Abstract
We study the full Navier–Stokes–Fourier system governing the motion of a general viscous, heat-conducting, and compressible fluid subject to stochastic perturbation. The system is supplemented with non-homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions for the temperature and hence energetically open. We show that, in contrast with the energetically closed system, there exists a stationary solution. Our approach is based on new global-in-time estimates which rely on the non-homogeneous boundary conditions combined with estimates for the pressure.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
It is a common belief that the behaviour of turbulent fluid flows can be fully characterized by a steady state of the system (driven by a suitable stochastic forcing to substitute for possible perturbations due to changes in the boundary data), which is approached asymptotically for large times. Mathematically speaking this gives rise to an invariant measure of the underlying system. This is well-understood for the 2D incompressible stochastic Navier–Stokes equations, cf. [10, 12, 16, 19], where uniqueness is well-known.
If uniqueness is not at hand, even the definition of an invariant measure becomes ambiguous, and one rather studies stationary solutions of the dynamics: solutions with a probability law which does not change in time. This law serves as a substitute for an invariant measure. The existence of stationary solutions to the 3D incompressible stochastic Navier–Stokes equations is a nowadays classical result from [11]. More recently a counterpart for the compressible stochastic Navier–Stokes equations has been established in [4]. It is interesting to note that in both cases stationarity provides a certain regularising effect on the solutions (see also [13] in connection with this).
One may think that adding further physical principles such as the possibility of heat transfer completes the picture. The stochastic Navier–Stokes–Fourier equations haven been studied in [1] and the existence of weak martingale solutions has been shown. They describe the motion of a general viscous, heat-conducting, and compressible fluid subject to stochastic perturbation based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics via an entropy balance as in [8] (see also [20] for an alternative approach based on the internal energy balance due to [7]). Supplemented with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions for the temperature this is an energetically closed system. The mechanical energy which is lost as dissipation is transferred into heat and, different to the incompressible or the isentropic Navier–Stokes equations, weak solutions are known to satisfy an energy equality. The latter one shows that the noise is constantly adding energy to the system such that it can never reach a steady state and, as shown in [1, Section 7], stationary solutions do not exist. Since this is physically not acceptable we are looking for a physical principle which can counteract the energy creation by the noise.
Different to [1] we consider in this paper an energetically open version of the stochastic Navier–Stokes–Fourier equations, where heat can drain through the boundary, see (1.5) below. The time evolution of the fluid in the reference physical domain \(Q\subset R^3\) is governed by the following set of equations:
where W is a cylindrical Wiener process and the diffusion coefficient \({\mathbb {F}}\) can be identified with a sequence \(({\mathbf {F}}_{k})_{k\ge 1}\) satisfying a suitable Hilbert-Schmidt assumption, see Section 2 for the precise definitions. Here \(\varrho \) denotes the density of the fluid, \(\vartheta \) the absolute temperature and \(\mathbf{u}\) the velocity field. For the viscous stress tensor we suppose Newton’s rheological law
The internal energy (heat) flux is determined by Fourier’s law
The thermodynamic functions p and e are related to the (specific) entropy \(s = s(\varrho , \vartheta )\) through Gibbs’ equation
where D denotes the total derivative with respect to \((\varrho ,\vartheta )\). We supplement (1.1)–(1.4) with the boundary conditions (see also [9])
where \(\Theta _0\in L^1(\partial Q)\) is strictly positive, \(M_0>0\) and we suppose that there are \({\underline{d}},{\overline{d}}>0\) such that
In view of Gibb’s relation (1.4), the internal energy equation (1.1c) can be rewritten in the form of the entropy balance
with the entropy production rate
In view of possible singularities, it is convenient to relax the equality sign in (1.8) to the inequality
The system is augmented by the total energy balance
cf. [8, Chapter 2]. In case of a stationary solution applying expectations to (1.10) clearly yields
meaning energy created by the stochastic forcing can leave through the boundary. The existence theory from [1], which leans on the analysis of the isentropic stochastic Navier–Stokes equations from [5] and the deterministic Navier–Stokes–Fourier equations from [8], can be applied to (1.1)–(1.5) without essential differences. In case of the initial value problem an energy estimate can be derived in terms of the initial data. Looking for stationary solutions, the initial data is not known and one has to use stationarity instead. In [4] stationarity is used in combination with pressure estimates to obtain a corresponding estimate for the isentropic problem. When applying the same strategy to the non-isentropic problem (1.1)–(1.4), supplemented with homogeneous boundary conditions for the temperature flux, the temperature is deemed to grow unboundedly due to the irreversible transfer of the mechanical energy into heat.
Assuming the non-homogeneous boundary conditions (1.5) instead we are able to derive new global-in-time energy estimates, see (4.4). The main task is to control the radiation energy given by \(a\vartheta ^4\) without an information on the initial data. In the case of homogeneous boundary conditions one can only obtain informations on the temperature gradient which is not enough to even get estimates for \(\vartheta \) in \(L^1\). For the non-homogeneous problem we benefit from the boundary term in the energy balance (1.10). A suitable application of Itô’s formula combined with Sobolev’s embedding and an interpolation argument allows to control a higher power of the temperature in terms of the energy, see (4.4). Finally, we derive some pressure estimate by means of the Bogovskii operator in (4.6) and (4.16) to close the argument and to obtain uniform-in-time estimates for the total energy. This leads to our main result which is the existence of stationary martingale solutions to (1.1)–(1.5), see Theorem 2.1 for the precise statement.
In order to make the ideas just explained rigorous one has to regularise the system by adding artificial viscosity to the continuity equation (1.1a) (\(\varepsilon \)-layer) and add a high power of the pressure in the momentum equation (1.1b) (\(\delta \)-layer). The resulting system has been solved in [1] by adding three additional layers. The same tedious strategy has been applied in [4] in the construction of stationary solutions to the isentropic system. Here, we follow a different strategy with a much simpler proof. Namely, inspired by the approach due to Itô-Nisio [17] which we recently also applied to the isentropic system with hard sphere pressure [3], we construct stationary solutions directly on the \(\varepsilon \)-level. The first step is to show uniform-in-time estimates for martingale solutions to the initial value problem. In a second step stationary solutions can be constructed by the Krylov–Bogoliubov method as the narrow limit of time-averages. A striking feature of this approach is that stationary solutions are sitting on the trajectory space and are approached asymptotically in time by any solution starting with bounded initial data of certain moments. With a stationary solution to the approximate system at hand one can prove estimate (4.4) which is uniform in time, \(\varepsilon \) and \(\delta \). It has to be combined with pressure estimates which differ on both levels, see (4.6) and (4.16), before one can pass to the limit (both limits have to be done independently). The limit passage can be performed as in previous papers and stationarity is preserved in the limit.
2 Mathematical framework and the main result
2.1 Stochastic forcing
The process W is a cylindrical Wiener process on a separable Hilbert space \({\mathfrak {U}}\), that is, \(W(t)=\sum _{k\ge 1}\beta _k(t) e_k\) with \((\beta _k)_{k\ge 1}\) being mutually independent real-valued standard Wiener processes relative to \((\mathfrak {F}_t)_{t\ge 0}\). Here \((e_k)_{k\ge 1}\) denotes a complete orthonormal system in \(\mathfrak {U}\). In addition, we introduce an auxiliary space \(\mathfrak {U}_0\supset \mathfrak {U}\) via
endowed with the norm
Note that the embedding \(\mathfrak {U}\hookrightarrow \mathfrak {U}_0\) is Hilbert–Schmidt. Moreover, trajectories of W are \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s. in \(C([0,T];\mathfrak {U}_0)\) (see [6]).
Choosing \(\mathfrak {U}= \ell ^2\) we may identify the diffusion coefficients \(({\mathbb {F}} e_k )_{k \ge 1}\) with a sequence of real functions \((\mathbf{F}_k)_{k \ge 1}\),
We suppose that \(\mathbf{F}_k\) are smooth in their arguments, specifically,
where
We easily deduce from (2.1) the following bound
whenever \(k > \frac{3}{2}\). Accordingly, the stochastic integral
can be identified with an element of the Banach space space \(C([0,T]; W^{-k,2}(Q))\),
2.2 Structural and constitutive assumptions
Besides Gibbs’ equation (1.4), we impose several restrictions on the specific shape of the thermodynamic functions \(p=p(\varrho ,\vartheta )\), \(e=e(\varrho ,\vartheta )\) and \(s=s(\varrho ,\vartheta )\). They are borrowed from [8, Chapter 1], to which we refer for the physical background and the relevant discussion.
We consider the pressure p in the form
where
and
As shown in [8, Section 3.2] the assumptions above imply that there is \(c>0\) such that
for all \(\vartheta ,\varrho >0\). Moreover, there is \(s_\infty >0\) such that
Finally, for \({\overline{\vartheta }}>0\) we introduce ballistic free energy given by
which satisfies
on account of (2.11), (2.12) and [8, Prop. 3.2]. The viscosity coefficients \(\mu \), \(\eta \) are continuously differentiable functions of the absolute temperature \(\vartheta \), more precisely \(\mu , \ \lambda \in C^1[0,\infty )\), satisfying
The heat conductivity coefficient \(\kappa \in C^1[0, \infty )\) satisfies
Finally, we introduce certain regularised versions of p, e, s and \(\kappa \) for fixed \(\delta >0\):
2.3 Martingale and stationary solutions
We start with a rigorous definition of (weak) martingale solution to problem (1.1)–(1.5) as given in [1], where also the existence of a solution to the corresponding initial value problem is proved.
Definition 2.1
(Martingale solution) Let \(Q \subset R^3\) be a bounded domain of class \(C^{2 + \nu }\), \(\nu > 0\). Then
is called (weak) martingale solution to problem (1.1)–(1.5) provided the following holds.
-
(a)
\((\Omega ,\mathfrak {F},(\mathfrak {F}_t),{\mathbb {P}})\) is a stochastic basis with a complete right-continuous filtration;
-
(b)
W is an \((\mathfrak {F}_t)\)-cylindrical Wiener process;
-
(c)
the random variables
$$\begin{aligned} \varrho \in L^1_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty );L^1(Q)),\ \vartheta \in L^1_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty );L^1(Q)),\ \mathbf{u}\in L^2_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty ); W^{1,2}_0(Q; R^3)) \end{aligned}$$are \((\mathfrak {F}_t)\)-progressively measurableFootnote 1, \(\varrho \ge 0\), \(\vartheta > 0\) \({\mathbb {P}}\text{-a.s. }\);
-
(d)
the equation of continuity
$$\begin{aligned} \int _0^\infty \int _{Q} \left[ \varrho \partial _t \psi + \varrho \mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \psi \right] \ \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t= 0; \end{aligned}$$(2.19)holds for all \(\psi \in C^\infty _c((0,\infty ) \times R^3)\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s.;
-
(e)
the momentum equation
$$\begin{aligned}&\int _0^\infty \partial _t \psi \int _{Q} \varrho \mathbf{u}\cdot \varvec{\varphi } \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\\&\quad +\int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} \varrho \mathbf{u}\otimes \mathbf{u}: \nabla \varvec{\varphi } \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t-\int _0^T \psi \int _{Q} {\mathbb {S}}(\vartheta ,\nabla \mathbf{u}) : \nabla \varvec{\varphi } \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\nonumber \\&\quad +\int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} p(\varrho ,\vartheta ) {{\,\mathrm{div}\,}}\varvec{\varphi } \ \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t+ \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} \varrho {\mathbf{\mathbb {F}}}(\varrho , \vartheta , \mathbf{u}) \cdot \varvec{\varphi } \ \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}W =0;\nonumber \end{aligned}$$(2.20)holds for all \(\psi \in C^\infty _c(0,\infty )\), \(\varvec{\varphi }\in C^\infty _c(Q;R^3)\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s.
-
(f)
the entropy balance
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}&- \int _0^\infty \int _{Q} \left[ \varrho s(\varrho ,\vartheta ) \partial _t \psi + \varrho s (\varrho ,\vartheta )\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \psi \right] \ \,\mathrm {d}x\mathrm {d}t\\&\ge \int _0^\infty \int _{Q} \frac{1}{\vartheta }\Big [{\mathbb {S}}(\vartheta ,\nabla \mathbf{u}):\nabla \mathbf{u}+\frac{\kappa (\vartheta )}{\vartheta }|\nabla \vartheta |^2\Big ] \psi \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t \\&- \int _0^\infty \int _{Q} \frac{\kappa (\vartheta )\nabla \vartheta }{\vartheta } \cdot \nabla \psi \ \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t -\int _0^\infty \int _{\partial Q}\psi \frac{d(\vartheta )}{\vartheta }(\vartheta -\Theta _0)\,\mathrm {d}{\mathcal {H}}^2\,\mathrm {d}t\end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(2.21)holds for all \(\psi \in C^\infty _c((0,\infty )\times R^3)\), \(\psi \ge 0\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s.;
-
(g)
the total energy balance
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} - \int _0^\infty&\partial _t \psi \left( \int _{Q} {\mathcal {E}}(\varrho ,\vartheta , \mathbf{u}) \ \,\mathrm {d}x \right) \ \,\mathrm {d}t= -\int _0^\infty \psi \int _{\partial Q}d(\vartheta -\Theta _0)\,\mathrm {d}{\mathcal {H}}^2\,\mathrm {d}t\\&+\int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q}\varrho {{\mathbb {F}}}(\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u})\cdot \mathbf{u}\,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}W\,\mathrm {d}x\\&+ \frac{1}{2} \int _0^\infty \psi \bigg (\int _{Q} \sum _{k \ge 1} \varrho | \mathbf{F}_k (\varrho ,\vartheta , \mathbf{u}) |^2 \ \,\mathrm {d}x \bigg ) \mathrm{d}t \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(2.22)holds for any \(\psi \in C^\infty _c(0, \infty )\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s. Here, we abbreviated
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal {E}}(\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u})= \frac{1}{2} \varrho | \mathbf{u} |^2 + \varrho e(\varrho ,\vartheta ). \end{aligned}$$
In the following we are going to introduce the concept of stationary martingale solutions. We start with a standard definition of stationarity for stochastic processes with values in Sobolev spaces.
Definition 2.1
(Classical stationarity) Let \({{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}=\{{{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}(t);t\in [0,\infty )\}\) be an \(W^{k,p}(Q)\)-valued measurable stochastic process, where \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}_0\) and \(p\in [1,\infty )\). We say that \({{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}\) is stationary on \(W^{k,p}(Q)\) provided the joint laws
on \([W^{k,p}(Q)]^n\) coincide for all \(\tau \ge 0\), for all \(t_1,\dots ,t_n\in [0,\infty )\).
As can be seen from Definition 2.1, the velocity \(\mathbf{u}\) and the temperature \(\vartheta \) are not stationary in the sense of Definition 2.1 as they are only equivalence classes in time. Therefore we use the following definition of stationarity which has been introduced in [4], and applies to random variables ranging in the space \(L^q_\mathrm{loc}([0, \infty );W^{k,p}(Q))\).
Definition 2.2
(Weak stationarity) Let \({{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}\) be an \(L^q_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty );W^{k,p}(Q))\)-valued random variable, where \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}_0\) and \(p,q\in [1,\infty )\). Let \({\mathcal {S}}_\tau \) be the time shift on the space of trajectories given by \({\mathcal {S}}_\tau {{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}(t)={{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}(t+\tau ).\) We say that \({{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}\) is stationary on \(L^q_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty );W^{k,p}(Q))\) provided the laws \({\mathcal {L}}({\mathcal {S}}_\tau {{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}),\) \( {\mathcal {L}}({{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}})\) on \(L^q_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty );W^{k,p}(Q))\) coincide for all \(\tau \ge 0\).
Definitions 2.1 and 2.2 are equivalent as soon as the stochastic process in question is continuous in time; or alternatively, if it is weakly continuous and satisfies a suitable uniform bound, cf. [4, Lemma A.2 and Corollary A.3]. Furthermore, it can be shown that both notions of stationarity are stable under weak convergence as can be seen from the following two lemmas (the proofs of which can be found in [4, Appendix]).
Lemma 2.1
Let \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}_0, p,q\in [1,\infty )\) and let \(({{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}_m)\) be a sequence of random variables taking values in \(L^q_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty );W^{k,p}(Q)))\). If, for all \(m\in {\mathbb {N}}\), \({{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}_m\) is stationary on \(L^q_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty );W^{k,p}(Q))\) in the sense of Definition 2.2 and
then \({{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}\) is stationary on \(L^q_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty );W^{k,p}(Q))\).
Lemma 2.2
Let \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}_0\), \(p\in [1,\infty )\) and let \(({{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}_m)\) be a sequence of \(W^{k,p}(Q)\)-valued stochastic processes which are stationary on \(W^{k,p}(Q)\) in the sense of Definition 2.1. If for all \(T>0\)
and
then \({{\tilde{\mathbf{u}}}}\) is stationary on \(W^{k,p}(Q)\).
In the following we define a stationary martingale solution to (1.1)–(1.5).
Definition 2.3
A weak martingale solution \([\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u}, W]\) to (1.1)–(1.5) is called stationary provided the joint law of the time shift \( \left[ {\mathcal {S}}_\tau \varrho ,{\mathcal {S}}_\tau \vartheta , {\mathcal {S}}_\tau \mathbf{u}, {\mathcal {S}}_\tau W - W (\tau )\right] \) on
is independent of \(\tau \ge 0\).
We now state our main result concerning the existence of a stationary martingale solution to (1.1)–(1.5).
Theorem 2.1
Let \(M_0 \in (0,\infty )\) be given. Suppose that the structural assumptions (2.2)–(2.17) are in force and that the diffusion coecfficient \({\mathbb {F}}\) satisfies (2.1). Then problem (1.1)–(1.5) admits a stationary martingale solution in the sense of Definition 2.3.
The proof of Theorem 2.1 is split into several parts. In the next section we study the approximate system with regularisation parameters \(\varepsilon \) and \(\delta \). The proof will be completed in Sect. 4 after passing to the limit in \(\varepsilon \) and \(\delta \).
3 The viscous approximation
In this section we study the viscous approximation to (1.1)–(1.5), where the continuity equation contains an artificial diffusion (\(\varepsilon \)-layer) and the pressure is stabilised by an artificial high power to the density (\(\delta \)-layer). In addition to the common terms we add additional stabilising quantities in the continuity equations as in [4], see (3.1) below.
3.1 Martingale solutions
In this subsection we give a precise formulation of the approximated problem. For this purpose we introduce a cut-off function
We denote by \(M_\varepsilon \) the unique solution to the equation \(2\varepsilon z=\chi (z/M_0)\) which obviously satisfies \(M_\varepsilon \le M_0\). Finally, the diffusion coefficients are regularised by replacing \(\mathbf{\mathbb {F}}\) by \(\mathbf{\mathbb {F}}_\varepsilon \),
Let us start with a precise formulation of the problem.
-
Regularized equation of continuity.
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \int _{0}^{\infty }&\int _{Q} \left[ \varrho \partial _t \varphi + \varrho \mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \varphi \right] \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\\&= \varepsilon \int _0^\infty \int _{Q} \left[ \nabla \varrho \cdot \nabla \varphi - 2 \varrho \varphi \right] \ \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t- 2\varepsilon \int _0^\infty \int _{Q} M_{\varepsilon } \varphi \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(3.1)for any \(\varphi \in C^\infty _c((0, \infty ) \times Q)\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s.
-
Regularized momentum equation.
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \int _0^\infty \partial _t \psi&\int _Q \varrho \mathbf{u}\cdot \varphi \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t+ \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} \varrho \mathbf{u}\otimes \mathbf{u}: \nabla \varphi \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\\&\quad + \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} p_\delta (\vartheta ,\varrho ) {{\,\mathrm{div}\,}}\varphi \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\\&\quad - \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} {\mathbb {S}}(\vartheta ,\nabla \mathbf{u}) : \nabla \varphi \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t- \varepsilon \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} \varrho \mathbf{u}\cdot \Delta \varphi \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\\&\quad - 2 \varepsilon \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} \varrho \mathbf{u}\cdot \varphi \ \,\mathrm {d}x \ \,\mathrm {d}t\\&=- \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} \varrho {\mathbb {F}}_\varepsilon (\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u}) \cdot \varphi \ \,\mathrm {d}x \ \mathrm{d}W \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(3.2)for any \(\psi \in C^\infty _c((0, \infty ))\), \(\varphi \in C^\infty (Q; {\mathbb {R}}^3)\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s.
-
Regularized entropy balance.
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}&- \int _0^\infty \int _{Q} \left[ \varrho s_\delta (\varrho ,\vartheta ) \partial _t \psi + \varrho s_\delta (\varrho ,\vartheta )\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \psi \right] \,\varphi \ \,\mathrm {d}x\mathrm {d}t\\ \ge&\int _0^\infty \int _{Q} \frac{1}{\vartheta }\Big [{\mathbb {S}}(\vartheta ,\nabla \mathbf{u}):\nabla \mathbf{u}+\frac{\kappa _\delta (\vartheta )}{\vartheta }|\nabla \vartheta |^2+\delta \frac{1}{\vartheta ^2}\Big ] \psi \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t \\&+ \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} \frac{\kappa _\delta (\vartheta )\nabla \vartheta }{\vartheta } \cdot \nabla \varphi \ \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t \\&-\int _0^\infty \psi \int _{\partial Q}\varphi \frac{d(\vartheta )}{\vartheta }(\vartheta -\Theta _0)\,\mathrm {d}{\mathcal {H}}^2\,\mathrm {d}t\\&-\varepsilon \int _0^\infty \psi \int _Q\left[ \left( \vartheta s_{M,\delta } (\varrho , \vartheta ) - e_{M, \delta } (\varrho , \vartheta ) - \frac{p_M (\varrho , \vartheta ) }{\varrho } \right) \frac{ \nabla \varrho }{\vartheta } \right] \cdot \nabla \varphi \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t\\&+\int _0^\infty \psi \int _Q\left[ \frac{\varepsilon \delta }{2 \vartheta } ( \beta \varrho ^{\beta - 2} + 2) |\nabla \varrho |^2+\varepsilon \frac{1}{\varrho \vartheta } \frac{\partial p_M}{\partial \varrho } (\varrho , \vartheta ) |\nabla \varrho |^2 - \varepsilon \vartheta ^4\right] \varphi \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t\\&+\int _0^\infty \psi \int _Q\big (-2\varepsilon \varrho +2\varepsilon M_\varepsilon \big )\frac{1}{\vartheta }\Big ( \vartheta s_{M,\delta }(\varrho , \vartheta ) - e_{M,\delta }(\varrho , \vartheta ) - \frac{p_M(\varrho , \vartheta )}{\varrho } \Big )\,\varphi \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t\end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(3.3)for any \(\psi \in C^\infty _c((0, \infty ))\), \(\varphi \in C^\infty (Q; {\mathbb {R}}^3)\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s.
-
Regularized total energy balance.
$$\begin{aligned}&\quad - \int _0^\infty \partial _t \psi \bigg (\int _{Q} {{\mathcal {E}}_\delta (\varrho ,\vartheta , \mathbf{u}) } \,\mathrm {d}x\bigg ) \,\mathrm {d}t+ \int _0^\infty {\psi } \int _{Q} \varepsilon \vartheta ^5 \,\mathrm {d}t\nonumber \\&\quad +2 \varepsilon \int _0^T\psi \int _{Q} \left[ \delta \varrho ^2 + \frac{\delta \Gamma }{\Gamma - 1} \varrho ^{\Gamma }+\frac{1}{2}\varrho |\mathbf{u}|^2 \right] \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\nonumber \\&\quad +\int _0^\infty \psi \int _{\partial Q}d(\vartheta -\Theta _0)\,\mathrm {d}{\mathcal {H}}^2\,\mathrm {d}t\nonumber \\&= \int _0^\infty \int _{Q}\frac{\delta }{\vartheta ^2}\psi \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t+\int _0^\infty \psi \varepsilon M_\varepsilon \int _{Q} \left( 2\delta \varrho + \frac{\delta \Gamma }{\Gamma - 1} \varrho ^{\Gamma - 1} +\frac{1}{2}|\mathbf{u}|^2\right) \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\nonumber \\&\quad + \frac{1}{2} \int _0^T \psi \bigg ( \int _{Q} \sum _{k \ge 1} \varrho | \mathbf{F}_{k,\varepsilon } (\varrho ,\vartheta , \mathbf{u}) |^2 \ \,\mathrm {d}x \bigg ) \mathrm{d}t \nonumber \\&\quad +\int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q}\varrho {\mathbb {F}_\varepsilon }(\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u})\cdot \mathbf{u}\,\mathrm {d}W\,\mathrm {d}x\end{aligned}$$(3.4)holds for any \(\psi \in C^\infty _c(0, \infty )\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s., where we have set
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal {E}}_\delta =\frac{1}{2}\varrho |\mathbf{u}|^2+\varrho e_\delta (\varrho ,\vartheta )+\delta \Big (\varrho ^2+\frac{1}{\Gamma -1}\varrho ^\Gamma \Big ). \end{aligned}$$
We have the following result.
Proposition 3.1
Let \(\varepsilon ,\delta >0\) be given. Then there exists a weak martingale solution \([\varrho _\varepsilon ,\vartheta _\varepsilon ,\mathbf{u}_\varepsilon ]\) to (3.1)–(3.4). In addition, for \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and every \(\psi \in C^\infty _c((0,\infty ))\), \(\psi \ge 0\), the following generalized energy inequality holds true
Here we abbreviated
and \(E_{H}^{\delta , \overline{\vartheta }}=\frac{1}{2}\varrho |\mathbf{u}|^2+H_{\overline{\vartheta }}(\varrho , \vartheta )+\delta \big (\varrho ^2+\frac{1}{\Gamma -1}\varrho ^\Gamma \big )\), where
with \(H_{\overline{\vartheta }}(\varrho , \vartheta )\) introduced in (2.2).
Proof
Although there are some differences to system (4.24)–(4.27) from [1] the method still applies (in particular, it is possible to allow an unbounded time interval by working with spaces of the from \(L^q_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty );X)\) and \(C_\mathrm{loc}([,0,\infty );X)\) for Banach spaces X) and we obtain the existence of a weak martingale solution to (3.1)–(3.4). We remark, in particular, that the solution in [1] is constructed with respect to some initial law which does not play any role in our analysis. For simplicity we choose
which satisfies all the required assumptions.
As far as the energy inequality is concerned, the required version can be derived on the basic approximate level (even with equality) and it is preserved in the limit. In fact, one can argue as in [1, Section 4.1] to derive the version for \(n=1\), while the case \(n\ge 2\) follows easily from Itô’s formula. It is worth to point out that this procedure to test the continuity equation (3.1) with \(\frac{1}{2}|\mathbf{u}|^2\) and \(2\delta \varrho +\frac{\delta \Gamma }{\Gamma -1}\varrho ^\Gamma \) gives rise to the terms
and
in (3.5) which are new in comparison to [1]. Also, the term
which arises due to the last line in (3.3), does not appear in [1]. Finally, as in (1.10) we have the boundary term due to non-homogeneous boundary conditions being incorporated already in (3.3). \(\square \)
3.2 Uniform-in-time estimates
The first step is now to derive estimates which are uniform in time.
Proposition 3.2
Let \((\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u})\) be a weak martingale solution to (3.1)–(3.4). Assume that
for some \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\). Then for any \({\overline{\vartheta }}>0\) and \(\varepsilon \le \varepsilon _0\) there is \(E_\infty =E_\infty (n,\varepsilon ,\delta ,\vartheta )\) such that
as well as
for a.a. \(\tau > 0\).
Proof
The energy inequality in (3.5) yields for a.a. \(0< \tau _1<\tau _2\) (approximating \(\psi ={\mathbb {I}}_{(\tau _1,\tau _2)}\) by a sequence of functions \((\psi _m)\subset C^\infty _c(0,\infty )\))
Let us first consider the terms on the left-hand side. We have
for all \(\kappa >0\) as well as
due to (2.13). Finally, due to (2.9)–(2.12),
is bounded from below by a negative constant, such that the corresponding term can be bounded from below by \(-c(\tau _2-\tau _1)\).
Using (2.1), \(\int _Q\varrho \,\mathrm {d}x=M_\varepsilon \le M_0\) and (2.13) the terms (V) and (VIII) can be bounded by
where \(\kappa >0\) is arbitrary. Clearly, (IV) vanishes after taking expectations. On account of (2.9)–(2.12) we have
Consequently, the estimate for (VII) is analogous to one for (V) and (VIII) above. We quote from [8, equ. (3.107)]
provided we choose \(\varepsilon = \varepsilon (\delta ) > 0\) small enough. Finally, we clearly have
Combing everything and choosing \(\kappa \) small enough and noticing that \(\delta \frac{1}{\vartheta ^3}\le \sigma _{\varepsilon ,\delta }\) yields
for all \(0\le \tau _1<\tau _2\) with some \(D>0\). We obtain in particular
Applying the Gronwall lemma from [3, Lemma 3.1] and recalling hypothesis (3.7) we obtain
uniformly in \(\tau >0\). Using this in (3.13) shows
by possibly enlarging \(E_\infty \). \(\square \)
3.3 Stationary solutions
Based on Proposition 3.2 the method from [17] becomes available and we can construct a stationary solution to (3.1)–(3.4) following the ideas from [3] to which we refer for further details. Different to Section 2.3 we consider stationary solutions sitting on the space of trajectories that are defined on the real line R rather than the interval \([0,\infty )\). We will call them entire stationary solutions. This construction is clearly stronger and hence we obtain also stationary solutions in the sense of Definitions 2.1.
Clearly, Definition 2.1 can be easily modified for solutions \(((\Omega ,\mathfrak {F},(\mathfrak {F}_t)_{t\ge -T},{\mathbb {P}}),\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u},W)\) being defined on \([-T,\infty )\) for some \(T>0\). An entire solution is than an object
which is a solution on \([-T,\infty )\) for any \(T>0\). It takes values in the trajectory space
where \(C_{\mathrm{loc}, 0}\) denotes the space of continuous functions vanishing at 0. We denote by \(\mathfrak {P}({\mathcal {T}})\) the set of Borel probability measures on \({\mathcal {T}}\).
We say that an entire solution to (3.1)–(3.4) of the problem (3.1)–(3.4) is stationary if its law \({\mathcal {L}}_{{\mathcal {T}}}[\varrho ,\vartheta , \mathbf{u}, W] \) is shift invariant in the trajectory space \({\mathcal {T}} \), meaning
with the time shift operator
Proposition 3.3
Let the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 be valid and let \(\varepsilon \le \varepsilon _0\) and \(\delta ,{\overline{\vartheta }}>0\) be given. Let
be a weak martingale solution of the problem (3.1)–(3.4) (in the sense of Definition 2.1 with the obvious modifications) such that
Then there is a sequence \(T_n \rightarrow \infty \) and an entire stationary solution
such that
Proof
Let \([\varrho , \mathbf{u}, W]\) be a dissipative martingale solution on \([0,\infty )\) defined on some stochastic basis \((\Omega ,\mathfrak {F},(\mathfrak {F}_{t})_{t\ge 0},{\mathbb {P}})\) and satisfying (3.14). We define the probability measures
We tacitly regard functions defined on time intervals \([-t,\infty )\) as trajectories on R by extending them to \(s\le -t\) by the value at \(-t\). As in [3, Prop. 5.1] we can show that the family of measures \(\{\nu _{S};\,S>0\}\) is tight on \({\mathcal {T}}\). In fact, Proposition 3.2 yields
This gives the same bounds on \(\varrho \) and \(\mathbf{u}\) as in [3] and we control additionally
which implies tightness of \(\frac{1}{S} \int _0^S {\mathcal {L}}_{{\mathcal {T}}} (S_t [\vartheta ]) \,\mathrm {d}t\). Note also that we have control of \(\nabla \varrho \) due to \(\varepsilon >0\) which is different from [3].
Due to [3, Lemma 5.2], if the narrow limit of
in \(\mathfrak {P} ({\mathcal {T}})\) as \(n \rightarrow \infty \) exists for some \(\tau =\tau _0 \in R\) then it exists for all \(\tau \in R\) and is independent of the choice of \(\tau \). Applying Jakubowski–Skorokhod’s theorem [18], we infer the existence of a sequence \(S_{n}\rightarrow \infty \) and \(\nu \in \mathfrak {P} ({\mathcal {T}})\) so that \(\nu _{0, S_n} \rightarrow \nu \) narrowly in \(\mathfrak {P} ({\mathcal {T}})\) as well as \(\nu _{\tau , S_n} \rightarrow \nu \) narrowly for all \(\tau \in R\). Accordingly, the limit measure \(\nu \) is shift invariant in the sense that for every \(G\in BC({\mathcal {T}})\) and every \(\tau \in R\) we have \(\nu (G\circ S_{\tau })=\nu (G).\) To conclude the proof of Theorem 3.3, it remains to show that \(\nu \) is a law of an entire solution to (3.1)–(3.4).
First of all, we can argue as in [3, Prop. 5.3] to show that for any \(S>0\)
is a dissipative martingale solution on \((- T, \infty )\), provided \((\varrho ,\vartheta , \mathbf{u}, W)\) is a dissipative martingale solution on \((-T,\infty )\) defined on some probability space \((\Omega ,{\mathcal {F}},{\mathbb {P}})\). The idea is to use that (3.1), (3.2) and (3.4) can be written as measurable mappings on the paths space (see the proof of [3, Prop. 5.3] for how to include the stochastic integral). Unfortunately, this is not true for the quantities hidden in \(\sigma _{\varepsilon ,\delta }\) appearing in(3.4) and (3.13). However, they are measurable on a subset, where the laws \({\mathcal {L}}(S_{t}[\varrho , \mathbf{u}, W])\) are supported. Recall from (3.9) that \(\sigma _{\varepsilon ,\delta }\) belongs a.s. to \(L^1\) in space and locally in time for any solution. This is enough to arrive at the same conclusion.
To finish the proof we argue that the limit \(\nu \) is the law of an entire solution to (3.1)–(3.4). Now we consider the measures \(\nu _{\tau , S_n - \tau }\), \(n=1,2, \dots \), and \(\tau >0\). According to the previous considerations, \(\nu _{\tau ,S_{n}-\tau }\) is a dissipative martingale solution to (3.1)–(3.4) on \([-\tau ,\infty )\) and the narrow limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) exists and equals to \(\nu \). Now we take a sequence \(\tau _m \rightarrow \infty \) and choose a diagonal sequence such that
Applying Jakubowski–Skorokhod’s theorem, we obtain a sequence of approximate processes \([{\tilde{\varrho }}_m, \tilde{\mathbf{u}}_m, {\tilde{W}}_m]\) converging a.s. to a process \([{\tilde{\varrho }}, \tilde{\mathbf{u}}, {\tilde{W}}] \) in the topology of \({\mathcal {T}}\). Moreover, the law of \([{\tilde{\varrho }}_m, \tilde{\mathbf{u}}_m, {\tilde{W}}_m]\) is \(\nu _{\tau _{m},S_{n(m)}-\tau _{m}}\) and necessarily the law of \([{\tilde{\varrho }}, \tilde{\mathbf{u}}, {\tilde{W}}] \) is \(\nu \). By [2, Thm. 2.9.1] it follows that equations (3.1)–(3.4) as well as (3.5) also hold on the new probability space. The limit procedure on this level is quite easy due to the artificial viscosity: By definition of \({\mathcal {T}}_\varrho \) the sequence \({{\tilde{\varrho }}}_n\) is compact on \(L^\Gamma \). Moreover, the strong convergence of \({{\tilde{\vartheta }}}_n\) can be proved exactly as in the deterministic existence theory (see [8, Sec. 3.5.3]). This is enough to pass to the limit in all nonlinearities in (3.1), (3.2) and (3.4). The terms in (3.3) and (3.5) which are not compact (those related to the quantity \(\sigma _{\varepsilon ,\delta }\)) are convex functions and hence can be dealt with by lower-semicontinuity. \(\square \)
4 Asymptotic limit
In this section we pass to the limit and the artificial viscosity and the artificial pressure respectively. They crucial point is a uniform-in-time estimate, see (4.7) and (4.8) below, which preserves stationarity in the limit. It has to be combined with pressure estimates which differ on both levels. The key ingredient for estimates (4.7) and (4.8) is the non-homogeneous boundary condition for the temperature, cf. (1.5).
4.1 The vanishing viscosity limit
In this section we start with a stationary solution \((\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u})\) to (3.1)–(3.4) existence of which is guaranteed by Proposition 3.3. We prove uniform-in-time estimates and pass subsequently to the limits in \(\varepsilon \) and \(\delta \).
The entropy balance (3.3) yields after taking expectations and using stationarity
On account of (3.11) the first two terms can be bounded by
The estimate is independent of \(\delta \) if we choose \(\varepsilon \le \delta \). Similarly, we obtain
using (1.6) and the trace theorem. In conclusion,
independently of \(\varepsilon \) and \(\delta \) recalling also (2.13) and \(\int _Q\varrho \,\mathrm {d}x\le M_\varepsilon \le M_0\). By (2.13) this implies for any \(\xi >0\)
such that
independently of \(\varepsilon \) and \(\delta \).
In (3.5) we choose \(n=2\), apply expectations and use stationarity to obtain
Arguing as in the proof of Proposition 3.2 but paying attention to the \(\varepsilon \)- and \(\delta \)-dependence we have
Again these estimates are also uniform in \(\delta \) if we choose \(\varepsilon \) small enough compared to \(\delta \). Recalling (2.13) and \(\int _Q\varrho \,\mathrm {d}x\le M_\varepsilon \le M_0\) we thus obtain
This, inserted in left-hand side of (4.3) yields
independently of \(\varepsilon \) and \(\delta \) using also (4.1).
In order to close the estimate why apply pressure estimates which now can depend on \(\delta \). Let us introduce the so–called Bogovskii operator \({\mathcal {B}}\) enjoying the following properties:
see [14, Chapter 3] or [15]. Arguing as in [4, Section 5] (but replacing \(\nabla \Delta ^{-1}\) by the Bogovskii operator \({\mathcal {B}}\)) we obtain
The terms (II) and (IV)–(VI) can be estimated as in [4] (note that they don’t contain \(\vartheta \)). In fact, we have by (2.13) and the continuity of \(\nabla {\mathcal {B}}\)
provided \(\Gamma \) is large enough. Furthermore, we obtain for some \(\alpha \in (0,1)\)
using again (2.13), \(\int _Q\varrho \,\mathrm {d}x\le M_\varepsilon \le M_0\), (4.4) as well as (4.1). We can estimate (V) and (VI) along the same lines. Using (2.14) and (2.16) we have for \(\Gamma \) large enough
due to (2.13) (4.1). Obviously, the same estimate holds for (I) such that we can conclude
using also (4.2). Obviously, we have
for any \(\xi ,{{\tilde{\xi }}}>0\) using again (4.1). Consequently, all terms can be absorbed in the left-hand side and we end up with
as well as
using (4.1).
Estimates (4.7) and (4.8) are sufficient to pass to the limit in (3.1)–(3.4) arguing as in [1, Section 5] (in fact, one has to combine ideas from [2] and [8]). In the limit \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\), we obtain the following system.
-
Equation of continuity.
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \int _{0}^{\infty }&\int _{Q} \left[ \varrho \partial _t \varphi + \varrho \mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \varphi \right] \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t= 0 \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(4.9)for any \(\varphi \in C^\infty _c((0, \infty ) \times Q)\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s.
-
Momentum equation.
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \int _0^\infty \partial _t&\psi \int _{Q} \varrho \mathbf{u}\cdot \varvec{\varphi } \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t+ \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} \varrho \mathbf{u}\otimes \mathbf{u}: \nabla \varvec{\varphi } \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\\&+ \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} p_\delta (\vartheta ,\varrho ) {{\,\mathrm{div}\,}}\varvec{\varphi } \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t\\&- \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} {\mathbb {S}}(\vartheta ,\nabla \mathbf{u}) : \nabla \varvec{\varphi } \ \,\mathrm {d}x \,\mathrm {d}t=- \int _0^\infty \psi \int _{Q} \varrho {\mathbb {F}}(\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u}) \cdot \varvec{\varphi } \ \,\mathrm {d}x \ \mathrm{d}W \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(4.10)for any \(\psi \in C^\infty _c((0, \infty ))\), \(\varvec{\varphi }\in C^\infty (Q; {\mathbb {R}}^3)\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s.
-
Entropy balance.
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} - \int _0^\infty&\int _{Q} \left[ \varrho s_\delta (\varrho ,\vartheta ) \partial _t \psi + \varrho s_\delta (\varrho ,\vartheta )\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \psi \right] \,\varphi \ \,\mathrm {d}x\mathrm {d}t\\\ge&\int _0^\infty \int _{Q} \frac{1}{\vartheta }\Big [{\mathbb {S}}_\delta (\vartheta ,\nabla \mathbf{u}):\nabla \mathbf{u}+\frac{\kappa _\delta (\vartheta )}{\vartheta }|\nabla \vartheta |^2+\delta \frac{1}{\vartheta ^2}\Big ] \psi \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t \\&+ \int _0^\infty \int _{Q} \frac{\kappa _\delta (\vartheta )\nabla \vartheta }{\vartheta } \cdot \nabla \psi \ \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t-\int _0^\infty \psi \int _{\partial Q}\frac{d}{\vartheta }(\vartheta -\Theta _0)\,\mathrm {d}{\mathcal {H}}^2\,\mathrm {d}t\end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(4.11)for any \(\psi \in C^\infty _c((0, \infty ))\), \(\varphi \in C^\infty (Q; {\mathbb {R}}^3)\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s.
-
Total energy balance.
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} - \int _0^T&\partial _t \psi \bigg (\int _{Q} {{\mathcal {E}}_\delta (\varrho ,\vartheta , \mathbf{u}) } \,\mathrm {d}x\bigg ) \,\mathrm {d}t+\int _0^\infty \psi \int _{\partial Q}d(\vartheta -\Theta _0)\,\mathrm {d}{\mathcal {H}}^2\,\mathrm {d}t\\ =&\,\psi (0) \int _{Q} {{\mathcal {E}}_\delta (\varrho _0,\vartheta _0, \mathbf{u}_0 )} \ \,\mathrm {d}x+\int _0^T\int _{Q}\frac{\delta }{\vartheta ^2}\psi \,\mathrm {d}x\,\mathrm {d}t\\&+ \frac{1}{2} \int _0^T \psi \bigg ( \int _{Q} \sum _{k \ge 1} \varrho | \mathbb {F}_{k} (\varrho ,\vartheta , \mathbf{u}) |^2 \ \,\mathrm {d}x \bigg ) \mathrm{d}t\\&+\int _0^T \psi \int _{Q}\varrho {\mathbf{F}}(\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u})\cdot \mathbf{u}\,\mathrm {d}W\,\mathrm {d}x\end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$(4.12)for any \(\psi \in C^\infty _c(0, \infty )\) \({\mathbb {P}}\)-a.s.
To summarize, we deduce the following.
Proposition 4.1
Let \(\delta >0\) be given. Then there exists a stationary weak martingale solution \([\varrho _\delta ,\vartheta _\delta ,\mathbf{u}_\delta ]\) to (4.9)–(4.12). Moreover, we have the estimates
uniformly in \(\delta \), where
Corollary 4.1
The solution from Proposition 4.1 satisfies the equation of continuity in the renormalised sense.
4.2 The vanishing artificial pressure limit
Though (4.13) and (4.14) are uniform in \(\delta \), the final estimates (4.7) and (4.8) are not. Again we have to close the estimate by some pressure bounds. Let \((\varrho ,\vartheta ,\mathbf{u})\) be a stationary solution to (4.9)–(4.12) as obtained in Proposition 4.1. Arguing as in [4, Section 6] (replacing again \(\nabla \Delta ^{-1}\) by the Bogovskii operator \({\mathcal {B}}\)) we have
where \(\alpha >0\) will be chosen sufficiently small. As in the proof of [4, Prop. 6.1] we obtain
Also we see that
choosing \(\alpha \) small enough and using (2.14) and (2.16). Combining these estimate with (4.13) and (4.14) we conclude
recalling also (4.2). As in the proof of (4.7) and (4.8) we deduce
using (4.14). With estimates (4.17) and (4.18) at hand we can follow the lines of [1, Section 6] to pass to the limit \(\delta \rightarrow 0\) in (4.9) and (4.10). The limit in (4.9) and (4.10) can be performed as in [1, Section 7] due to (4.17) and (4.19). This finishes the proof of Theorem 2.1.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Notes
The progressive measurability is understood in the sense of random distributions as introduced in [2, Section 2.2].
References
Breit, D., Feireisl, E.: Stochastic Navier-Stokes-Fourier equations. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 69, 911–975 (2020)
Breit, D., Feireisl, E., Hofmanová, M.: Stochastically forced compressible fluid flows. In: De Gruyter Series in Applied and Numerical Mathematics. De Gruyter, Berlin (2018)
Breit, D., Feireisl, E., Hofmanová, M.: On the Long Time Behavior of Compressible Fluid Flows Excited by Random Forcing. arXiv:2012.07476
Breit, D., Feireisl, E., Hofmanová, M., Maslowski, B.: Stationary solutions to the compressible Navier-Stokes system driven by stochastic forcing. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 174, 981–1032 (2019)
Breit, D., Hofmanová, M.: Stochastic Navier-Stokes equations for compressible fluids. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 65, 1183–1250 (2016)
Da Prato, G., Zabczyk, J.: Stochastic Equations in Infinite Dimensions, Encyclopedia Math. Appl., vol. 44. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)
Feireisl, E.: Dynamics of Compressible Flow, Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)
Feireisl, E., Novotný, A.: Singular Limits in Thermodynamics of Viscous Fluids. Birkhäuser, Basel (2009)
Feireisl, E., Mucha, P., Novotný, A., Pokorný, M.: Time-periodic solutions to the full Navier-Stokes-Fourier system. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 204, 745–786 (2012)
Flandoli, F.: Dissipativity and invariant measures for stochastic Navier-Stokes equations. NoDEA 1, 403–423 (1994)
Flandoli, F., Ga̧tarek, D.: Martingale and stationary solutions for stochastic Navier-Stokes equations. Probab. Theory Related Fields 102, 367–391 (1995)
Flandoli, F., Maslowski, B.: Ergodicity of the 2D Navier-Stokes equation under random perturbations. Commun. Math. Phys. 171, 119–141 (1995)
Flandoli, F., Romito, M.: Partial regularity for the stochastic Navier-Stokes equations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 354, 2207–2241 (2002)
Galdi, G.P.: An introduction to the mathematical theory of the Navier-Stokes equations. In: Steady-state Problems. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York (2011)
Geißert, M., Heck, H., Hieber, M.: On the equation div \(u = g\) and Bogovskii’s operator in Sobolev spaces of negative order. In: Partial Differential Equations and Functional Analysis, Volume 168 of Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., pp. 113–121. Birkhäuser, Basel (2006)
Hairer, M., Mattingly, J.: Ergodicity of the 2D Navier-Stokes equations with degenerate stochastic forcing. Ann. Math. 164, 993–1032 (2006)
Itô a, K., Nisio, M.: On stationary solutions of a stochastic differential equation. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 4:1–75 (1964)
Jakubowski, A.: The almost sure Skorokhod representation for subsequences in nonmetric spaces, Teor. Veroyatnost. i Primenen 42(1), 209–216 (1997); translation in Theory Probab. Appl. 42 (1997), no. 1, 167–174 (1998)
Kuksin, S., Shirikyan, A.: Mathematics of Two-Dimensional Turbulence. Cambridge Tracks of Mathematics (Book 194). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)
Smith, S., Trivisa, K.: The stochastic Navier-Stokes equations for heat-conducting, compressible fluids: global existence of weak solutions. J. Evol. Equ. 18, 411–465 (2018)
Funding
The research of E.F. leading to these results has received funding from the Czech Sciences Foundation (GAČR), Grant Agreement 21–02411S. The Institute of Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic is supported by RVO:67985840.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by GIGA.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The research of E.F. leading to these results has received funding from the Czech Sciences Foundation (GAČR), Grant Agreement 21-02411S. The Institute of Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic is supported by RVO:67985840. The stay of E.F. at TU Berlin is supported by Einstein Foundation, Berlin. M.H. gratefully acknowledges the financial support by the German Science Foundation DFG via the Collaborative Research Center SFB1283.
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
Breit, D., Feireisl, E. & Hofmanová, M. Stationary solutions in thermodynamics of stochastically forced fluids. Math. Ann. 384, 1127–1155 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-021-02300-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-021-02300-9