Abstract
We consider a singular nonlinear elliptic Dirichlet problems with lower-order terms, where the combined effects of a superlinear growth in the gradient and a singular term allow us to establish some existence and regularity results. The model problem is
where \(\Omega \) is an open and bounded subset of \(\mathbb {R}^{N}\), \(\mu \ge 0,\) \(0<\theta \le 1\), \(0\le \gamma < 1\) and f is a nonnegative function that belong to some Lebesgue space.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Singular equations as an important research topic in partial differential equations have been widely applied to describe and investigate various natural phenomena and applications, for example, fluid mechanics, pseudo-plastic flow, chemical reactions (the resistivity of the material), nerve impulses (Fitzhugh–Nagumo problems), population dynamics (Lotka–Volterra systems), combustion, morphogenesis, genetics, etc. The main goal for the study of singular equations is usually to explore the existence, uniqueness, regularity, and asymptotic behavior of solutions, see, for instance, [3, 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28, 30, 31, 33, 35,36,39].
e investigate the interaction between two regularizing terms in the following nonlinear elliptic equation
where \(\Omega \) is an open and bounded subset of \(\mathbb {R}^{N}\) (\(N\ge 1\)), f is a nonnegative \(L^{m}(\Omega )\) function with \(m\ge 1\) and, given a real number p such that \(2\le p<N,\) we have that \(a: \Omega \times \mathbb {R}^{N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}^{N}\) is a Carathéodory function such that the following holds: there exist \(\alpha , \beta \in \mathbb {R}^{+}\) such that
for a.e. \(x \in \Omega \) and \(\forall \xi \in \mathbb {R}^{N}\)
for a.e. \(x \in \Omega \) and \(\forall \xi \in \mathbb {R}^{N}\) and we assume that
and
The assumptions on the function a imply that the differential operator A acting between \(W_{0}^{1, p}(\Omega )\) and \(W^{-1, p^{\prime }}(\Omega )\) and defined by
is coercive, monotone, surjective and satisfies the maximum principle. The simplest case is the p-Laplacian, which corresponds to the choice \(a(x, \xi )=|\xi |^{p-2} \xi \). In the literature we find several papers about elliptic problems with lower-order terms having a natural or quadratic growth with respect to the gradient (see [2, 4, 6, 8, 28], for example, and the references therein), that is, for problem
In these works it is assumed that \(M: \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {R}^{N^{2}}\) is a bounded elliptic Carathéodory map, so that there exists \(\alpha >0\) such that \(\alpha |\xi |^{2} \le M(x) \xi \cdot \xi \) for every \(\xi \in \mathbb {R}^{N}.\) Various assumptions are made on g. With no attempt of being exhaustive, we will describe some recent results where a singular g has been considered, namely \(g(x,u)=b(x)\times 1/|u|^{\theta }.\) The case where \(0<\theta \le 1,\) introduced in [9], has been studied positive source \(f \in L^{m}(\Omega );\) if \(1< m<N/2\) there exists a strictly positive solution \(u \in L^{m^{**}}(\Omega );\) if \(m>N/2\), then the solution u belong to \(L^{\infty }(\Omega ).\) Furthermore, if \(0<\theta <1/2,\) and \(r=N m/[N(1-\theta )-m(1-2\theta )],\) then
Later, in [29] it is proved the existence result of solutions for the nonlinear Dirichlet problem of the type
where \(\Omega \) is a bounded open subset of \(\mathbb {R}^{N}, N>2, M(x)\) is a uniformly elliptic and bounded matrix, \(\gamma>0, B>0,1 \le q<2,0<\theta \le 1\) and the source f is a nonnegative (not identically zero) function belonging to \(L^{1}(\Omega ).\) Olivia [32] studied the existence and uniqueness of nonnegative solutions to a problem which is modeled by
where \(\Omega \) is an open bounded subset of \(\mathbb {R}^{N}(N \ge 2), \Delta _{p}\) is the p-Laplacian operator \((1<p<N), f \in L^{1}(\Omega )\) is nonnegative and \(\theta , \gamma \ge 0.\)
The main novelty in the presence work is to show that the combined effects of a superlinear growth in the gradient and a singular term, lower-order term and the singular term has a “regularizing effect” in the sense that the problem (1.1) has a distributional solution for all \(f\in L^{m}\) with \(m\ge 1.\)
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we construct an approximate problem of (1.1), the existence of weak solution of the last one is proved by Schauder’s fixed point Theorem. In Sect. 3.1 is devoted to prove to the existence and regularity results both in case \(q=p-1,\, \mu =0\) and \( f\in L^{m}(\Omega )\) with \(m>1.\) In the last subsection we deal with the case \(p-1<q<p,\, \mu >0\) and \(f\in L^{1}(\Omega ),\) we prove the existence of solution of problem (1.1). Note that the presence of the lower-order term \(\mu |u|^{p-1}u\) is crucial in the sense that it guarantees the existence of solution when the data f belong only in \(L^{1}(\Omega ).\)
Notations: For a given function \(v:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\), in what follows, we denote by \(v^{\pm }=\max \{\pm v, 0\}\), i.e., \(v^{+}=\max \{v, 0\}\) and \(v^{-}=-\min \{v, 0\}.\) For a fixed \(k>0,\) we introduce the truncation functions \(T_{k}:\mathbb {R} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) and \(G_{k}:\mathbb {R} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) defined by
where sign\((\cdot )\) is the sign function. It is not difficult to see that for each \(k>0\) the equality holds
For convenience’s sake, in the sequel, we denote by
2 A priori estimates
Since problem (1.1) contains singular terms, this cannot allow us to use the variational methods to obtain the existence result to problem (1.1). In order to bypass this obstacle, in the section, we will apply a standard approximation procedure to prove the existence of solutions to problem (1.1).
Let \(n\in \mathbb {N}\) be arbitrary, let us consider the following approximated problem
where \(f_{n}=T_{n}(f).\) Then, we have the weak formulation of (2.1) as follows
for all \(\varphi \in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega )\). Now, we briefly sketch how to deduce the existence of a nonnegative solution \(u_{n} \in W_{0}^{1, p}(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) of problem (2.1). For any nonnegative function \(v\in L^p(\Omega )\) given, it follows from [6, Theorem 1] that the following nonlinear elliptic equation has a unique positive solution w
and there exists a constant \(c_n>0\) which is independent of v such that \(\Vert w\Vert _{L^\infty (\Omega )}\le c_n.\) So, we denote by \(T:L^p(\Omega )\rightarrow L^p(\Omega )\) the solution mapping of problem (2.3), namely, \(T(v)=w\) for all \(v\in L^p(\Omega )\), where w is the unique solution of problem (2.3) corresponding to v. It is obvious that if u is a fixed point of T, then u is also a solution of problem (2.1). Then, we are going to utilize Schauder fixed point theorem for examining the existence of a fixed point of T. Therefore, we will show that T is a completely continuous function (thus, T is continuous and compact), and maps a closed ball into itself. Taking w as a test function in (2.3), it yields
Whereas, an application of the Poincaré inequality gives that
where \(c_{p}\) is the Poincaré constant. This indicates that T maps the closed ball centered at the origin with the radius r into itself. To show that T is continuous, let \(\{v_{k}\}\) be a sequence in the ball of radius r which converges to v in \(L^{p}(\Omega )\) as \(k \rightarrow \infty \) and let \(w_{k}=T\left( v_{k}\right) \). Our goal is to prove that \(w_{k}\) converges to \(w=T(v)\) in \(L^{p}(\Omega )\) as \(k \rightarrow \infty .\) From (2.4), we can see that \(\{w_{k}\}\) is bounded in \(W_{0}^{1, p}(\Omega )\) with respect to k. Moreover, it follows from Lemma 2 of [5] that \(w_{k}\) is also bounded in \(L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) with respect to k. The latter combined with Lemma 4 of [5] deduces that, passing to a subsequence if necessary, \(w_{k}\) converges to a function w in \(W_{0}^{1, p}(\Omega )\) (indeed, this result could be obtained by using the pseudomonotonicity and \((S_+)\)-property of \(u\mapsto \)-diva(x, u)). This is sufficient to pass to the limit as \(k \rightarrow \infty \) for the weak formulation of the equation (2.3) with \(w = w_{k}\) and \(v=v_k\) that \(w=T(v).\) For the compactness, it is sufficient to underline that if \(v_{k}\) is bounded in \(L^{p}(\Omega )\) then one can recover that \(w_{k}\) is bounded in \(W_{0}^{1, p}(\Omega )\) with respect to k thanks to (2.4). Taking into account the compactness of the embedding of \(W_0^{1,p}(\Omega )\) to \(L^p(\Omega )\), we obtain that, up to subsequences, \(\{w_k\}\) converges to a function in \(L^{p}(\Omega )\), namely, \(T(\{v_n\})\) is relatively compact in \(L^p(\Omega )\). So, T is compact.
Therefore, all conditions of Schauder fixed point Theorem are verified. We are now in a position to invoke this theorem to find that T has at least one fixed point, say \(u_n\). It is obvious that \(u_n\) solves problem (2.1) too. Recall that the right-hand side of problem (2.1) is positive. This together with the hypotheses of a and maximum principle [34] implies that \(u_{n}\ge 0.\)
Lemma 2.1
Let \(u_{n}\) be a solution to (2.1) then for every \(\omega \subset \subset \Omega \) there exists a constant \(c_{\omega }>0\) which does not depend on n and such that
Proof
\(\mu \ge 0\) and \(f_n\ge 0\). Let \(v \in W_{0}^{1, p}(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) be the unique solution of the following elliptic equation (see [1, Lemma 2.1])
But, [1, Lemma 2.2] points out that for any \(\omega \subset \subset \Omega \) there exists \(c_{\omega }>0\) such that
We take \(\left( v-u_{n}\right) ^{+}\) as a test function in (2.1) and (2.6), respectively. Rearranging the resulting equalities, we have
However, the monotonicity of the second term on the left-hand side to the above inequality concludes
This means that \(u_{n} \ge v\) almost everywhere in \(\Omega .\) Consequently, the desired conclusion is a direct consequence of (2.7). \(\square \)
3 The Main Results and Their Proof
3.1 The Case \(q=p-1 ,\,\mu =0\) and \(f\in L^{m}(\Omega ) \text{ with } \, m>1\)
In this subsection, we want to analyze the case \(0\le \gamma <1,\,\mu =0,\,\,\, 0\le f\in L^{m}(\Omega ) (m>1).\) We first give the definition of a distributional solution to problem (1.1)
Definition 3.1
Let f be a nonnegative (not identically zero) function in \( L^{m}(\Omega )\) function, with \(m>1.\) A positive and measurable function u is a distributional solution to problem (1.1) if \(u \in W_{0}^{1, 1}(\Omega )\) , if \(|a(x, \nabla u)|, \) \(\frac{|\nabla u|^{p-1}}{u^{\theta }}\) \(\in L_{\textrm{loc }}^{1}(\Omega ),\)
and if
The main results of this subsection are as follows
Theorem 3.2
Assume (1.3),(1.4) and (1.5). Then, if \(m_{1}=\frac{mN(p-1+\gamma )}{N-pm}\) and \( \tilde{m} =\frac{Nm(p-1+\gamma )}{N+m(1-\gamma )}\) there exists a distributional solution u of (1.1)
and if \(r=\frac{\tilde{m}}{p-1},\) we have
Furthermore, if \(0<\theta <(p-1)(1-\gamma )/p\) and \(r=N m(p-1+\gamma )/[N(p-1-\theta )-m[(p-1)(1-\gamma )-p \theta ],\) then
Remark 3.3
In the case where the lower-order term does not exist (i.e., \(b(x)=0\)), the results of previous theorem coincide with regularity results obtained in ([19, Theorem 4.4]).
Remark 3.4
If \(p=2\) and \(\gamma =0;\) the result of Theorem 3.2 coincides with regularity results of [9].
Now, we can prove the following existence and regularity result
Lemma 3.5
Let \(u_{n}\) be a solution of problem (2.1) and suppose that (1.3)–(1.7) hold true, let f be a nonnegative function in \(L^{m}(\Omega ),\) with \(1<m<N/p,\, \sigma =\min \left( \tilde{m}, p\right) ,\) \(r=\frac{\tilde{m}}{p-1}.\) Then we have
with \(\tilde{m}\) and \(m_{1}\) are defined in the Theorem 3.2.
Proof
Here, and in the following, we will denote by C the generic constant which is independent of \(n\in \mathbb N\). Define, for \(k>0\) and \(s>0\)
We choose \(v_{n}=u_{n}^{p \lambda -(p-1)} \eta _{k}\left( u_{n}\right) \) as test function in the weak formulation of (2.2) (this choice is possible since every \(u_{n}\) belong to \(W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega ) \)). Noting that \({\text {since}} f_{n} \le f\) and let \(\lambda >1/p^{\prime },\) dropping a first nonnegative term, we obtain
Let \(\varepsilon >0\) be such that \(0<\varepsilon \Vert b\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\Omega )}<\alpha (p \lambda -(p-1))\). By Young inequality with \(\varepsilon \), we deduce that
Letting k tend to zero, and Lebesgue Theorem in the right-hand side using and Fatou Lemma in the left-hand side, we get
We now remark that for every \( t \ge 1\) and \(\delta > 0,\) there exists \( C_{\delta }>0\) such that
The inequality is trivially true if \(\theta \ge \lambda ,\) while is a consequence of Young inequality if \(\lambda > \theta .\) Recall that the estimate (3.5), we have
Taking into account that \(0 \le u_{n}=T_{1}\left( u_{n}\right) +G_{1}\left( u_{n}\right) \le 1+G_{1}\left( u_{n}\right) ,\) and using Poincaré inequality, we conclude that
where \(\lambda _{1}\) is the Poincaré constant for \(\Omega \) (i.e., the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions). Choosing \(\delta \) small enough, we thus have
Following the same technique as in [6], choosing \(\lambda = \frac{m_{1}}{p^{*}}\) , it is easy to see that if \(\lambda = \frac{m(N-p)[p-1+\gamma ]}{p(N-pm)}>\frac{(N-p)[p-1+\gamma ]}{p(N-p)}=\frac{p-1+\gamma }{p}\) if only if \(m>1.\) Note that with such a choice, we have that \(\lambda p^{*}=m_{1}\), and \((p\lambda -(p-1)-\gamma )m^{\prime } = \lambda p^{*}=m_{1}=\frac{Nm[p-1+\gamma ]}{N-pm}.\) Therefore, using Sobolev and Hölder inequalities, we get
where \(\mathcal {S}\) is the Sobolev constant, thanks to the assumption \(m<N/p,\) we have \(p/p^{*}>1/m^{\prime }\), putting to gather all the previous estimates we conclude that
Note that from the boundedness of \(\left\{ G_{1}\left( u_{n}\right) \right\} \) in \(L^{m_{1}}(\Omega )\) it trivially follows the boundedness of \(\left\{ u_{n}\right\} \) in \(L^{m_{1}}(\Omega )\) since, as before, \(0 \le u_{n} \le 1+G_{1}\left( u_{n}\right) .\)
Now we point out that \(m \ge \frac{p N}{N(p-1)+p(1-\gamma )+\gamma N},\) since \(\lambda \ge 1.\) Therefore from (3.7) and (3.8) (note that the right-hand side is bounded), we have that
we deduce that the sequence \(\left\{ G_{1}\left( u_{n}\right) \right\} \) is bounded in \(W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega )\). If on the other hand \(1<m<\frac{p N}{N(p-1)+p(1-\gamma )+\gamma N},\) then \(\lambda <1\) and we have to proceed differently. Let now \(\sigma \) be such that the use of by Hölder inequality, \(\sigma <p\) we obtain
Imposing \(\sigma =\frac{Nm(p+\gamma -1)}{N-m(1-\gamma )}(=\tilde{m}),\) we obtain \(\frac{p \sigma (1-\lambda )}{p-\sigma }=m_{1},\) so that the above inequality becomes, thanks to (3.7) and (3.8)
Summing up, we have therefore proved that the sequence:
On the other hand, taking \(T_{1}\left( u_{n}\right) \) as test function in (2.1) , we have
which implies (thanks to (3.9) ) that the sequence \(\left\{ T_{1}\left( u_{n}\right) \right\} \) is bounded in \(W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega ).\) This estimate and the estimate (3.9) give (3.3). First case: The proof of (3.4) is then a simple consequence of (2.5) and (3.3), if \(w \subset \subset \Omega ,\) then
In the second case, we take \(r=\frac{\tilde{m}}{p-1}\), then by (2.5) and (3.3), we have
Using (3.10) and (3.11), we deduce that (3.4) holds true. \(\square \)
Lemma 3.6
Let \(u_{n}\) be a solution of (2.1) under assumptions(1.3)–(1.7) and let f be a nonnegative function in \( L^{m}(\Omega ).\) Then, if \(m>N/p\)
Proof
We take \(v_{n}=G_{k}\left( u_{n}\right) \) as test function in (2.1). Using (1.3), (1.4) and (1.5), we obtain
Noting that \(u_{n}+\frac{1}{n}\ge k\ge 1\) on the set \(A_{n,k},\) where \( G_{k}\left( u_{n}\right) \), we have
and by Young and Poincaré inequalities, we have that
Therefore,
Next, we can take \(k>k_{0},\) with
we have
From this point outwards, we can proceed as in the proof of [8, Theorem 1.1], to prove that the sequence \(\left\{ u_{n}\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }(\Omega )\), as desired and the proof of (3.13) is essentially the same technique used in (3.10). \(\square \)
If \(0<\theta <(1-\gamma )/p^{\prime },\) the estimates on the right-hand side \(\frac{\left| \nabla u_{n}\right| ^{p-1}}{u_{n}^{\theta }}\) are not only local but also global.
Lemma 3.7
Let \(u_{n}\) be a solution of (2.1), let us assume that (1.3)–(1.6) and \(0<\theta <(1-\gamma )/p^{\prime },\) hold true and that f be a nonnegative function in \( L^{m}(\Omega ),\) with
then,
Proof
We fix \(\lambda >(p-1+\gamma )/p,\) let \(0<\varepsilon <1/n,\) and choose \(v_{n}=\left( u_{n}+\varepsilon \right) ^{p \lambda -(p-1)}-\varepsilon ^{p \lambda -(p-1)}\) as test function in (2.1) this choice is possible since every \(u_{n}\) belong to \(W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega ).\) We obtain, dropping some negative terms
In view of the latter estimate we have used that \(0 \le f_{n} \le f.\) We can apply Young inequality, we thus obtain
Letting \(\varepsilon \) tend to zero, and using Lebesgue Theorem (in the right one, recall that \(\left. u_{n} \text { is in } L^{\infty }(\Omega )\right) \) and Fatou Lemma (in the left-hand side), we arrive at
since now our assumption is \(0<\theta <(p-1+\gamma )/p\) and \(\lambda >(p-1+\gamma )/p,\) we have that \(\lambda >\theta ;\) thus, using Young inequality we have that, for \(\delta >0\)
where in the last inequality we have used Poincaré inequality. Thus, if \(\delta \) is small enough, we have
If \(1<m<\frac{p N}{N(p-1)+p(1-\gamma )+\gamma N},\) the choice \(\lambda (m)=\frac{m(N-p)(p-1+\gamma )}{p(N-pm)}\) implies \(\frac{p-1+\gamma }{p}<\lambda (m)<1\) and (reasoning as in the proof of Lemma 3.5)
Let \(\bar{m}\) be a real number, such that
we have that \(\lambda (m)=1-\frac{\theta }{p-1},\) and so (3.17) becomes
which is (3.16) if \(m=\bar{m}.\) Since \(\Omega \) has finite measure, if \(m>\bar{m}\) and if f belong to \(L^{m}(\Omega ),\) then it is also \({\text {in}} L^{\bar{m}}(\Omega ),\) so that (3.18) still holds for these values of m. \(\square \)
Lemma 3.8
Let \(u_{n}\) be a solution of (2.1). Suppose that (1.3)–(1.6) and \(0<\theta <(1-\gamma )/p^{\prime }\) hold true. Then if \(r=\frac{N m(p-1+\gamma )}{N(p-1-\theta )-m[(p-1)(1-\gamma )-p \theta ]}\) and that \(0 \le f\in L^{m}(\Omega )\), with
then,
Proof
Let \(\theta >0 \) and \(N>p\), we have \(m<\frac{p N}{N(p-1)+p(1-\gamma )+\gamma N}\).
Let \(1<r<p^{\prime };\) then, we used Hölder inequality with exponents \(\frac{p^{\prime }}{r}\) and \(\frac{p^{\prime }}{p^{\prime }-r},\) we obtain
Moreover, using (3.17) which is admissible since \(m<\frac{p N}{N(p-1)+p(1-\gamma )+\gamma N},\) we thus obtain
Taking \(r=r(m)\) such that \(\frac{p r(m)(1-\lambda (m)-\frac{\theta }{p-1})}{p^{\prime }-r(m)}=\frac{Nm(p-1+\gamma )}{N-pm},\) that is \(r(m)=\frac{N m(p-1+\gamma )}{N(p-1-\theta )-m[(p-1)(1-\gamma )-p \theta ]};\) the assumptions on m, and the fact that r(m) is increasing, imply that
\( 1<\frac{N(p-1+\gamma )}{N(1-\theta )-(1-\gamma -p \theta )}<r(m)<r\left( \frac{p N(p-1-\theta )}{N(p-1)(p-1+\gamma )+p(p-1)(1-\gamma )-p^{2}\theta }\right) =p^{\prime }, \) hence by (3.21) we derive that
as desired. \(\square \)
Now, we are going to prove Theorem 3.2.
Proof of Theorem 3.2
Thanks to (3.3) (or (3.12)), the sequence \(\left\{ u_{n}\right\} \) of solutions of (2.1) is bounded in \(W_{0}^{1, \sigma }(\Omega ),\) with \(\sigma =\min \left( \tilde{m}, p\right) .\) Thus, up to subsequences, \(u_{n}\) weakly converges to some function u in \(W_{0}^{1, \sigma }(\Omega ),\) with \(\sigma \) as above and therefore u satisfies the boundary condition. However, due to the nonlinear nature of the lower-order term, the weak convergence of \(u_{n}\) is not enough to pass to the limit in the distributional formulation of (2.1). In order to proceed, we use the fact that, thanks to (3.4) (or (3.13)), we have that the right-hand side
Therefore, thanks to Remark 2.2 after Theorem 2.1 of [7] (see also [1] and [32]), we have that \(\nabla u_{n}(x)\) almost everywhere converges to \(\nabla u(x)\) in \(\Omega ;\) this implies that
This almost everywhere convergence, and the local boundedness of the sequence in \(L^{r}(\Omega ),\) with \( r=\frac{\tilde{m}}{p-1}\, \text{ or } \, r= p^{\prime },\) yield that
Next we note that, for all \(0\le \gamma <1\) and \(\varphi \in C_{0}^{1}(\Omega )\), if \(\omega =\{x \in \Omega :|\varphi |>0\}\), we have
and that, for \(n \rightarrow \infty \)
Here we use the convention that if \(u=+\infty ,\) then \(\frac{f \varphi }{u ^{\gamma }}=0 .\) Therefore, by Lebesgue Theorem, it follows that
Concerning the left hand side of (2.2), we can use the assumption (1.4) on a and the generalized Lebesgue Theorem, we can pass to the limit for \(n\longrightarrow \infty \) obtaining
We now take \(\varphi \) in \(C_{c}^{1}(\Omega )\) as test function in (2.1), to have that
Passing to the limit in n, we obtain
for every \(\varphi \) in \(C_{c}^{1}(\Omega ),\) so that u is a solution in the sense of distributions. \(\square \)
3.2 The Case \(p-1\le q<\frac{p(p+\beta )}{p+1},\mu >0\) and \(0\le f\in L^{1}(\Omega ).\)
In this subsection, we treat the case where \(0\le f\in L^{1}(\Omega ), \beta =\min (\theta ,\gamma ),\) \(\mu >0\) and \(p-1\le q<\frac{p(p+\beta )}{p+1}.\) Here, we give our main existence result for this subsection
Theorem 3.9
Assume that (1.3)–(1.7) hold true and let f be a nonnegative function in \(L^{1}(\Omega )\). Then there exists a solution u for (1.2), in the sense that: \(u \in W_{0}^{1, r}(\Omega ) \cap L^{p+\beta }(\Omega ),\) with \(\beta =\min (\theta ,\gamma ),\) \(1 \le r<\frac{p(p+\beta )}{p+1}, \frac{|\nabla u|^{q}}{u^{\theta }} \in L_{l o c}^{1}(\Omega )\)
and that
The next Lemma will be used in the proof of Theorem 3.9, we state some a priori estimates on the solution \(u_{n}\) and on the lower-order term of the approximate problem (2.1).
Lemma 3.10
Let \(u_{n}\) be a solution of (2.1). Suppose that f be a nonnegative function in \(L^{1}(\Omega )\) and (1.3)–(1.7) hold true. Then the sequence \(u_{n}\) is bounded in \( W_{0}^{1, r}(\Omega ) \cap L^{p+\beta }(\Omega ),\) with \(\beta =\min (\theta ,\gamma ),\) \(1 \le r<\frac{p(p+\beta )}{p+1}\) and \(\frac{\left| \nabla u_{n}\right| ^{q}}{u_{n}^{\theta }}\) is bounded in \( L_{l o c}^{1}(\Omega )\).
Proof
In the case \(\theta \ge \gamma ,\) let \(\big ( G_{1}(u_{n})\big )^{\gamma }\) as test function in (2.1), using (1.3), (1.4) and the fact that \( 0\le f_{n} \le f,\) we thus have
and then, by Young inequality, we deduce that
which implies from (3.24) that
thanks to (3.25) we have
Since, \(\frac{q(1-\gamma )}{p-q}<p+\gamma \) the above estimate implies that
and
Now we choose \(\varepsilon <1/n\) and use \(\left( T_{1}\left( u_{n}\right) +\varepsilon \right) ^{\theta }-\varepsilon ^{\theta }\) as test function, dropping the positive term and using (1.3), (1.4) we obtain
Using Young inequality together with (3.26) and (3.27) and the fact that \(\frac{q (1-\gamma )}{p-q}<p+\gamma \) yields that
Then we deduce from (3.28) and the above estimate, using again young inequality, we obtain
it follows that
Thus, we obtain
Hence, taking \(\varepsilon \) tends to 0, we deduce that
from (3.26) and (3.30) we conclude that
Let \(1 \le r<p,\) using the estimate (3.31) together with Hölder inequality we arrive at
starting from (3.32) and thanks to (3.27) noticing that \(\frac{r (1-\gamma )}{p-r} \le p+\gamma \) is equivalent to \(r \le \frac{p(p+\gamma )}{p+1}\), we Thus obtain
Thus, recalling (2.5), (1.5), estimate (3.33) and by means of Hölder inequality, it follows for every \(\omega \subset \subset \Omega \) that
In the case \(\gamma \ge \theta ,\) we can obtaining the results, changing \(\gamma \) by \(\theta \) in the exponents of the test functions and namely arguing exactly as above. Then Lemma 3.10 is completely proved.
We prove now the following convergence result.
Proposition 3.11
Under assumption (1.3), we have
Proof
We take \(T_{1}\left( u_{n}-T_{h}\left( u_{n}\right) \right) \) as test function in (2.1) dropping the positive term, using (1.3), (1.4) and we then have
which implies using (3.33), Young together with Hölder inequalities that
Letting \(n \rightarrow +\infty \) and then \(h \rightarrow +\infty ,\) we obtain
where w(n, h) tends to zero when \(n \rightarrow +\infty \) and \(h \rightarrow +\infty .\) Let E be a measurable subset of \(\Omega ,\) we have
Then, thanks to (3.35), we take the limit as |E| tends to zero, h tends to infinity and since \(u_{n}^{p}\) converges to \(u^{p}\) almost everywhere, we easily conclude by Vitali’s Theorem the proof of Proposition 3.11. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 3.9
Using Proposition 3.11 and Lemma 3.10, we can obtain a solution passing to the limit, namely arguing exactly as in Theorem 3.2. \(\square \)
References
Boccardo, L., Croce, G.: The impact of a lower order term in a Dirichlet problem with a singular nonlinearity. Port. Math. 76, 407–415 (2019)
Boccardo, L., Dall’Aglio, A., Orsina, L.: Existence and regularity results for some elliptic equations with degenerate coercivity. (Perugia, 1996), Atti Sem. Mat. Fis. Univ. Modena 46 suppl. no. vol. 5, 1–81 (1998)
Boccardo, L., Escobedo, M., Porzio, M.: Parabolic equations with singular and supercritical reaction terms. Differ. Integral Equ. 28, 1155–1172 (2015)
Boccardo, L., Gallouet, T.: Strongly nonlinear elliptic equations having natural growth terms and \(L^{1}\) data. Nonlinear Anal. 19, 573–579 (1992)
Boccardo, L., Murat, F., Puel, J.P.: Existence of bounded solutions for nonlinear elliptic unilateral problems. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 152, 183–196 (1988)
Boccardo, L., Murat, F., Puel, J.P.: \(L^{\infty }\)-estimate for nonlinear elliptic partial differential equations and application to an existence result. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 23(2), 326–333 (1992)
Boccardo, L., Murat, F.: Almost everywhere convergence of the gradients of solutions to elliptic and parabolic equations. Nonlinear Anal. 19(6), 581–597 (1992)
Boccardo, L., Murat, F., Puel, J.-P.: Existence de solutions non bornées pour certaines équations quasi-linéaires. Port. Math. 41, 507–534 (1982)
Boccardo, L., Orsina, L., Peral, I.: A quasilinear singular elliptic problem related to the Kardar–Parisi–Zhang equation. Appl. Anal. 100(5), 1096–1106 (2021)
Boccardo, L., Orsina, L.: Semilinear elliptic equations with singular nonlinearities. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 37, 363–380 (2010)
Bougherara, B., Giacomoni, J., Hernandez, J.: Existence and regularity of weak solutions for singular elliptic problems. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. Conf. 22, 19–30 (2015)
Canino, A., Esposito, F., Sciunzi, B.: On the Hopf boundary lemma for singular semilinear elliptic equations. J. Differ. Equ. 266(9), 5488–5499 (2019)
Canino, A., Grandinetti, M., Sciunzi, B.: A jumping problem for some singular semilinear elliptic equations. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 14(4), 1037–1054 (2014)
Canino, A., Grandinetti, M., Sciunzi, B.: Symmetry of solutions of some semilinear elliptic equations with singular nonlinearities. J. Differ. Equ. 255(12), 4437–4447 (2013)
Canino, A., Sciunzi, B., Trombetta, A.: Existence and uniqueness for p-Laplace equations involving singular nonlinearities. Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 23, 8 (2016)
Carmona, J., Martinez-Aparicio, P.J.: A singular semilinear elliptic equation with a variable exponent. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 16, 491–498 (2016)
Chabrowski, J.: On the Neumann problem with singular and superlinear nonlinearities. Commun. Appl. Anal. 13, 327–339 (2009)
Coclite, M., Palmieri, G.: On a singular nonlinear Dirichlet problem. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 14, 1315–1327 (1989)
De Cave, L.M.: Nonlinear elliptic equations with singular nonlinearities. Asymptot. Anal. 84, 181–195 (2013)
Durastanti, R.: Asymptotic behavior and existence of solutions for singular elliptic equations. Ann. Mat. 199, 925–954 (2020)
El Hadfi, Y., Benkirane, A., Youssfi, A.: Existence and regularity results for parabolic equations with degenerate coercivity. Complex Variables Elliptic Equ. 63(5), 715–729 (2018)
El Hadfi, Y., El Ouardy, M., Ifzarne, A., Sbai, A.: On nonlinear parabolic equations with singular lower order term. J. Elliptic Parabol. Equ. 8, 49–75 (2022)
El Ouardy, M., El Hadfi, Y., Ifzarne, A.: Existence and regularity results for a singular parabolic equations with degenerate coercivity. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. S 15(1), 117–141 (2022)
El Ouardy, M., El Hadfi, Y.: Some nonlinear parabolic problems with singular natural growth term. Results Math. 77, 95 (2022)
El Ouardy, M., El Hadfi, Y., Sbai, A.: Existence of positive solutions to nonlinear singular parabolic equations with Hardy potential. J. Pseudo Differ. Oper. Appl. 13, 28 (2022)
Gasiński, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Nonlinear elliptic equations with singular terms and combined nonlinearities. Ann. Henri Poincaré 13, 481–512 (2012)
Gatica, J.A., Oliker, V., Waltman, P.: Singular nonlinear boundary-value problems for second-order ordinary differential equations. J. Differ. Equ. 79, 62–78 (1989)
Latorre, M., Magliocca, M., de León, S.S.: Regularizing effects concerning elliptic equations with a superlinear gradient term. Rev. Mat. Complut. 34(2), 297–356 (2021)
Marah, A., Hicham, R.: quasilinear elliptic problem with singular lower order term and \(L^{1} \) data. Mediterr. J. Math. 18, 28 (2021)
Nachman, A., Callegari, A.: A nonlinear singular boundary value problem in the theory of pseudo plastic fluids. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 38(2), 275–281 (1980)
Nowosad, P.: On the integral equation \( kf = 1/f\) arising in a problem in communication. J. Math. Appl. 14, 484–492 (1966)
Oliva, F.: Existence and uniqueness of solutions to some singular equations with natural growth. Ann. Mat. Pura Ed Appl. (1923) 200(1), 287–314 (2021)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Winkert, P.: Singular p-Laplacian equations with superlinear perturbation. J. Differ. Equ. 266(2–3), 1462–1487 (2019)
Pucci, P., Serrin, J.: The Maximum Principle. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel (2007)
Rădulescu, V.D.: Singular phenomena in nonlinear elliptic problems: from blow-up boundary solutions to equations with singular nonlinearities. In: Handbook of Differential Equations: Stationary Partial Differential Equations, vol. 4, pp. 485–593. North-Holland (2007)
Santos, C.A., Goncalves, J.V., Carvalho, M.L.: About positive \(W_{{\rm loc }}^{1, \Phi }(\Omega )\) solutions to quasilinear elliptic problems with singular semilinear term. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 53(2), 491–517 (2019)
Sbai, A., El Hadfi, Y.: Degenerate elliptic problem with a singular nonlinearity. Complex Variables Elliptic Equ. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/17476933.2021.2014458
Sbai, A., El Hadfi, Y.: Regularizing effect of absorption terms in singular and degenerate elliptic problems. (2020)arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.03597 (Accepted for Publication in Journal: Boletim da Sociedade Paranaense de Matemática)
Youssfi, A., Benkirane, A., El Hadfi, Y.: On bounded solutions for nonlinear parabolic equations with degenerate coercivity. Mediterr. J. Math. 13, 3029–3040 (2016)
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.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sbai, A., El Hadfi, Y. & Zeng, S. Nonlinear Singular Elliptic Equations of p-Laplace Type with Superlinear Growth in the Gradient. Mediterr. J. Math. 20, 32 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00009-022-02244-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00009-022-02244-7
Keywords
- Nonlinear singular elliptic equation
- singular convection term
- p-Laplacian
- gradient term with superlinear growth
- existence and regularity