
[
Qri (ti , xi ) such that
i=1
0
X
riα < ε.
(B.6.3)
i∈N
00
If P α (E) < ∞, then P α = 0 for all α0 > α and P α (E) = +∞ for all α00 < α. If
α ∈ N and P α (E) < ∞, then E is homeomorphic to a subset in Rα .
The following characterization of smooth points is known due to Caffarelli, Kohn
and Nirenberg [16]:
Theorem 6.1. Let (v, p) be a suitable weak solution to the Navier-Stokes equations.
There is a universal constant ε∗ > 0 such that if
Z
1
|∇v|2 dx dt < ε∗ ,
R QR (t0 ,x0 )
(B.6.4)
then for any k ∈ N ∪ {0}, the functions (t, x) 7→ ∇k v(t, x) are Hölder continuous
in Q R (t0 , x0 ) and
2
sup
|∇k v| ≤ Ck R−(k+1) ,
(B.6.5)
(τ,y)∈Q R (t0 ,x0 )
2
Ck being a universal constant.
Thus, if (t∗ , x∗ ) is a singular point, there is QR∗ (t∗ , x∗ ) such that
Z
|∇v|2 dτ dx ≥ ε∗ R∗ .
(B.6.6)
QR∗ (t∗ ,x∗ )
Clearly,
S
(t∗ ,x∗ )∈S
QR∗ (t∗ , x∗ ) is a collection of (parabolic) balls that cover S. Since
the four-dimensional Lebesgue measure of S is zero, the four-dimensional Lebesgue
measure of discovering collection can be made arbitrarily small. Vitali’s covering
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
86
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
lemma then provides the existence of a countable subcollection of mutually disjoint
balls such that
S⊂
∞
[
Q5Ri (ti , xi ) (ti , xi ) ∈ S),
i=1
and the four-dimensional Lebesgue measure of
say less than ε∗ ε/5, ε > 0 arbitrary. Then
S∞
i=1
QRi (ti , xi ) is small as needed,
Z
∞ Z
5
5 X
2
|∇v| = ∗
|∇v|2 < ε.
5Ri ≤ ∗
ε
ε
i ,xi )
i ,xi ),R <δ
Q
(t
Q
(t
}
{
R
R
i
i
i
i=1
i=1
∞
X
According to (B.6.3), P 1 (S) = 0 and S cannot be a curve in R+ ×R3 . Consequently,
• weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations in two dimensions are smooth,
• axially symmetric flows cannot have the singularity outside the set r = 0,
• the result on zero
1
2
1
2 -dimensional
1
Hausdorff measure of singular times σ follows,
due to inequality H (σ) ≤ cP (S).
Schaffer in [124] constructs an irregular (non-physical) b satisfying b · v ≤ 0 so
that for any δ > 0 the Hausdorff dimension of singular points is above 1−δ showing
thus optimality of the Caffarelli, Kohn, Nirenberg result.
We refer to the above mentioned literature for further details.
7. Other incompressible fluid models
As we were invited to address both physical and analytical aspects to fluids with
pressure dependent viscosities in Volume of Handbook of Mathematical Fluid Dynamics (edited by S. Friedlander and D. Serre), we only briefly comment available
results here.
7.1. Fluids with pressure-dependent viscosity
To our knowledge, there is no large-time and large-data existence result to system of partial differential equations of the form (B.1.3). Even more, no results on
large-time existence for small data or short-time existence for large-data seems to
be in place. Renardy [119] obtained local existence and uniqueness result in higher
Sobolev spaces not only assuming the viscosity fulfils
lim
p→+∞
ν(p)
= 0,
p
(B.7.1)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
87
on eigenvalues of D(v) in terms of
∂ν
∂p .
Gazzola does not assume (B.7.1). He however establishes only short time existence of smooth solution for small data under very restrictive conditions, both on
the almost conservative specific body forces b and initial data.
7.2. Fluids with pressure and shear dependent viscosities
Considering apparently a more complicated model for fluids, namely (B.1.2),
where the viscosity is not only a function of p, but depends also on the shear rate,
it has been observed by Málek, Nečas and Rajagopal [80] that for certain specific
forms of viscosities, large-time and large-data existence takes place. More precisely,
assuming that for a C 1 -function S of the form S(p, D(v)) = ν(p, |D(v)|2 )D(v) there
3×3
are two positive constants C1 , C2 such that for all 0 6= A, B ∈ Rsym
and for all
q∈R
C1 (1 + |A|2 )
and
r−2
2
|B|2 ≤
r−2
∂S(q, A)
· (B ⊗ B) ≤ C2 (1 + |A|2 ) 2 |B|2
∂A
∂S(q, A) ≤ γ0 (1 + |A|2 ) r−2
4 ,
∂q
1 C1
with γ0 = min( ,
),
2 4C2
(B.7.3)
(B.7.4)
Málek, Nečas and Rajagopal [80] established the following result.
1,2
Theorem 7.1. Let S satisfy (B.7.3) and (B.7.4) with r ∈ ( 59 , 2). Let v0 ∈ Wper
and g ∈ L2 (0, T ). Then there is a (suitable) weak solution (v, p) to (B.1.2) subjected
R
to spatially periodic conditions (B.2.9) and the requirement Ω p(t, x) dx = g(t) for
t ∈ (0, T ) such that
5r
5r
1,r
v ∈ C(0, T ; L2weak ) ∩ Lr (0, T ; Wper
) ∩ L 3 (0, T ; L 3 )
5r
6
5r
6
p ∈ L (0, T ; L )
(B.7.5)
(B.7.6)
Moreover, if r ∈ h 53 , 2) there is a solution (v, p) such that
1,2
2,r
v ∈ L∞ (0, T ∗ ; Wper,div
) ∩ Lr (0, T ∗ ; Wdiv
)
(B.7.7)
p ∈ L2 (0, T ∗ ; W 1,2 ).
(B.7.8)
† In fact, in most popular engineering models the relationship between ν and p is exponential,
i.e.,
ν(p) = exp(α0 p),
α0 > 0.
(B.7.2)
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
88
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
Here, T ∗ > 0 is arbitrary if v0 is sufficiently small or T ∗ is small enough if v0 is
arbitrary.
It may be of interest to mention that considering instead of (B.7.2) the viscosity
of the form
ν(p, |D(v)|2 ) =

 (1 + A + |D|2 ) r−2
2
 (A + exp(−αqp) + |D|2 )
r−2
2
if
p < 0,
if
p ≥ 0,
the assumptions (B.7.3) and (B.7.4) are fulfilled provided that
2αq(2 − r) ≤ (r − 1)A
2−r
2
.
This can be achieved by taking one of the parameters α or q small enough, or A
large enough or r close enough to 2.
Another examples and the proof of Theorem 7.1 can be found in [80]. Twodimensional flows are studied in [53] and [13]. In the latter, large-time behavior,
based on uniqueness result, is also studied via the method of trajectories. A step
towards the treatment of other boundary conditions is made in [41].
7.3. Inhomogeneous incompressible fluids
Here, we give references to results relevant to analysis of the partial differential
equations (B.1.1). The first results deal with T of the form
T = −pI + 2µ(ρ)D(v).
Large-time and large-data existence of weak solution established by Novosibirsk
school prior 1990 is presented by Antontsev, Kazhikov and Monakhov in [6]. A
profound exposition is given in the first chapter of the monograph by P. L. Lions
[77].
The fluids with µ depending on |D(v)|2 were analysed in in [36], were FernadézCara, Guillén and Ortega proved existence of weak solution to (B.1.1) with
for r ≥
12
5 .
T = −I + µ0 + µ1 |D(v)|r−2 D(v)
This result, treating homogeneous Dirichlet, i.e., (no-slip) boundary
conditions, was recently improved by Guillén-Gonzáles [49], in the case of spatially
periodic problem to r ≥ 2.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
89
Bibliography
[1] The Oxford English Dictionary. The Oxford University Press, 1989.
[2] H. Amann. Stability of the rest state of a viscous incompressible fluid. Arch.
Rational Mech. Anal., 126:231–242, 1994.
[3] M. Anand and K. R. Rajagopal. A mathematical model to describe the
change in the constitutive character of blood due to platelet activation. C.
R. Mecanique, 330:557–562, 2002.
[4] M. Anand and K. R. Rajagopal. A note on the flow of inhomogeneous fluids
with shear dependent viscosities. to appear in: Archives of Mechanics, 2005.
[5] C. Andrade. Viscosity of liquids. Nature, 125:309–310, 1930.
[6] S. N. Antontsev, A. V. Kazhikhov, and V. N. Monakhov. Boundary value
problems in mechanics of nonhomogeneous fluids, volume 22 of Studies in
Mathematics and its Applications. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1990. Translated from the Russian.
[7] H. Beirão da Veiga. A new regularity class for the Navier-Stokes equations in
Rn . Chinese Ann. Math. Ser. B, 16(4):407–412, 1995. A Chinese summary
appears in Chinese Ann. Math. Ser. A 16 (1995), no. 6, 797.
[8] H. Bellout, F. Bloom, and J. Nečas. Young measure-valued solutions for
non-Newtonian incompressible fluids. Comm. Partial Differential Equations,
19:1763–1803, 1994.
[9] L. C. Berselli and G. P. Galdi. Regularity criteria involving the pressure for
the weak solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,
130(12):3585–3595 (electronic), 2002.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
90
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
[10] E. C. Bingham. Fluidity & plasticity. In J. Alexander, editor, Colloid Chemistry, volume I, pages 720–726, New York, 1928. The Chemical Catalog Co.
[11] L. Boccardo and F. Murat. Almost everywhere convergence of the gradients of
solutions to elliptic and parabolic equations. Nonlinear Anal., 19(6):581–597,
1992.
[12] P. W. Bridgman. The physics of high pressure. MacMillan, New York, 1931.
[13] M. Bulı́ček, J. Málek, and D. Pražák. On the dimension of the attractor fo a
class of fluids with pressure dependent viscosities. to appear in Comm. Pure
Appl. Anal.
[14] J. M. Burgers. Mechanical consideration - model systems - phenomenological
theories of relaxation and of viscosity. In First Report on Viscosity and Plasticity, pages 5–72. Nordemann Publishing Company, Inc., 2nd edition edition,
1939. Prepared by the committee for the study of viscosity of the Academy
of Sciences at Amsterdam.
[15] L. Caffarelli. A Clay mathematical institute millenium prize problem, existence and smoothness of the Navier-Stokes equations.
lecture(video),
http://www.claymath.org/millenium/Navier-Stokes Equations.
[16] L. Caffarelli, R. Kohn, and L. Nirenberg.
Partial regularity of suitable
weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math.,
35(6):771–831, 1982.
[17] M. Cannone. Ondelettes, paraproduits et Navier-Stokes. Diderot Editeur,
Paris, 1995. With a preface by Yves Meyer.
[18] D. Chae and H.-J. Choe. Regularity of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equation. Electron. J. Differential Equations, pages No. 05, 7 pp. (electronic),
1999.
[19] H. J. Choe and J. L. Lewis. On the singular set in the Navier-Stokes equations.
J. Funct. Anal., 175(2):348–369, 2000.
[20] B.D. Coleman and W. Noll. The thermodynamics of elastic materials with
heat conduction and viscosity theories. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 13:167–
178, 1963.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
91
[21] P. Constantin and C. Foias. Global Lyapunov exponents, Kaplan-Yorke formulas and the dimension of the attractors for 2D Navier-Stokes equations.
Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 38(1):1–27, 1985.
[22] P. Constantin and C. Foias. Navier-Stokes equations. Chicago Lectures in
Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1988.
[23] E. DiBenedetto. Degenerate Parabolic Equations. Springer-Verlag, New York,
1993.
[24] L. Diening and M Růžička. Strong solutions for generalized newtonian fluid.
accepted to J. math. fluid mech., 2005.
[25] C. R. Doering and J. D. Gibbon. Applied analysis of the Navier-Stokes equations. Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1995.
[26] P. L. G. Du Buat. Principes d’hydraulique. L’imprimerie de minsieur, Paris,
1779.
[27] J. E. Dunn and J. Serrin. On the thermomechanics of interstitial working.
Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 88:95–133, 1985.
[28] C. Eckart. The thermodynamics of irreversible processes. IV. The theory of
elasticity and anelasticity. Physical Review, 73:373–382, 1948.
[29] A. Eden, C. Foias, B. Nicolaenko, and R. Temam. Exponential attractors
for dissipative evolution equations, volume 37 of RAM: Research in Applied
Mathematics. Masson, Paris, 1994.
[30] L. Escauriaza, G. Serëgin, and V. Šverák. Backward uniqueness for parabolic
equations. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 169(2):147–157, 2003.
[31] L. Escauriaza, G. Serëgin, and V. Šverák. Backward uniqueness for the heat
operator in half-space. Algebra i Analiz, 15(1):201–214, 2003.
[32] L. Escauriaza, G. A. Serëgin, and V. Šverák. L3,∞ -solutions of Navier-Stokes
equations and backward uniqueness. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 58(2(350)):3–44,
2003.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
92
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
[33] C.L. Fefferman. Existence & smoothness of the navier-stokes equation. official problem description of the third Clay Mathematical Institute Millenium
problem, http://www.claymath.org/millenium/Navier-Stokes Equations.
[34] E. Feireisl. Dynamics of viscous compressible fluids. Oxford University press,
Oxford, 2004.
[35] E. Feireisl. Mathematical theory of compressible, viscous and heat conducting
fluids. to appear in: Computers and Mathematics with application, 2005.
[36] E. Fernández-Cara, F. Guillén, and R. R. Ortega. Some theoretical results
for viscoplastic and dilatant fluids with variable density. Nonlinear Anal.,
28(6):1079–1100, 1997.
[37] C. Foiaş, C. Guillopé, and R. Temam. New a priori estimates for Navier-Stokes
equations in dimension 3. Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 6(3):329–
359, 1981.
[38] C. Foias and E. Olson.
Finite fractal dimension and Hölder-Lipschitz
parametrization. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 45(3):603–616, 1996.
[39] C. Foiaş and R. Temam. A generic property of the set of stationary solutions
of Navier Stokes equations. In Turbulence and Navier-Stokes equations (Proc.
Conf., Univ. Paris-Sud, Orsay, 1975), pages 24–28. Lecture Notes in Math.,
Vol. 565. Springer, Berlin, 1976.
[40] C. Foiaş and R. Temam. Some analytic and geometric properties of the
solutions of the evolution Navier-Stokes equations. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9),
58(3):339–368, 1979.
[41] M. Franta, J. Málek, and K. R. Rajagopal. On steady flows of fluids with
pressure- and shear-dependent viscosities. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math.
Phys. Eng. Sci., 461(2055):651–670, 2005.
[42] J. Frehse and J. Málek. Problems due to the no-slip boundary in incompressible fluid dynamics. In Geometric analysis and nonlinear partial differential
equations, pages 559–571. Springer, Berlin, 2003.
[43] J. Frehse, J. Málek, and M. Steinhauer. On existence results for fluids with
shear dependent viscosity—unsteady flows. In Partial differential equations
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
93
(Praha, 1998), volume 406 of Chapman & Hall/CRC Res. Notes Math., pages
121–129. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2000.
[44] J. Frehse, J. Málek, and M. Steinhauer. On analysis of steady flows of fluids
with shear-dependent viscosity based on the Lipschitz truncation method.
SIAM J. Math. Anal., 34(5):1064–1083, 2003.
[45] G. P. Galdi. An introduction to the Navier-Stokes initial-boundary value
problem. In Fundamental directions in mathematical fluid mechanics, Adv.
Math. Fluid Mech., pages 1–70. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2000.
[46] J.-M. Ghidaglia and R. Temam. Lower bound on the dimension of the attractor for the Navier-Stokes equations in space dimension 3. In Mechanics,
analysis and geometry: 200 years after Lagrange, North-Holland Delta Ser.,
pages 33–60. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991.
[47] H. Goldstein. Classical Mechanics. Adison-Wesley, Boston, 1980.
[48] A. E. Green and P. M. Naghdi. On thermodynamics and nature of the second
law. Proc. Royal Soc. London A, 357:253–270, 1977.
[49] F. Guillén-González.
Density-dependent incompressible fluids with non-
Newtonian viscosity. Czechoslovak Math. J., 54(129)(3):637–656, 2004.
[50] J. K. Hale. Asymptotic behavior of dissipative systems, volume 25 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1988.
[51] J. G. Heywood. Open problems in the theory of the Navier-Stokes equations
for viscous incompressible flow. In The Navier-Stokes equations (Oberwolfach,
1988), volume 1431 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 1–22. Springer, Berlin,
1990.
[52] E. Hopf. Über die Anfangswertaufgabe für die hydrodynamischen Grundgleichungen. Math. Nachr., 4:213–231, 1951.
[53] J. Hron, J. Málek, J. Nečas, and K. R. Rajagopal. Numerical simulations and
global existence of solutions of two-dimensional flows of fluids with pressureand shear-dependent viscosities. Math. Comput. Simulation, 61(3-6):297–315,
2003. MODELLING 2001 (Pilsen).
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
94
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
[54] R. R. Huilgol. Continuum mechanics of viscoelastic liquids. Hindusthan
Publishing Corporation, Delhi, 1975.
[55] S. Kaniel. On the initial value problem for an incompressible fluid with
nonlinear viscosity. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 19(8):681–707,
1970.
[56] P. Kaplický. Regularity of flows of a non-newtonian fluid in two dimensions
subject to dirichlet boundary conditions. accepted to Z. Anal. Anwendugen.
[57] P. Kaplický. Some remarks to regularity of flow of generalized newtonian
fluid. In F. Dumortier, H. Broer, J. Mawhin, A. Vanderbauwhede, and S. Verduyn Lunel, editors, Proceedings of conference Equadiff 2003. World Scientific
Publishing, Co., 2005.
[58] P. Kaplický, J. Málek, and J. Stará. Global-in-time Hölder continuity of
the velocity gradients for fluids with shear-dependent viscosities. NoDEA
Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., 9:175–195, 2002.
[59] A.A. Kiselev and Ladyzhenskaya O.A. On existence and uniqueness of the
solution of the nonstationary problem for a viscous incompressible fluid.
Izvestiya Akad. Nauk SSSR, 21:655–680, 1957.
[60] H. Kozono. On well-posedness of the Navier-Stokes equations. In Mathematical fluid mechanics, Adv. Math. Fluid Mech., pages 207–236. Birkhäuser,
Basel, 2001.
[61] H. Kozono and Y. Taniuchi. Bilinear estimates in BMO and the Navier-Stokes
equations. Math. Z., 235(1):173–194, 2000.
[62] J. Murali Krishnan and K. R. Rajagopal. A thermomechanical framework for
the constitutive modeling of asphalt concrete: theory and applications. ASCE
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 16:155–166, 2004.
[63] O. A. Ladyženskaja. A dynamical system that is generated by the NavierStokes equations. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 205:318–320, 1972.
[64] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya. Example of nonuniqueness in the Hopf class of weak
solutions for the Navier-Stokes equations. Izv. Akad. Nauk, 3:229–236, 1969.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
95
[65] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya. The mathematical theory of viscous incompressible flow.
Second English edition, revised and enlarged. Translated from the Russian by
Richard A. Silverman and John Chu. Mathematics and its Applications, Vol.
2. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York, 1969.
[66] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya. The mathematical theory of viscous incompressible flow.
Second English edition, revised and enlarged. Translated from the Russian by
Richard A. Silverman and John Chu. Mathematics and its Applications, Vol.
2. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York, 1969.
[67] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya. Limit states for modified Navier-Stokes equations in
three-dimensional space. Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov, 84:131–146, 1979.
[68] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya. Finite-dimensionality of bounded invariant sets for
Navier-Stokes systems and other dissipative systems. Zapiski Nauchnykh
Seminarov, 115:137–155, 1982.
[69] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya. Attractors for semigroups and evolution equations.
Lezioni Lincee. [Lincei Lectures]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1991.
Attractors for the modificiations of the thre-
dimensional Navier-Stokes equations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, 346:173–
190, 1994.
[71] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya and G. A. Seregin. On partial regularity of suitable
weak solutions to the three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations. J. Math.
Fluid Mech., 1(4):356–387, 1999.
[72] O.A. Ladyzhenskaya. On some new equations describing dynamics of incompressible fluids and on global solvability of boundary value problems to these
equations. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov, 102:85–104, 1967.
[73] P. G. Lemarié-Rieusset. Recent developments in the Navier-Stokes problem,
volume 431 of Chapman & Hall/CRC Research Notes in Mathematics. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2002.
[74] J. Leray. Sue le mouvement d’um liquide visquex emplissant l’espace. Acta
Math., 63:193–248, 1934.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
96
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
[75] F.H. Lin. A new proof of the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg theorem. Comm.
Pure Appl. Math., 51:241–257, 1998.
[76] J. L. Lions. Quelques Méthodes de Résolution des Probémes aux Limites non
Lineáires. Dunod, Paris, 1969.
[77] P. L. Lions. Mathematical topics in fluid mechanics. Vol. 1, volume 3 of Oxford
Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications. The Clarendon Press
Oxford University Press, New York, 1996. Incompressible models, Oxford
Science Publications.
[78] J. Málek and J. Nečas. A finite-dimensional attractor for three-dimensional
flow of incompressible fluids. J. Differential Equations, 127(2):498–518, 1996.
[79] J. Málek, J. Nečas, M. Pokorný, and M. E. Schonbek. On possible singular
solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. Math. Nachr., 199:97–114, 1999.
[80] J. Málek, J. Nečas, and K. R. Rajagopal. Global analysis of the flows of fluids
with pressure-dependent viscosities. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 165(3):243–
269, 2002.
[81] J. Málek, J. Nečas, M. Rokyta, and M. Růžička. Weak and measure-valued
solutions to evolutionary PDEs. Chapman & Hall, London, 1996.
[82] J. Málek, J. Nečas, and M. Røužička. On weak solutions to a class of nonNewtonian incompressible fluids in bounded three-dimensional domains: the
case p ≥ 2. Adv. Differential Equations, 6(3):257–302, 2001.
[83] J. Málek, J. Nečas, and M. Růžička. On the non-Newtonian incompressible
fluids. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 3(1):35–63, 1993.
[84] J. Málek, D. Pražák, and M. Steinhauer. On the existence and regularity of
solutions for degenerate power-law fluids. to appear, 2005.
[85] J. Málek and D. Pražák. Large time behavior via the method of `-trajectories.
J. Differential Equations, 181(2):243–279, 2002.
[86] J. Málek and D. Pražák. On the dimension of the global attractor for the
modified Navier-Stokes equations. In Nonlinear problems in mathematical
physics and related topics, II, volume 2 of Int. Math. Ser. (N. Y.), pages
267–283. Kluwer/Plenum, New York, 2002.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
97
[87] J. Málek, K. R. Rajagopal, and M. Růžička. Existence and regularity of solutions and stability of the rest state for fluids with shear dependent viscosity.
Math. Models Methods in Appl. Sci., 6:789–812, 1995.
[88] J. Málek and K.R. Rajagopal. On the modeling of inhomogeneous incompressible fluid-like bodies. accepted to: Mechanics of Material, 2005.
[89] J. C. Maxwell. Theory of Heat. Greenwood Press, 1970.
[90] J. R. Miller, M. O’Leary, and M. Schonbek. Nonexistence of singular pseudoself-similar solutions of the Navier-Stokes system. Math. Ann., 319(4):809–
815, 2001.
[91] P. P. Mosolov and V. P. Mjasnikov. A proof of Korn’s inequality. Dokl. Akad.
Nauk SSSR, 201:36–39, 1971.
[92] C. L. M. H. Navier. Mémoire sur les lois du mouvement des fluides. Mem.
Acad. R. Sci. Paris, 6:389–416, 1823.
[93] J. Nečas and J. Neustupa. New conditions for local regularity of a suitable
weak solution to the Navier-Stokes equation. J. Math. Fluid Mech., 4(3):237–
256, 2002.
[94] J. Nečas, M. Růžička, and V. Šverák. On Leray’s self-similar solutions of the
Navier-Stokes equations. Acta Math., 176(2):283–294, 1996.
[95] J. Neustupa, A. Novotný, and P. Penel. An interior regularity of a weak
solution to the Navier-Stokes equations in dependence on one component of
velocity. In Topics in mathematical fluid mechanics, volume 10 of Quad. Mat.,
pages 163–183. Dept. Math., Seconda Univ. Napoli, Caserta, 2002.
[96] J. Neustupa and P. Penel. Anisotropic and geometric criteria for interior regularity of weak solutions to the 3D Navier-Stokes equations. In Mathematical
fluid mechanics, Adv. Math. Fluid Mech., pages 237–265. Birkhäuser, Basel,
2001.
[97] J. Neustupa and P. Penel. The role of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the
symmetrized gradient of velocity in the theory of the Navier-Stokes equations.
C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 336(10):805–810, 2003.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
98
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
[98] J. Nečas. Sur les normes équivalentes dans wpk (ω) et sur la coercivité des
formes formellement positives. In Séminaire Equations aux Dérivées Partielles, pages 102–128. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal,
1966.
[99] I. Newton. Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica. J. Societatis Regiae
ac Typis J. Streater, London, 1687.
[100] W. Noll. A mathematical theory of the mechanical behavior of continuous
media. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 2:197–226, 1957.
[101] W. Noll. A new mathematical theory of simple materials. Arch. Rational
Mech. Anal., 48:1–50, 1972.
[102] C. W. Oseen.
Hydrodynamik.
Leipzig, 1927.
[103] S. D. Poisson. Mémoire sur les Équations générales de l’equilibre et du moivement des corps solides élastiques et des fluides. Journal de l’École Polytechnique, 13(20):1–174, 1831.
[104] S.C. Prasad, I.J. Rao, and K.R. Rajagopal. A continuum model for the creep
of single crystal nickel-base superalloys. Acta Materilia, 53:669–679, 2005.
[105] G. Prodi. Un teorema di unicità per le equazioni di Navier-Stokes. Ann. Mat.
Pura Appl. (4), 48:173–182, 1959.
[106] K. R. Rajagopal and A. R. Srinivasa. On a geometric approach to the treatment of constraints in the mechanics of continua. in press, Proc. R. Soc.
London A Mat.
[107] K. R. Rajagopal and A. R. Srinivasa. On the inelastic behavior of solids Part 1: Twinning. International Journal of Plasticity, 11:653–678, 1995.
[108] K. R. Rajagopal and A. R. Srinivasa. Inelastic behavior of materials - Part ii:
Energetics associated with discontinuous deformation twinning. International
Journal of Plasticity, 13:1–35, 1997.
[109] K. R. Rajagopal and A. R. Srinivasa. Mechanics of the inelastic behavior
of materials: Part I - Theoretical underpinnings. International Journal of
Plasticity, 14:945–967, 1998.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
99
[110] K. R. Rajagopal and A. R. Srinivasa. Mechanics of the inelastic behavior of
materials: Part II - Inealistic response. International Journal of Plasticity,
14:969–995, 1998.
[111] K. R. Rajagopal and A. R. Srinivasa. On the thermodynamics of shape
memory wires. Z. angew. Math. Phys., 50:459–496, 1999.
[112] K. R. Rajagopal and A. R. Srinivasa. A thermodynamic framework for rate
type fluid models. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 88:207–227, 2000.
[113] K. R. Rajagopal and A. R. Srinivasa. Modeling anisotropic fluids within the
framework of bodies with multiple natural configurations. J. Non-Newtonian
Fluid Mech., 99:1–16, 2001.
[114] K. R. Rajagopal and L. Tao. Modeling of microwave drying process of aqueous
dielectrics. Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 9:305–312, 2004.
[115] K.R. Rajagopal. Mechanics of non-newtonian fluids. In G.P. Galdi and
J. Nečas, editors, Recent developments in theoretical fluid mechanics, volume
291 of Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series, pages 129–162, Harlow,
Essex, 1993. Longman Scientific & Technical.
[116] K.R. Rajagopal. Multiple natural configurations in continuum mechanics.
Technical Report 6, Institute for Computational and Applied mechanics, University of Pittsburgh, 1995.
[117] I. J. Rao and K. R. Rajagopal. A study of strain-induced crystallization of
polymers. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 38:1149–1166, 2001.
[118] I. J. Rao and K. R. Rajagopal. A thermodynamic framework for the study
of crystalization in polymers. Z. angew. Math. Phys., 53:365–406, 2002.
[119] M. Renardy. Some remarks on the Navier-Stokes equations with a pressuredependent viscosity. Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 11(7):779–793,
1986.
[120] A. J. C. B. Saint-Venant. Note á joindre au mémoire sur la dynamique des
fluides. C. R. Acad. Sci., 17:1240–1243, 1843.
[121] V. Scheffer. Partial regularity of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations.
Pacific J. Math., 66(2):535–552, 1976.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
100
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
[122] V. Scheffer. Hausdorff measure and the Navier-Stokes equations. Comm.
Math. Phys., 55(2):97–112, 1977.
[123] V. Scheffer. The Navier-Stokes equations on a bounded domain. Comm.
Math. Phys., 73(1):1–42, 1980.
[124] V. Scheffer. Nearly one-dimensional singularities of solutions to the NavierStokes inequality. Comm. Math. Phys., 110(4):525–551, 1987.
[125] W. R. Schowalter. Mechanics of non-Newtonian fluids. Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 1978.
[126] G. R. Sell. Global attractors for the three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations. J. Dynam. Differential Equations, 8(1):1–33, 1996.
[127] G. Seregin and V. Šverák. On smoothness of suitable weak solutions to the
Navier-Stokes equations. Zap. Nauchn. Sem. S.-Peterburg. Otdel. Mat. Inst.
Steklov. (POMI), 306(Kraev. Zadachi Mat. Fiz. i Smezh. Vopr. Teor. Funktsii.
34):186–198, 231, 2003.
[128] G. A. Serëgin and V. Šverák. The Navier-Stokes equations and backward
uniqueness. In Nonlinear problems in mathematical physics and related topics,
II, volume 2 of Int. Math. Ser. (N. Y.), pages 353–366. Kluwer/Plenum, New
York, 2002.
[129] G. A. Serëgin and V. Šverák. Navier-Stokes equations with lower bounds on
the pressure. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 163(1):65–86, 2002.
[130] J. Serrin. The initial value problem for the Navier-Stokes equations. In
Nonlinear Problems (Proc. Sympos., Madison, Wis., pages 69–98. Univ. of
[131] J.S. Smagorinsky.
General circulation model of the atmosphere.
Mon.
Weather Rev., 91:99–164, 1963.
[132] H. Sohr. The Navier-Stokes equations. Birkhäuser Advanced Texts: Basler
Lehrbücher. [Birkhäuser Advanced Texts: Basel Textbooks]. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2001. An elementary functional analytic approach.
[133] A. J. M. Spencer. Theory of invariants. In A. C. Eringen, editor, Continuum
Physics I, pages 292–352, New York, 1971. Academic Press.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
Some generalizations of the Navier-Stokes equations
101
[134] M. Steinhauer. On uniqueness- and regularity criteria for the Navier-Stokes
equations. In Geometric analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations,
pages 543–557. Springer, Berlin, 2003.
[135] G. G. Stokes. On the theories of the internal friction of fluids in motion, and
of the equilibrium and motion of elastic solids. Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc.,
8:287–305, 1845.
[136] A. Z. Szeri. Fluid Film Lubrication: Theory and Design. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[137] R. Temam. Attractors for Navier-Stokes equations. In Nonlinear partial
differential equations and their applications. Collège de France seminar, Vol.
VII (Paris, 1983–1984), volume 122 of Res. Notes in Math., pages 10, 272–
292. Pitman, Boston, MA, 1985.
[138] R. Temam. Navier-Stokes equations and nonlinear functional analysis, volume 66 of CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics.
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA,
second edition, 1995.
[139] R. Temam. Infinite-dimensional dynamical systems in mechanics and physics,
volume 68 of Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag, New York,
second edition, 1997.
[140] R. Temam. Navier-Stokes equations. AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence,
RI, 2001. Theory and numerical analysis, Reprint of the 1984 edition.
[141] F. T. Trouton. On the coefficient of viscous traction and its relation to that
of viscosity. Proc. Roy. Soc. London A, 77:426–440, 1906.
[142] C. Truesdell. A first course in rational mechanics. Academic Press, Boston,
1991.
[143] C. Truesdell and W. Noll. The Non-Linear Field Theories of Mechanics. Hanbuch der Physik, III3 . Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1965.
[144] T.-P. Tsai. On Leray’s self-similar solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations
satisfying local energy estimates. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 143(1):29–51,
1998.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
102
J. Málek and K. R. Rajagopal
[145] W. von Wahl. The equations of Navier-Stokes and abstract parabolic equations. Aspects of Mathematics, E8. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig,
1985.
[146] M. Wiegner. The Navier-Stokes equations—a neverending challenge? Jahresber. Deutsch. Math.-Verein., 101(1):1–25, 1999.
\$LaTeX: 2005/4/20 \$
```