Global Existence and Large Time Asymptotic Behavior of Strong Solution to the Cauchy Problem of 2D Density-Dependent Boussinesq Equations with Vacuum ()
1. Introduction
The Boussinessq equation is a coupling of the fluid temperature and velocity field. For this paper, we consider the Cauchy problem of 2D nonhomogeneous incompressible Boussinessq equations which read as follows:
(1.1)
where
is the density,
represents the velocity,
stands for the pressure and
denotes the temperature of the fluid;
is the viscosity coefficient;
is the thermal diffusivity.
The initial data is given by
(1.2)
The system (1.1) is a simple model widely used in the modeling of atmospheric motions and oceanic, and it plays an important role in the atmospheric sciences (see [1] ). The Boussinessq equation is a coupling of the fluid velocity field and the temperature field. In particular, the 2D Boussinesq equations act as a lower-dimensional model of the 3D hydrodynamics equations and can be originated from the conservation laws of mass, energy and momentum (see [2] ). The 2D Boussinesq equations can be seen as a special case of the 3D incompressible Navier-Stokes and Euler equations, with similar vortex stretching mechanism to 3D incompressible fluids. However, compared with the Navier-Stokes equation and the Euler equation, it has an unknown temperature function and there is a complex nonlinear relationship between the temperature function and the velocity and pressure (see [3] [4] [5] [6] ). Moreover, the Boussinesq system (1.1) with
, there have been a lot of results. When
, many scholars have done a lot of research in recent years (Reference [4] [5] [7] ).
In recent years, the Boussinesq system with
has attracted the attention of many mathematicians, and many related research results have emerged. The study of viscous thermal diffusion Boussinesq equations, that is the system (1.1) with
and
, is popular. Lorca [8] and Boldrini [9] gained the existence of global weak solutions for Boussinesq equations with small initial values. And they also studied the existence of local strong solutions under general initial conditions. Recently, much attention has attracted by the density-dependent viscous Boussinesq equations. But, the regularity questions of the case of (1.1) with the initial data can be arbitrarily large, whic is an open problem. Qiu and Yao [10] showed the local existence and uniqueness of strong solutions of multi-dimensional incompressible density-dependent Boussinesq equations in Besov spaces. The paper [11] studied regularity criteria for three-dimensional incompressible density-dependent Boussinesq equations. However, there is little research on Boussinesq system when the initial density may include vacuum state or compact support. Because the initial density including the vacuum state will affect the temperature and pressure, the interaction among density, temperature and pressure will increase the non-linear coupling of the system (1.1), thus it may make the problem more complex. Recently, the global existence of strong solutions to the 2D Cauchy problem is given by Lü-Xu-Zhong [14], the related research refers to [12] - [17] [18]. Particularly, the initial density will include vacuum condition and one has compact support and the initial data could be arbitrarily large. Therefore, motivated by [14], we studied the Boussinesq system with initial density including vacuum and general big data initial. However, the divergence of temperature in the system (1.1) cannot be zero. This enhances the coupling of
, and we need to solve some new difficulties.
Now, we make some comments on the analysis of the key ingredients of this paper. If the local solution is extended to the global solution, we need to get global a priori estimates on strong solution to (1.1)-(1.2) in proper higher norms. Because of the strong coupling between temperature and velocity field, the
will give rise to some new difficulties. It seems difficult to bound the
-norm of u in terms of
and
. In light of [15] [16] [19] [20], we try to estimate on the
-norm of
and
, it can replace the usual
with the
to multiply by (1.1)2 (see [21] ). The most important thing is to control the term
(1.3)
According to [9] [12], since
and
, we have the term
. And because
and
combined (2.6) and (2.8), the term
in practice can be bounded by
(see (3.11)). Next, due to the strong coupled term
, we cannot estimate directly the
-norm of
. Because of multiplying (1.1)3 by
, we can't get
-norm of
and there will be items related to time t. Thus, we can use the
instead of the usual
to multiply by (1.1)3, and integration by parts that the coupled term
can be controlled (see (3.13)). Then, we apply the Stokes system to obtain the
-norm of
and the
-norm of
(see (3.16)), and combined with the
acts on
and multiplied by
to get the (3.20) and make further efforts to give the (3.37) (see Lemma 3.3 and 3.5). In addition, it is sufficient to bound the
-norm of
instead of u. More precisely, using Lemma 2.4 (see (3.35)), reference [4], and along with the estimate of
(see (3.36)), we can find the desired estimates on the
-norm of
(see (3.40)). Finally, we gain the
-norm of
and
(see (3.56)) and (see (3.57)), which are important to bound the
-norm of both
and
and the
-norm of
, see Lemma 3.8.
Now, we go back to (1.1). it should be noted here that the notations and conventions employed throughout the paper. For
, set
Furthermore, for
,
, we denote the standard Lebesgue and Sobolve spaces as follows:
Then, we will define precisely what mean by strong solution to (1.1) as follows:
Definition 1.1. (see [13] ) If all derivatives related to (1.1) for
are regular distributions, and system (1.1) satisfy almost everywhere in
, then
is named a strong solution to (1.1).
In a general way, it can assume that
holds
(1.4)
The (1.4) signifies that there is a positive constant
such that
(1.5)
Theorem 1.1 In view of (1.4) and (1.5), it assumes that the initial data
hold that for any given numbers
and
,
(1.6)
where
(1.7)
In that way, it has a unique global strong solution
for the problem (1.1)-(1.2) satisfying that for any
,
(1.8)
and
(1.9)
It’s about positive constant
depending only
,
,
and T. The
has the following decay rates, that is for
,
(1.10)
where C depends only on
,
,
,
,
, and
.
Remark 1.1 If the temperature function is zero, i.e.,
, then (1.1) is the well-known Navier-Stokes equations, and Theorem 1.1 is the same as those results of [12].
Remark 1.2 Theorem 1.1 goes for arbitrarily large initial data, it can also find the global strong solutions to the 2D incompressible Boussinesq equations with the smallness condition on the initial energy see [8] [9].
In next section, we shall first state some basic truths and inequalities. Those things will be employed later in this paper. In the last section is committed to some priori estimates and prove the theorem 1.1.
2. Preliminaries
For the section, we will recall some known truths and elementary inequalities, which will be used frequently later. Then for initial data, it assumes that there is a unique local strong solution. As follows:
Lemma 2.1 see [21] Assume that
satisfies (1.6). Then there exists a small time
and a unique strong solution
to the problem (1.1)-(1.2) in
satisfying (1.8) and (1.9).
Lemma 2.2 (see ( [22] Theorem 1.1)) (Galiardo-Nirenberg). For
,
, and
, there exists some generic constant
which may relay on m, q, and r such that for
and
, we have
(2.1)
(2.2)
The following weighted
bounds for elements in
can be found in ( [22], Theorem 1.1).
Lemma 2.3 (see ( [4], TheoremB.1)) For
and
, there exists a positive constant C such that for all
,
(2.3)
The Lemma 2.3 combined with the Poincaré inequality gets the following useful results on weighted bounds, we can also refer to ( [21] Lemma 2.4).
Lemma 2.4 (see ( [23] Lemma 2.3)) We can refer to
in (1.6), and assume that
is a non-negative function such that
(2.4)
for positive constants
,
, and
with
. Then for
,
, there is a positive constant C depending only on
,
,
,
, and
such that every
satisfies
(2.5)
with
.
Finally, let
and
represent BMO and Hardy spaces (see [24], chapter 4). In the next section, some facts are more important to prove the lemma 3.2.
Lemma 2.5 (see ( [25] TheoremII.1)) (i) There is a positive constant C such that
(2.6)
for all
and
satisfying
(2.7)
(ii) There is a positive constant C such that
(2.8)
for all
.
Proof. (i) Please refer to ( [25] Theorem II.1) for detailed proof.
(ii) The follows together with the Poincaré inequality that for any ball
(2.9)
which directly gives (2.8).
3. Convergence Rate of the Solution
3.1. Lower Order Estimates
Due to
, it will estimate the
-norm of
, as follows:
Lemma 3.1 (see [4] ) There exists a positive constant C depending only on
such that
(3.1)
Then, we will estimate the
-norm of
and
.
Lemma 3.2. There is a positive constant C depending only on
,
,
,
,
, and
such that
(3.2)
Here
, and have
(3.3)
Proof. Invoking standard energy estimate, multiplying (1.1)2 by u and integrating the resulting equality over
, we get
(3.4)
Multiplying (1.1)3 by
and integrating the resulting equality over
, we have
(3.5)
The (3.4) combined with (3.5) that gives
(3.6)
Next, multiplying (1.1)2 by
and integrating the resulting equality over
, we have
(3.7)
Then we can follow form integrating
by parts and (2.1) that
(3.8)
Integration by parts together with (1.1)4 gives
(3.9)
For the last inequality, because of the duality of
space and BMO (see ( [27] Chapter IV)). And
,
, and (2.6) yields
(3.10)
The (3.9) combined with (3.10) and (2.8) gives
(3.11)
Next, substituting (3.8) and (3.11) into (3.7) gives
(3.12)
Then, the (1.1)3 multiplied by
and integrating the resulting equality by parts over
, and together with Hölder’s and (11) that
(3.13)
which combined with (3.12) and (3.6) gives
(3.14)
Due to
solves the following Stokes system see [26]
(3.15)
Using the standard
-estimate to (3.15) holds that for any
,
(3.16)
(3.14) combined with and (3.16) gives
(3.17)
where
is to be determined. Choosing
, it follows from (3.6) and (3.17) that
(3.18)
the (3.18) together with (3.6), (3.17) and (2.1) gives (3.2). Then, (3.17) multiplied by t, we have
(3.19)
the (3.19) combined Gronwall’s inequality with (3.6) gives (3.3). Finally, it finishes the proof of lemma 3.2.
Lemma 3.3 There is some positive constant C depending only on
,
,
,
, and
such that for
,
(3.20)
and
(3.21)
Proof: Using
to
, it follows from a few simple calculations that
(3.22)
Next, (3.22) multiplied by
, and integration by parts and (1.1)4, we get
(3.23)
Following the same argument as ( [12] Lemma 3.3) we have the estimates of
as
(3.24)
Substituting (3.24) into (3.23) gives
(3.25)
For the left of (3.25), we have
(3.26)
For the right of (3.25), (3.11) together with (3.16), (3.1) and Sobolev's inequality that
(3.27)
Substituting (3.26) and (3.27) into (3.25)
(3.28)
Next, multiplying (3.28) by
, it follows from (3.3) and (3.6) that
(3.29)
Then, the (3.29) along with Gronwall's inequality gives
(3.30)
Finally, due to
, it deduces from (3.3) to lead to (3.20). The (3.21) is a direct consequence of (3.20) and (3.16). We will finish the proof of Lemma 3.3.
3.2. Higher Order Estimates
It concerns with the estimates on the higher-order derivatives of the strong solution
as follow:
Lemma 3.4 For a positive constant C depending only on
,
,
,
,
,
, and T, such that
(3.31)
Proof. For
, let
satisfy
(3.32)
It combines with (1.1)1 that
(3.33)
in the last inequality of (3.33), it has applied (3.1) and (3.6). Integrating (3.33) and letting
, we obtain after using (1.5) that
(3.34)
the (3.34) along with (3.1), (2.2), (3.6) and (3.2) that for any
and any
,
(3.35)
(1.1)1 multiplied by
and integrating the resulting equality by parts over
find that
(3.36)
using the Gronwall’s inequality to (3.36) gives (3.31) and it proves the lemma 3.4.
Lemma 3.5 There is a positive constant C depending on T such that
(3.37)
Proof. We can follow from the (1.1)1 that
holds for any
,
(3.38)
Next, employing Lemma 2.2, (3.2) and (3.16), we have
,
(3.39)
It follows from (3.34), (3.1), (2.2) and (3.31) that for any
,
(3.40)
the (3.40) combine with the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality shows that
(3.41)
which is deformed and calculated appropriately leads to
(3.42)
(3.43)
Then, the (3.42) and (3.39) implies
(3.44)
Next, using Gronwall’s inequality to (3.38) shows
(3.45)
Then, letting
in (3.16) and integrating the resulting equality over
, we obtain after using (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) that
(3.46)
Similarly, setting
in (3.16) and integrating the resulting equality over
, we deduce from using (3.42), (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) that
(3.47)
Multiplying (3.16) by t and integrating the resulting equality over
, it can obtain after using (3.43), (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) that
(3.48)
Moreover, it can get from (3.46), (3.47) and (3.48) that
(3.49)
which combined with (3.1) and (3.45) gets (3.37). The Lemma 3.5 is proved.
Lemma 3.6 (see [13] ) There exists a positive constant C depending on T such that for
,
(3.50)
Proof. First, setting
in (1.1)1 that satisfies
(3.51)
Next, we can take the
-derivative on both sides of the (3.51) finds
(3.52)
the (3.52) multiplied by
and integrating the resulting equality by parts over
, and then for any
, we obtain that
(3.53)
For the second and the last inequalities of (3.53), it has used (3.35) and (3.31), respectively. Setting
in (3.53), and applying Gronwall’s inequality along with (3.37) indicates that
(3.54)
And choosing
in (3.53), we will deduce from (3.37) and (3.54) that
(3.55)
Combining (3.54) with (3.31) gives (3.50). The Lemma 3.6 is proved.
Lemma 3.7 There exists a positive constant C such that
(3.56)
(3.57)
Proof. The (1.1)3 multiplied by
and integrating the resulting equality by parts over
, we have
(3.58)
where
(3.59)
(3.60)
Substituting (3.59), (3.60) into (3.58), we get
(3.61)
Using Gronwall’s inequality to (3.61), we obtain (3.56).
Next, we will estimate the (3.57). The (1.1)3 Multiplied by
and integration by parts over
, we find
(3.62)
where
(3.63)
(3.64)
(3.65)
Submitting
,
,
into (3.62), one has
(3.66)
Multiplying (3.66) by t, and togethering with (3.56) and (3.37), then employing Gronwall’s inequlity, one obtains the (3.57). This completes the Lemma 3.7.
Lemma 3.8 There exists a positive constant C such that
(3.67)
Proof. For any
and any
, it deduces from (3.40), (3.35) that
(3.68)
Next, it will prove that
(3.69)
With (3.2) at hand, we need only to show
(3.70)
First, it is easy to show that
(3.71)
Then, due to (2.1) and (3.68), we can combine (2.1), (3.2) with (1.1)3 gives
(3.72)
It has used the following facts about (3.72) of the last inequality
(3.73)
According to (3.68) and (2.1), we can give (3.70) by the combination of (3.71), (3.72), (3.37), and (3.56).
Next, differentiating (1.1)2 with respect to t shows
(3.74)
(3.74) multiplied by
and integration by parts over
, it deduces from (1.1)1 and (1.1)4 that
(3.75)
where
(3.76)
(3.77)
Submitting
,
into (3.75) gives
(3.78)
Then, we multiply (3.78) by t, and link to Gronwall’s inequality and (3.37) lead to
(3.79)
Next, differentiating (1.1)3 with respect to t show
(3.80)
Now, the (3.80) multiplied by
and integration by parts over
, we find
(3.81)
Next, the (3.81) multiplied by t and integration by parts over
, and due to (3.70), we have
(3.82)
Finally, it follows from (1.1)3, and (3.73) that
(3.83)
which combine with (3.57), (3.79) and (3.82) gains (3.67). Finally, the proof of Lemma 3.8 is finished.
3.3. Proof of Theorem 1.1
In this section, we will give the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Proof: According to Lemmas 3.1-3.8, using standard theory of local existence, It assumes that there is a
such that systems (1.1) and (1.2) have a local and unique strong solution
on
. Next, we will extend the local solution to all time.
Set
(3.84)
It deduces from (3.67), for any
with T finite, and any
that,
(3.85)
Then, along with standard embedding
And, due to (3.36), (3.49), and ( [23] Lemma 2.3) we have
(3.86)
we declare that
(3.87)
On the contrary, if
, it deduces from (4.2), (4.2), (3.2), (3.6), (3.49), and (3.50) that
conforms to the initial condition (1.6) at
. So, we can assume the initial data is the
, since the existence and uniqueness of local strong solutions signifies that there is a some
, such that Theorem (1.1) holds for
. This is contradictory with the hypothesis of
in (3.84), so the (3.87) holds. Hence, Lemmas 3.1-3.8 and the local existence and uniqueness of strong solutions indicate that
is actually the unique strong solution on
for any
. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.