Abstract
We identify a class of measure-valued solutions of the barotropic Euler system on a general (unbounded) spatial domain as a vanishing viscosity limit for the compressible Navier–Stokes system. Then we establish the weak (measure-valued)–strong uniqueness principle, and, as a corollary, we obtain strong convergence to the Euler system on the lifespan of the strong solution.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
We consider the compressible Euler system with damping
here \(\varrho =\varrho (t,x)\) denotes the density, \(\mathbf{m }=\mathbf{m }(t,x)\) the momentum - with the convection that the convective term is equal to zero whenever \(\varrho =0\) - and \(p=p(\varrho )\) the pressure. The term \(a \mathbf{m }\), with \(a\ge 0\), represents “friction”. We will study the system on the set \((t,x) \in (0,T)\times \Omega \), where \(T>0\) is a fixed time, \(\Omega \subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^N\) with \(N=2,3\), can be a bounded or unbounded domain, along with the boundary condition
for all \(t\in [0,T]\); if \(\Omega \) is unbounded, we impose the condition at infinity
with a constant \({\overline{\varrho }}\ge 0\). We also consider the following initial data
with \(\varrho _0 \ge 0\). We finally assume that the pressure p is given by the isentropic state equation
where \(\gamma >1\) is the adiabatic exponent and \(A>0\) is a constant.
Our goal is to identify a class of generalized - dissipative measure valued (DMV) solutions - for the Euler system (1), (2) as a vanishing viscosity limit of the Navier–Stokes equations. More specifically, we start considering the set
where we assume \(\Omega _R\) to be at least a Lipschitz domain, and we consider the Navier–Stokes system:
now \({\mathbf{u }_R=\mathbf{u }_R(t,x)}\) is the velocity and \({{\mathbb {S}}_R= {\mathbb {S}}(\nabla _x \mathbf{u }_R)}\) is the viscous stress, which we assume to be a linear function of the velocity gradient, more specifically to satisfy the Newton’s rheological law
where \(\mu >0\), \(\eta \ge 0\) are constants. Introducing \(\lambda =\eta -\frac{2}{N}\mu \) we also have
As our goal is to perform the vanishing viscosity limit for the Navier–Stokes system, we impose the complete slip boundary conditions on \(\partial \Omega \):
and the no–slip boundary conditions on \(\partial B_R\):
for all \(t\in [0,T]\). Conditions (11) and (12) may be compatible but they do not give rise to any extra analytical problem assuming that \(\partial B_R \cap \partial \Omega = \emptyset \) for R large enough, meaning that \(\partial \Omega \) is a compact set. That is \(\Omega \) is either (i) bounded, or (ii) exterior domain, or (iii) \(\Omega = {\mathbb {R}}^N\). For the sake of simplicity, we restrict ourselves to these three cases.
Finally, we impose the initial conditions independent of R:
where \(\varrho _0, \mathbf{m }_0\) are the initial conditions of the Euler system as in (5).
.
2 From the Navier–Stokes to the Euler system
2.1 Weak formulation
Choosing a constant background density \({\overline{\varrho }}\ge 0\), the Navier–Stokes system (7), (8) can be rewritten as
If we multiply both equations (7), (8) by test functions and integrate over the domain \(\Omega _R\), knowing that the densities \(\varrho _R\) and the momenta \(\varrho _R \mathbf{u }_R\) are weakly continuous in time, we get the weak formulation of our problem:
for any \(\tau \in [0,T)\) and all \(\varphi \in C^1_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }}_R)\), and
for any \(\tau \in [0,T)\) and all \(\varvec{\varphi } \in C^1_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }} \cap B_R; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\) with \(\varvec{\varphi }\cdot \mathbf{n }|_{\partial \Omega }=0\).
Multiplying (8) by \(\mathbf{u }\) and introducing the pressure potential P as the solution of the equation
which, for instance, in our case can be taken as
(notice in particular that \(P({\overline{\varrho }})=0\)), we get the energy equality
Integrating the first equation over \(\Omega _R\) along with conditions (11), (12), we get
Since \(P({\overline{\varrho }})=0\), we can rewrite (18) as
from which the energy inequality follows
for a.e. \(\tau \in [0,T]\). For more details see [7], Section 4.2.
2.2 Existence of Weak Solutions
To guarantee the existence of weak solutions, we can now use the following result.
Theorem 2.1
Let \(\Omega _R \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) be a Lipschitz domain with compact boundary \(\Omega _R = \Omega \cap B_R\), \(\partial \Omega \cap \partial B_R = \emptyset \), and let \(T>0\) be arbitrary. Suppose that the initial data satisfy
Let the pressure p satisfy (6) with
Then the Navier–Stokes system (7)–(13) admits a weak solution \({[\varrho _R, \mathbf{u }_R]}\) in \((0,T)\times \Omega _R\) such that
-
1.
the density \({\varrho _R=\varrho _R(t,x)}\) is a non-negative function a.e. in \((0,T)\times \Omega _R\) and satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} {\varrho _R} \in C_{weak}([0,T]; L^{\gamma }(\Omega _R)); \end{aligned}$$the velocity \({\mathbf{u }_R=\mathbf{u }_R(t,x)}\) satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf{u }_R}\in L^2(0,T; W^{1,2}(\Omega _R; {\mathbb {R}}^N)), \ {\mathbf{u }_R \cdot \mathbf{n }|_{\partial \Omega } = 0}, \ {\mathbf{u }_R|_{\partial B_R} = 0 }; \end{aligned}$$the momentum \({\varrho _R \mathbf{u }_R=(\varrho _R \mathbf{u }_R)(t,x)}\) satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} {\varrho _R \mathbf{u }_R} \in C_{weak}([0,T];L^{\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma +1}}(\Omega _R;{\mathbb {R}}^N)); \end{aligned}$$ -
2.
the weak formulations of the continuity equation (16) and of the momentum balance (17) are satisfied in \((0,T)\times \Omega _R\);
-
3.
the energy inequality (19) holds for a.e. \(\tau \in [0,T]\).
The proof follows the same line as in [6], Theorem 7.1. The fact that the boundary conditions are different on \(\partial \Omega \) and \(\partial B_R\) does not present any extra difficulty as the closures of these two components of the boundary are disjoint.
2.3 Limit passage
Starting from the family \(\{ \varrho _R-{\overline{\varrho }}, \mathbf{m }_R= \varrho _R \mathbf{u }_R\}_{R>0}\) of dissipative weak solutions to the reformulated Navier–Stokes system (14), (15) with the same initial data (13), and extending \(\mathbf{u }_R\) to be zero and \(\varrho _R\) as \({\overline{\varrho }}\) outside \(B_R\), we can now replace \(\Omega _R\) by \(\Omega \) in the previous integrals (16), (17) and (19); more precisely, from now on we will consider
for any \(\tau \in [0,T)\) and all \(\varphi \in C^1_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }})\),
for any \(\tau \in [0,T)\) and all \(\varvec{\varphi } \in C^1_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }}; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\), \(\varvec{\varphi } \cdot \mathbf{n }|_{\partial \Omega } = 0\), and
for a.e. \(\tau \in [0,T]\). Note that this is correct for R large enough as the test functions are compactly supported in \(\Omega _R\).
Now, we suppose that the initial data have been chosen on \(\Omega \) in such a way that the initial energy is finite:
We then easily deduce from the energy inequality (22) that
where the bounds are independent of R. Next, from (26), we can deduce that
We can now use the relation
with a positive constant \(c({\overline{\varrho }})\) (see [8]). More precisely, following [10], Section 4.7, we introduce the decomposition of an integrable function \(h_R\):
where
Then we have
and
where \(\lesssim \) means modulo a multiplication constant. In particular this implies that
passing to suitable subsequences as the case may be; defining \(\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }}:={f_{\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }}}+g_{\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }}}}\), we have that
We can repeat the same procedure for the momenta; indeed, using (24) we obtain
we also have
which, together with (24) and Hölder’s inequality with \(p=\gamma +1\), gives
Then we obtain
passing to suitable subsequences as the case may be. In a similar way we have
and
Furthermore, noticing that
from (24) we deduce that also the convective terms are uniformly bounded in the non-reflexive space \(L^1((0,T)\times \Omega )\), or better, in \(L^{\infty }(0,T; L^1(\Omega ))\).
There are two disturbing phenomena that may occur to bounded sequences in \(L^1\): oscillations and concentrations. The idea is then to see \(L^1((0,T)\times \Omega )\) as embedded in the space of bounded Radon measures \({\mathcal {M}}([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }})\) - that happens to be the dual to the separable space \(C_0([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }})= \overline{C_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }})}^{\Vert \cdot \Vert _{\infty }}\) - through the identification
if \(f\in L^1((0,T)\times \Omega )\).
Accordingly, we may assume
passing to suitable subsequences as the case may be. The notation \(\mu _{\{p\}-p({\overline{\varrho }})}\) means that
as \(R \rightarrow \infty \), for every \(\varphi \in C_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }})\); the same holds for the other convergences.
We can now let \(R\rightarrow \infty \) in the weak formulation of our initial problem (14), (15); notice that the R-dependent viscous stress tensor vanishes. Indeed, using (27) and Hölder’s inequality we get
Then we get
for every \(\varphi \in C_c^1((0,T)\times \Omega )\), and
for every \(\varvec{\varphi }\in C_c^1((0,T)\times \Omega ; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\). We can equivalently write
for every \(\varphi \in C_c^1((0,T)\times \Omega )\), and
for every \(\varvec{\varphi }\in C_c^1((0,T)\times \Omega ; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\).
As a matter of fact, the limit for \(\varrho _R-{\overline{\varrho }}\) can be strengthened to
the same holds for the limit of \(\varrho _R\mathbf{u }_R\):
We can then rewrite the last two integral equations as
for any \(\tau \in [0,T)\) and any \(\varphi \in C_c^1([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }})\) and
for any \(\tau \in [0,T)\) and any \(\varvec{\varphi } \in C_c^1([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }};{\mathbb {R}}^N)\), \(\varvec{\varphi }\cdot \mathbf{n }|_{\partial \Omega }=0\).
Finally, using the generalization of the concept of Lebesgue point to Radon measures, we can deduce from the energy inequality (22)
for a.e. \(\tau \in (0,T)\), where
Equations (34), (35), and (36) form a suitable platform for introducing the measure-valued solutions of the Euler system. The exact definition requires the concept of Young measure; the interested reader can find all the details in the Appendix A.
2.4 Dissipative measure-valued solution for the compressible Euler system with damping
Motivated by the discussion in Appendix A, we are ready to introduce the concept of dissipative measure-valued solution to the compressible Euler system with damping. It can be seen as a generalization of a similar concept introduced by Gwiazda et al. [11]. While the definition in [11] is based on the description of concentrations via the Alibert–Bouchitté defect measures [1], our approach is motivated by [5], where the mere inequality (40) is required postulating the domination of the concentrations by the energy dissipation defect. This strategy seems to fit better the studies of singular limits on general physical domains performed in the present paper.
Definition 2.2
A parametrized family of probability measures
is a dissipative measure-valued solution of the problem (1), (2) with the initial condition \(\{\nu _{0, x}\}_{x\in \Omega }\) if
-
1.
the integral identity
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\Omega } \langle \nu _{\tau ,x}; \varrho \rangle \varphi dx -\int _{\Omega } \langle \nu _{0,x}; \varrho \rangle \varphi dx= & {} \int _{0}^{\tau } \int _{\Omega } [\langle \nu _{t,x}; \varrho \rangle \partial _t \varphi + \langle \nu _{t,x}; \mathbf{m }\rangle \cdot \nabla _x \varphi ] dx dt \nonumber \\&+ \int _{0}^{\tau }\int _{\Omega } \nabla _x \varphi \cdot d\mu _c \end{aligned}$$(37)holds for all \(\tau \in [0,T)\), and for all \(\varphi \in C^1_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }})\), where \(\mu _c \in {\mathcal {M}}([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }}; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\) is a vector–valued measure;
-
2.
the integral identity
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}&\int _{\Omega } \langle \nu _{\tau ,x};\mathbf{m }\rangle \cdot \varvec{\varphi }(\tau , \cdot ) dx - \int _{\Omega } \langle \nu _{0,x};\mathbf{m }\rangle \cdot \varvec{\varphi }(0,\cdot ) dx \\&\quad = \int _{0}^{\tau } \int _{\Omega } \left[ \langle \nu _{t,x}; \mathbf{m }\rangle \cdot \partial _t \varvec{\varphi } + \left\langle \nu _{t,x}; \frac{\mathbf{m }\otimes \mathbf{m }}{\varrho } \right\rangle : \nabla _x \varvec{\varphi } \right] dx dt \\&\qquad + \int _{0}^{\tau } \int _{\Omega } [\langle \nu _{t,x};p(\varrho )\rangle {{\,\mathrm{div}\,}}_x \varvec{\varphi } - a\langle \nu _{t,x}; \mathbf{m }\rangle \cdot \varvec{\varphi }] \ dxdt + \int _{0}^{\tau } \int _{\Omega } \nabla _x \varvec{\varphi }: d\mu _m, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(38)holds for all \(\tau \in [0,T)\) and for all \(\varvec{\varphi } \in C^1_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }};{\mathbb {R}}^N)\), \(\varvec{\varphi }\cdot \mathbf{n }|_{\partial \Omega }\), where \(\mu _m\in {\mathcal {M}}([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }}; {\mathbb {R}}^N\times {\mathbb {R}}^N)\) is a tensor–valued measure; both \(\mu _c, \mu _m\) are called concentration measures;
-
3.
the following inequality
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}&\int _{\Omega } \left\langle \nu _{\tau , x}; \frac{1}{2} \frac{|\mathbf{m }|^2}{\varrho } +P(\varrho )-P'({\overline{\varrho }})(\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }})-P({\overline{\varrho }}) \right\rangle dx \\&\qquad + a\int _{0}^{\tau } \int _{\Omega } \left\langle \nu _{t,x}; \frac{|\mathbf{m }|^2}{\varrho }\right\rangle dxdt +{\mathcal {D}}(\tau ) \\&\quad \le \int _{\Omega } \left\langle \nu _{0, x}; \frac{1}{2} \frac{|\mathbf{m }|^2}{\varrho } +P(\varrho )-P'({\overline{\varrho }})(\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }})-P({\overline{\varrho }}) \right\rangle dx, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(39)holds for a.e. \(\tau \in (0,T)\), where \({\mathcal {D}}\in L^{\infty }(0,T)\), \({\mathcal {D}}\ge 0\) is called dissipation defect of the total energy;
-
4.
there exists a constant \(C>0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{0}^{\tau } \int _{\Omega } d|\mu _c| + \int _{0}^{\tau } \int _{\Omega } d|\mu _m| \le C \int _{0}^{\tau } {\mathcal {D}}(t) dt, \end{aligned}$$(40)for a.e. \(\tau \in (0,T)\).
Now, summarizing the discussion concerning the vanishing viscosity limit of the Navier–Stokes system, we can state the first result of the present paper.
Theorem 2.3
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\), \(N=2,3\) be a domain with compact Lipschitz boundary and \({\overline{\varrho }} \ge 0\) be a given far field density if \(\Omega \) is unbounded. Suppose that \(\gamma > \frac{N}{2}\) and let \(\varrho ^R\), \(\mathbf{u }^R\) be a family of weak solutions to the Navier–Stokes system (7) – (12) in
Let the corresponding initial data \(\varrho _0\), \(\mathbf{u }_0\) be independent of R satisfying
Then the family \(\{ \varrho ^R , \mathbf{m }^R = \varrho ^R \mathbf{u }^R \}_{R > 0}\) generates, as \(R \rightarrow \infty \), a Young measure \(\{ \nu _{t,x} \}_{t \in (0,T); x \in \Omega }\) which is a dissipative measure-valued solution of the Euler system with damping (1), (2).
3 Weak-strong uniqueness
Our next goal is to show that the dissipative measure-valued solutions introduced in the previous section satisfy an extended version of the energy inequality (39) known as relative energy inequality.
We introduce the relative energy functional:
If \(\varrho \mapsto p(\varrho )\) is strictly increasing in \((0,\infty )\), which is true in our case, then the pressure potential P is strictly convex; indeed
For a differentiable function this is equivalent in saying that the function lies above all of its tangents:
for all \(\varrho , r \in (0,\infty )\), and the equality holds if and only if \(\varrho =r\). Thus, we deduced that \({\mathcal {E}}\ge 0\), where equality holds if and only if
We can now prove the following
Theorem 3.1
Let \([r,\mathbf{U }]\) be a strong solution of the compressible Euler system with damping with compactly supported initial data so that \(\mathbf{U } \in C^{\infty }_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }}; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\), where in particular \(\mathbf{U }\cdot \mathbf{n }|_{\partial \Omega }=0\), and \(r-{\overline{\varrho }}\in C^{\infty }_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }})\) with \(r>0\). Let \(\{ \nu _{t,x} \}_{(t,x)\in (0,T)\times \Omega }\) be a dissipative measure-valued solution of the same system (in terms of the density \(\varrho \) and the momentum \(\mathbf{m }\)), with a dissipation defect \({\mathcal {D}}\) and such that
Then \({\mathcal {D}}=0\) and
Remark 3.2
Note that we must have \({\overline{\varrho }} > 0\) if \(\Omega \) is unbounded.
Proof
It is enough to prove that \({\mathcal {E}}(\tau )=0\) for all \(\tau \in (0,T)\). We can take \(\mathbf{U }\) as a test function in the momentum equation (38) to obtain
and \(\frac{1}{2} |\mathbf{U }|^2\) as a test function in the continuity equation (37) to get
Finally, take \(P'(r)-P'({\overline{\varrho }})\) as test function in (37) to get
Then, from the energy inequality (39), summing up all these terms we get
Notice that the term
is well-defined and integrable. We have
where, since \(P({\overline{\varrho }})=0\),
Then
and, using the relation \(p'(r)=rP''(r)\) along with the fact that
we can deduce that
We obtain the relative energy inequality:
Now we can use the fact that \([r,\mathbf{U }]\) is a strong solution: from the momentum equation we can deduce that
substituting, we get
From the continuity equation we also have
and thus, knowing that \(rP''(r)=p'(r)\), we get
Finally, using the fact that the initial data are the same and thus \({\mathcal {E}}(\nu |r,\mathbf{U })(0)=0\), we end up to
Since \(\mathbf{U }\) and \(P'(r)-P({\overline{\varrho }})\) have compact support we can control the terms \(|\nabla _x \mathbf{U }|\), \(|{{\,\mathrm{div}\,}}_x \mathbf{U }|\), \(|\mathbf{U }\cdot \nabla _x \mathbf{U }|\) and \(|\nabla _x P'(r)|\) by some constants. It is also obvious that there exist a constant \(c_1\) such that
and a constant \(c_2\) such that
Thus
By Gronwall lemma we obtain
But since \({\mathcal {E}},{\mathcal {D}} \ge 0\) this implies \({\mathcal {D}}(\tau )=0\) and \({\mathcal {E}}(\tau )=0\) for all \(\tau \in (0,T)\). \(\square \)
3.1 Density argument
Notice that the relative energy inequality (43) is true for general functions \(r-{\overline{\varrho }} \in C_c^{\infty }([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }})\), \(\mathbf{U } \in C_c^{\infty }([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }}; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\), not necessarily strong solutions to the Euler system. Then, using a density argument, we can prove the following result.
Theorem 3.3
Let \([r,\mathbf{U }]\) be a strong solution of the compressible Euler system with damping such that \(\mathbf{U } \in C([0,T]; H^M(\Omega ; {\mathbb {R}}^N))\), \(M>\frac{N}{2}+1\), where in particular \(\mathbf{U }\cdot \mathbf{n }|_{\partial \Omega }=0\), and \(r-{\overline{\varrho }}\in C([0,T]; H^M(\Omega ))\) with \(r>0\). Let \(\{ \nu _{t,x} \}_{(t,x)\in (0,T)\times \Omega }\) be a dissipative measure-valued solution of the same system (in terms of \(\varrho \) and the momentum \(\mathbf{m }\)), with a dissipation defect \({\mathcal {D}}\) and such that
Then \({\mathcal {D}}=0\) and
Proof
We will first prove that the relative energy inequality (43) holds for \([r, \mathbf{U }]\) as in our hypothesis. By density, we can find two sequences \(\{ r_n-{\overline{\varrho }} \}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset C_c^{\infty }([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }})\), \(\{ \mathbf{U }_n \}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset C_c^{\infty }([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }}; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\) such that
If we now fix \(\varepsilon >0\), we know that there exists \(n_0=n_0(\varepsilon )\) such that, for every \(n\ge n_0\)
From now on, let \(n\ge n_0\); for each \(t\in [0,T]\) we have
Revoking notation introduced in Sect. 2.3, we focus on the last three lines: we can rewrite the first term as
since \(\langle \nu _{(t, \cdot )};[\mathbf{m }]_{ess}-[\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }}]_{ess} \mathbf{U }_n \rangle , (\mathbf{U }-\mathbf{U }_n) (t, \cdot ) \in L^2(\Omega ; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\) we can apply Hölder’s inequality to get
We also have that \(\langle \nu _{(t, \cdot )};[\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }}]_{res} \mathbf{U }_n \rangle \in L^{\gamma }(K); {\mathbb {R}}^N)\) with K compact and since \(\gamma >\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma +1}\) we obtain \(\langle \nu _{(t, \cdot )};[\mathbf{m }]_{res}-[\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }}]_{res} \mathbf{U }_n \rangle \in L^{\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma +1}}(\Omega ; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\); using the embedding of the Sobolev space into the Hölder one we get that \((\mathbf{U }-\mathbf{U }_n) (t, \cdot ) \in L^{\infty }(\Omega ; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\) and hence \((\mathbf{U }-\mathbf{U }_n) (t, \cdot ) \in L^p(\Omega ; {\mathbb {R}}^N)\) for all \(p\in [2,\infty ]\). Since \(\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma -1}>2\), we can again apply Hölder’s inequality to get
For the second term we can apply Hölder’s inequality:
Applying the same procedure as before to the third term we get
For the last term we simply have
Similarly,
We can now focus on the last three lines: the first term is simply bounded as follows
The second term can be rewritten as
notice that, if \(\gamma \in (1,2)\) we use the same argument as before while if \(\gamma \in [2,\infty )\) we have to use the Sobolev embedding in the \(L^p\)-spaces. For the last term we can use Hölder inequality to get
Repeating the same steps for each term that appears in the relative energy inequality and introducing the operator
we have
for some positive constant C, since for a test function we already proved that the relative energy inequality holds which is equivalent in saying that
By the arbitrary of \(\varepsilon \) we can conclude that the relative energy inequality holds for \([r,\mathbf{U }]\) as in our hypothesis.
Repeating the same passages as we did in the proof of the previous theorem, we end up to the following inequality
The thesis now follows as before - the only thing that changes is that in this case \(\mathbf{U }\) and \(P(r)-P({\overline{\varrho }})\) are \(L^{\infty }\)-functions, but still we can control the terms \(|\nabla _x \mathbf{U }|\), \(|{{\,\mathrm{div}\,}}_x \mathbf{U }|\), \(|\mathbf{U } \cdot \nabla _x \mathbf{U }|\) and \(|\nabla _x P(r)|\) by some constants. \(\square \)
Remark 3.4
This theorem applies to the already know results concerning strong solutions; in particular
4 Vanishing viscosity limit
Unifying the two main results achieved in the previous sections, cf. Theorems 2.3 and 3.3, we conclude proving our last theorem: the solutions of the Navier–Stokes system converge in the zero viscosity limit to the strong solution of the Euler system with damping on the life span of the latter.
Theorem 4.1
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\), \(N=2,3\) be a domain with compact Lipschitz boundary and \({\overline{\varrho }} > 0\) be a given far field density if \(\Omega \) is unbounded. Suppose that \(\gamma > \frac{N}{2}\) and let \(\varrho _R\), \(\mathbf{u }_R\) be a family of weak solutions to the Navier–Stokes system (7) – (12) in
with initial data \(\{ \varrho _{R,0}-{\overline{\varrho }}, \mathbf{m }_{R,0} = \varrho _{R,0} \mathbf{u }_{R,0} \}_{R>0}\) such that
Suppose that \(\varrho _0>0\), \(\left( \varrho _0-{\overline{\varrho }},\frac{\mathbf{m }_0}{\varrho _0}\right) \in H^M(\Omega )\), \(M > \frac{N}{2} + 1\), and that \([r, \mathbf{U }] \in H^M(\Omega )\) is the strong solution to the Euler system with damping with the same initial data.
Then
for any compact \(K \subset \Omega \).
Proof
Convergences (44), (45) follow easily from (23), repeating the same passages that we did in Sect. 2.3. In the proof of Theorem 2.3, we also showed that
where
is the Young measure associated to the sequence \(\{( \varrho _R-{\overline{\varrho }}, \mathbf{m }_R)\}_{R>0}\) and also the dissipative measure-valued solution to the Euler system with damping. Then, since
we can apply Theorem 3.3 to get that
and hence we obtain the claim. \(\square \)
References
Alibert, J.J., Bouchitté, G.: Non-uniform integrability and generalized Young measures. J. Convex Anal. 4, 129–147 (1997)
Březina, J., Mácha, V.: Inviscid limit for the compressible Euler system with non-local interactions. J. Differ. Equ. 267(7), 4410–4428 (2019)
Chen, G.-Q.G., Glimm, J.: Kolmogorov-type theory of compressible turbolence and inviscid limit of the Navier-Stokes equations in \({\mathbb{R}}^3\). Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. 2019, 400 (2019)
Di Perna, R.J., Majda, A.J.: Oscillations and concentrations in weak solutions of the incompressible fluid equations. Comm. Math. Phys. 108(4), 667–689 (1987)
Feireisl, E., Gwiazda, P., Świerczewska-Gwiazda, A., Wiedemann, E.: Dissipative measure-valued solutions to the compressible Navier-Stokes system. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 55, 141 (2016)
Feireisl, E.: Dynamics of Viscous Compressible Fluids. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)
Feireisl, E., Karper, T., Pokorný, M.: Mathematical Theory of Compressible Viscous Fluids: Analysis and Numerics. Springer, Berlin (2016)
Feireisl, E., Jin, B.J., Novotný, A.: Relative entropies, suitable weak solutions, and weak-strong uniqueness for the compressible Navier-Stokes system. J. Math. Fluid Dyn. 14, 717–730 (2012)
Feireisl, E., Lukáčová-Medvidová, M., Mizerová, H.: Convergence of finite volume schemes for the Euler equations via dissipative measure-valued solutions. Found. Comput. Math. 20, 923 (2019)
Feireisl, E., Novotný, A.: Singular Limits in Thermodynamics of Viscous Fluids. Birkhäuser-Verlag, Basel (2009)
Gwiazda, P., Świerczewska-Gwiazda, A., Wiedemann, E.: Weak-strong uniqueness for measure-valued solutions of some compressible fluid models. Nonlinearity 28, 3873–3890 (2015)
Kato, T.: The Cauchy problem for quasi-linear symmetric hyperbolic systems. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 58, 181–205 (1975)
Majda, A.: Compressible Fluid Flow and Systems of Conservation Laws in Several Space Variables, Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer, New York (1984)
Málek, J., Nečas, J., Rokyta, M., Ružička, M.: Weak and measure-valued solutions to evolutionary PDEs, Applied Mathematics and Mathematical Computation. Springer, Berlin (1996)
Pan, R., Zhao, K.: The 3D compressible Euler equations with damping in a bounded domain. J. Differ. Equ. 246, 581–596 (2009)
Schochet, S.: The compressible Euler equations in a bounded domain: existence of solutions and the incompressible limit. Comm. Math. Phys. 104, 49–75 (1986)
Sideris, T.C., Thomases, B., Wang, D.: Long time behavior of solutions to the 3D compressible Euler equations with damping. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 28, 795–816 (2003)
Sueur, F.: On the inviscid limit for the compressible Navier-Stokes system in an impermeable bounded domain. J. Math. Fluid Mech. 16, 163–178 (2014)
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Einstein Foundation, Berlin. The author wishes to thank prof. Eduard Feireisl for the helpful advice and discussions.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Young measures
Young measures
In this section we recall some useful definitions and results concerning the theory of Young measures.
Definition A.1
Let \(Q \subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^d\) be an open set. The mapping \(\nu : Q \rightarrow {\mathcal {M}}({\mathbb {R}}^m)\) is said to be weak-\(*\) measurable, if for all \(F \in L^1(Q;C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m))\) the function
is measurable.
Here and in the sequel we use the standard notation \(\nu _x=\nu (x)\), as if measures \(\nu _x\) were parametrized by x. For a weak-\(*\) measurable map \(\nu \) we have
thus the function \(x \mapsto \Vert \nu _x\Vert _{{\mathcal {M}}({\mathbb {R}}^m)}\) is also measurable and we can define
Finally, we introduce the space
The following theorem holds.
Theorem A.2
Let \(Q\subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^n\) be open. Let \(\Phi \in (L^1(Q;C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m)))^*\) be a linear bounded functional. Then there exists a unique \(\nu \in L^{\infty }_{weak }(Q; {\mathcal {M}}({\mathbb {R}}^m))\) such that, for all \(F \in L^1(Q;C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m))\),
and
Proof
See [14], Chapter 3, Theorem 2.11. \(\square \)
Let now Q be a measurable set. Given a measurable sequence \(\{ \varvec{z}^R \}_{R>0}\), we can construct the Young measure associated to it. First, for every R we define the mapping
defined for a.e. \(y\in Q\) by
where \(\delta _a\) is the Dirac measure supported at \(a\in {\mathbb {R}}^m\). Hence, for every \(\psi \in L^1(Q;C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m))\) the function
is measurable since it is integrable; indeed
and then
The mapping \(\nu ^R\) is then weakly-\(*\) measurable with
Therefore, \(\{\nu ^R\}_{R>0}\) is uniformly bounded in \(L_{weak}^{\infty }(Q; {\mathcal {M}}({\mathbb {R}}^m))\), which by Theorem A.2 is the dual space of the separable space \(L^1(Q;C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m))\); we can apply the Banach-Alaoglu theorem to find a subsequence, not relabeled, and \(\nu \in L^{\infty }_{weak}(Q; {\mathcal {M}}({\mathbb {R}}^m))\) such that
This means that for all \(\psi \in L^1(Q; C_0({\mathbb {R}}^4))\)
If we now choose \(\psi (y, \lambda )= g(y)\varphi (\lambda )\) with \(g\in L^1(Q)\), \(\varphi \in C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m)\), the last limit tells us that
Then, for every \(\varphi \in C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m)\), knowing that
we can deduce that
From the weak-\(*\) lower semi-continuity of the norm we also have that
What we proved is the first statement of the following theorem.
Theorem A.3
Let \(Q \subset {\mathbb {R}}^d\) be a measurable set and let \(\varvec{z}^R:Q \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^m\), \(R >0\), be a sequence of measurable functions. Then there exists a subsequence, still denoted by \(\varvec{z}^R\), and a measure-valued function \(\nu \) with the following properties:
-
1.
\(\nu \in L^{\infty }_{weak}(Q; {\mathcal {M}}({\mathbb {R}}^m))\), \(\Vert \nu _y\Vert _{{\mathcal {M}}({\mathbb {R}}^m)}\le 1\), for a.e. \(y\in Q\) and we have for every \(\varphi \in C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m)\), as \(R \rightarrow \infty \),
$$\begin{aligned} \varphi (\varvec{z}^R) \overset{*}{\rightharpoonup } {\overline{\varphi }} \text{ in } L^{\infty }(Q), \quad {\overline{\varphi }}(y) = \langle \nu _y, \varphi \rangle , \text{ for } \text{ a.e. } y\in Q; \end{aligned}$$ -
2.
moreover, if
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{k\rightarrow \infty } \sup _{R>0} \mathop {{{\mathrm{meas}}}}\limits \{y\in Q \cap B_r; |\varvec{z}^R(y)| \ge k \} =0 \end{aligned}$$(47)for every \(r>0\), where \(B_r\equiv \{ y\in Q; |y|\le r \}\), then
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \nu _y\Vert _{{\mathcal {M}}({\mathbb {R}}^m)}=1 \text{ for } \text{ a.e. } y\in Q; \end{aligned}$$ -
3.
Let \(\Psi : [0,\infty ) \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be a Young function satisfying the \(\Delta _2\)-condition. If condition (47) holds and if we have for some continuous function \(\tau : {\mathbb {R}}^m \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\)
$$\begin{aligned} \sup _{R>0} \int _{Q} \Psi (|\tau (\varvec{z}^R)|) dy < \infty , \end{aligned}$$(48)then
$$\begin{aligned} \tau (\varvec{z}^R) \overset{*}{\rightharpoonup } {\overline{\tau }} \text{ in } \text{ the } \text{ Orlicz } \text{ space } L_{\Psi }(Q) , \quad {\overline{\tau }}(y) = \langle \nu _y, \tau \rangle \text{ for } \text{ a.e. } y\in Q. \end{aligned}$$
Proof
See [14], Chapter 4, Theorem 2.1. \(\square \)
Remark A.4
If \(\varvec{z}^R\) are uniformly bounded in \(L^p(Q;{\mathbb {R}}^m)\) for some \(p\in [1,\infty )\), the condition (47) is satisfied. Indeed, denoting \(A^R_k \equiv \{y\in Q \cap B_r; |\varvec{z}^R(y)| \ge k \}\), we have
Since c is independent of both R and k, we obtain
which implies (47).
The following two lemma justify the introduction of the concentration measures and dissipation defect in Definition 2.2
Lemma A.5
Let \(\{\varvec{z}^R\}_{R > 0}\), \(\varvec{z}^R:Q \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^m\) be a sequence of measurable functions generating a Young measure \(\nu \in L^{\infty }_{weak}(Q; {\mathcal {M}}({\mathbb {R}}^m))\), where Q is a measurable set in \({\mathbb {R}}^d\). For every continuous function \(H:{\mathbb {R}}^m \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) such that
\(\langle \nu _y; H \rangle \) is finite for a.e. \(y\in Q\).
Proof
Without loss of generality, we can consider |H| or, equivalently, assume that \(H \ge 0\). We take a family of cut-off functions
Then \(T_k(H) \in C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m)\) and thus
with
On the other hand we have that
by monotone convergence theorem, we have that
Hence H is \(\nu _y\)-integrable but the integral can also be infinite. However, by the weak-\(*\) lower semi-continuity of the norm
uniformly in k. Then, since
-
(i)
\(\lim _{k\rightarrow \infty } \langle \nu _y; T_k(H) \rangle = \langle \nu _y; H \rangle \) for a.e. \(y\in Q\);
-
(ii)
\(\sup _{k\in {\mathbb {N}}}\Vert \langle \nu _{(\cdot )}; T_k(H)\rangle \Vert _{L^1(Q)} \le c\),
applying Fatou’s lemma we get that \(\Vert \langle \nu _{(\cdot )}; H\rangle \Vert _{L^1(Q)} \le c\). Then \(\langle \nu _y; H \rangle \) is finite for a.e. \(y\in Q\). \(\square \)
Lemma A.6
Let \(\{\varvec{z}^R\}_{R > 0}\), \(\varvec{z}^R: Q \subset {\mathbb {R}}^d \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^m\) be a sequence of measurable functions generating a Young measure \(\nu \in L^{\infty }_{weak}(Q; {\mathcal {M}}({\mathbb {R}}^m))\), where Q is a measurable set in \({\mathbb {R}}^d\). Let
be a continuous function such that
and let F be continuous such that
Denote
where \( \mu _{{\tilde{F}}}, \mu _{{\tilde{G}}} \in {\mathcal {M}}(Q)\) are the weak-\(*\) limits of \(\{F(\varvec{z}^R)\}_{R > 0}\), \(\{G(\varvec{z}^R)\}_{R > 0}\) in \({\mathcal {M}}(Q)\). Then
Proof
We have seen that the Young measure \(\{\nu _y\}_{y\in Q}\) is such that for all \(\psi \in L^1(Q; C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m))\)
as \(R \rightarrow \infty \). Now, from the fact that
we have that for all \(\varphi \in C_0(Q)\)
Now, we can write
with
then, we have that \(\psi \in L^1(Q; C_0({\mathbb {R}}^m))\); indeed, calling \(K=\mathop {{{\mathrm{supp}}}}\limits (\varphi )\) we have
since both \(\varphi \) and F are continuous functions and so they admit maximum on compact sets. Then, for what we have told previously, we have
Applying now Lebesgue theorem we have
Similarly
Then, we deduce
Then, from condition \(|F|\le G\) we obtain what we wanted to prove. \(\square \)
1.1 Young measure for the compressible Euler system with damping
Our next goal is to adapt the abstract machinery presented in previous subsection in order to justify the definition of a dissipative measure-valued solution for the compressible Euler system. To this end, it is enough to take
-
\(Q= (0,T) \times \Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N+1}\);
-
\(m=N+1\);
-
\(\varvec{z}^R=(\varrho _R-{\overline{\varrho }},\mathbf{m }_R)\),
where \((\varrho _R-{\overline{\varrho }}, \mathbf{m }_R=\varrho _R\mathbf{u }_R)\) are the weak solutions of the Navier–Stokes system (14), (15).
First of all, notice that condition (47) is satisfied for \(\varvec{z}^R=(\varrho _R-{\overline{\varrho }}, \mathbf{m }_R)\); indeed, introducing the sets \(A^R_k \equiv \{y\in Q \cap B_r; |\varvec{z}^R(y)| \ge k \}\) we have, for \(y\in A_k^R\)
and hence at least one of the terms on the last line must be \(\ge \frac{k}{4}\) so that
For k large enough \((k\ge 4)\), we have
where in particular the constant \(c(E_0)\) is independent of k and R so that
which implies (47).
The Young measure in our case is then a parametrized family of probability measures supported on the set \([0,\infty )\times {\mathbb {R}}^N\), since the densities are supposed to be non-negative:
It is also easy to check that \(\Psi (t)=t^p\) with \(p>1\) are Young functions that satisfy the \(\Delta _2\)-condition with the constant \(2^p\), and in that case \(L_{\Psi }(Q)=L^p(Q)\). Thus,
-
1.
first, we can take \(\Psi (t)=t^2\) and \(\tau _1(\varvec{z})=z_1\chi (z_1+{\overline{\varrho }})\), where \(\varvec{z}=(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)\) in our case, to notice that condition (48) is equivalent in requiring that \([\varrho _R-{\overline{\varrho }}]_{ess}\) are uniformly bounded in \(L^2((0,T)\times \Omega )\) which is true from (28). Then we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \nu _{t,x}; \tau _1\rangle = f_{\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }}}(t,x) \text{ for } \text{ a.e. } (t,x)\in (0,T)\times \Omega ; \end{aligned}$$also, taking \(\Psi (t)=t^{\gamma }\) and \(\tau _2(\varvec{z})=z_1(1-\chi (z_1+{\overline{\varrho }}))\), condition (48) is equivalent in requiring that \([\varrho _R-{\overline{\varrho }}]_{res}\) are uniformly bounded in \(L^{\gamma }((0,T)\times \Omega )\) which is true from (29). Then we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \nu _{t,x}; \tau _2\rangle = g_{\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }}}(t,x) \text{ for } \text{ a.e. } (t,x)\in (0,T)\times \Omega . \end{aligned}$$Unifying the two results we get
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \nu _{t,x}; \tau _1+\tau _2\rangle = (\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }})(t,x) \text{ for } \text{ a.e. } (t,x)\in (0,T)\times \Omega , \end{aligned}$$where \(\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }}\) is the weak limit of the densities found in (32). We will write \(\langle \nu _{t,x}; \varrho -{\overline{\varrho }} \rangle = (\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }})(t,x)\) for almost every \((t,x) \in (0,T)\times \Omega \) just to make the notation readable;
-
2.
secondly, we can take \(\Psi (t)=t^2\) and \(\tau _1(\varvec{z})=z_i\chi (z_1+{\overline{\varrho }})\) with \(i=2,3,4\) to see that condition (48) is equivalent in requiring that each component of \([\mathbf{m }_R]_{ess}\) is uniformly bounded in \(L^2((0,T)\times \Omega )\) which is true from (30). Also, choosing \(\Psi (t)=t^{\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma +1}}\) and \(\tau _2(\varvec{z})=z_i(1-\chi (z_1+{\overline{\varrho }}))\) with \(i=2,3,4\), condition (48) is equivalent in requiring that each component of \([\mathbf{m }_R]_{res}\) is uniformly bounded in \(L^{\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma +1}}((0,T)\times \Omega )\) which is true from (31). Then we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \nu _{t,x}; \tau _1+\tau _2\rangle = m_i(t,x) \text{ for } \text{ a.e. } (t,x)\in (0,T)\times \Omega , \end{aligned}$$which we will write \(\langle \nu _{t,x}; \mathbf{m } \rangle = \mathbf{m }(t,x)\) for almost every \((t,x) \in (0,T)\times \Omega \), with \(\mathbf{m }\) the weak limit of the momenta found in (33).
Moreover, due to Lemma A.5, it makes sense to introduce the following new measures:
Now, revisiting the momentum equation (35) and using the fact that
we get
for all \(\tau \in [0,T)\) and for all \(\varvec{\varphi } \in C^1_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }};{\mathbb {R}}^N)\), \(\varvec{\varphi }\cdot \mathbf{n }|_{\partial \Omega }=0\), which can be rewritten as
for all \(\tau \in [0,T)\) and for all \(\varvec{\varphi } \in C^1_c([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }};{\mathbb {R}}^N)\), \(\varvec{\varphi }\cdot \mathbf{n }|_{\partial \Omega }=0\), where \( \mu _m={\mathbb {M}}_{\infty }+ p_{\infty }{\mathbb {I}}\in {\mathcal {M}}([0,T]\times {\overline{\Omega }}; {\mathbb {R}}^N\times {\mathbb {R}}^N)\) is a tensor-valued measure.
Similarly, from (36) we get
for a.e. \(\tau \in (0,T)\), which can be rewritten as
for a.e. \(\tau \in (0,T)\), with \({\mathcal {D}}\in L^{\infty }(0,T)\) such that
We also have that
for a.e. \(\tau \in (0,T)\). Indeed,
Now it is sufficient to apply Lemma A.6 with \(F=p(\varrho )-p({\overline{\varrho }})\), \(G=P(\varrho )-P'({\overline{\varrho }})(\varrho -{\overline{\varrho }})-P({\overline{\varrho }})\) first and \(F=\frac{m_im_j}{\varrho }\), \(G=\frac{|\mathbf{m }|^2}{\varrho }\) then, to get
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Basarić, D. Vanishing viscosity limit for the compressible Navier–Stokes system via measure-valued solutions. Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 27, 57 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00030-020-00659-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00030-020-00659-3