1. Introduction
We introduce the following equations, see [1] and [2] (see also [3]), such that:
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.3)
In this context,
is the order parameter,
is the microconcentration variable,
is the inverse of a penalty modulus and is expected to be small,
is the relative temperature (defined as
, where
is the absolute temperature and
is the equilibrium melting temperature),
is the thermal flux vector and
is the derivative of a double-well potential (a typical choice of the potential is
, hence the usual cubic nonlinear term
). Moreover, all physical constants have been set equal to one. This system models, e.g., melting-solidification phenomena in certain classes of materials (see, e.g., [4]-[14]). However, the Fourier law
(1.4)
has drawback which predicts that thermal signals propagate with an infinite speed, which violates causality.
In this paper, in order to correct this unrealistic feature, by reformulating the problem in terms of order parameter
and the enthalpy
, recalling that
(1.5)
where
(1.6)
replacing the Fourier law
with the Maxwell-Cattaneo law
(1.7)
We define the thermal displacement variable
as
(1.8)
where
(1.9)
This model can be derived as follows: One introduces the (total Ginzburg-Landau) free energy (see [15] and [16])
(1.10)
where
is the domain occupied by the system and we assume here that it is a bounded and regular domain of
(
and 3), and the enthalpy equation is written
(1.11)
As far as the evolution equation for the order parameter is concerned, one postulates the relaxation dynamics (with relaxation parameter set equal to one)
(1.12)
where
denotes a variational derivative with respect to u. Then, we obtain the following phase-field system:
(1.13)
(1.14)
(1.15)
Our aim in this article is to study the existence and uniqueness of solutions to this problem. In particular, the existence of a solution is based on proper a priori estimates and a classical Galerkin scheme. We are also interested in the study the dissipativity of the associated solution operators.
2. Statement of the Problem
We consider, in a bounded and regular domain
,
or 3, the following initial and boundary value problem:
(2.1)
(2.2)
(2.3)
(2.4)
(2.5)
where
denotes the exterior normal to
and
denotes the normal derivative on
.
We assume here that
(2.6)
As far as the nonlinear term
is concerned, we assume that
(2.7)
(2.8)
(2.9)
(2.10)
(2.11)
where
In particular, these assumptions are satisfied by the usual cubic nonlinear term, we take, for simplicity,
.
Notation
We denote by
the usual
-scalar product, with associated norm
. We set
, where
denotes the inverse of the minus Laplace operator associated with Neumann boundary conditions. More generally
denotes the norm in banach space X. We also note that
and acting on function with null overage and where it is understood here that
,
and
are norms in
,
,
and
, respectively, which are equivalent to the usual ones.
For
, we set
and, for
,
with
the duality product. Furthermore, we set
We introduce the operator
defined by
for
,
We also set
It then follows from elliptic regularity results for linear elliptic operators of order 2 that
is a strictly positive, selfadjoint and unbounded linear operator with compact inverse and is an isomorphism from onto its dual, with domain
and
is equivalent to
We will therefore write
instead of A in what follows.
Throughout this paper, the same letter c (and, sometimes, c' and c") denotes constants which may change from line to line, or even in a same line.
3. A Priori Dissipative Estimates
Integrating (2.1) over
, we have, owing to (2.2),
(3.1)
which yields
(3.2)
we obtain, after integration between 0 and
(3.3)
Integrating then (2.2) over
, we obtain
(3.4)
so that, also,
(3.5)
Now, integrating (2.3) over
, we have
which yields, after integration between 0 and
and owing to (3.2),
(3.6)
this yields, integrating between 0 and
(3.7)
We assume that
(3.8)
for fixed positive constants
and
, which yields, owing to (3.3), (3.6) and (3.8),
(3.9)
and
(3.10)
Now, it follows (3.2), (3.5) and (3.6) that we can rewrite (2.1)-(2.5) as
(3.11)
(3.12)
(3.13)
(3.14)
(3.15)
where we set
,
and
.
We rewrite (3.11) in the following equivalent form:
(3.16)
Multiplying (3.16) by
and integrating over
and by parts, we have, owing to (3.1),
Noting that it follows from (3.12) that
(3.17)
we obtain
(3.18)
We multiply (3.13) by
and find
(3.19)
Summing (3.18) and (3.19), we find, setting
an equality
(3.20)
this yields the decay of the total free energy.
We now multiply (3.16) by
, owing to (3.9), (3.10) and the generalized Poincaré inequality
(3.21)
we have
(3.22)
We multiply (3.13) by
and find, owing to (3.9),
(3.23)
Summing (3.20)
times (3.22) and
times (3.23), where
are small enough, and we get, setting
an inequality of the form
(3.24)
We finally multiply (3.11) by
to obtain, owing to (3.8), (3.9) and (3.21),
(3.25)
We sum (3.24) and
times (3.25), where
is small enough, and find, setting
an inequality of the form
(3.26)
where
satisfies, owing to (2.10),
(3.27)
It follows from (3.26) and Growall’s lemma that
(3.28)
which yields the dissipative inequality
(3.29)
and
(3.30)
with
. Together with estimates on
,
uniformly with respect to
,
and
.
uniformly with respect to
. Moreover, according to (2.2)-(2.8), we have
, hence we conclude that
uniformly with respect to
.
Since
, it also follows that
belongs to
but this estimate is not uniform.
Remark 3.1. When
,
, then the problem (2.1)-(2.5) converges to the generalization of the Caginalp phase-field system based on the theory of type III thermomechanics with two temperatures for the heat conduction, namely,
(3.31)
(3.32)
which, in [17] the author proved the well-posedness results, the existence of exponential attractors and, thus, of finite-dimensional global attractors.
4. The Dissipative Semigroup
Here, we consider that
is fixed. We start with the following theorem.
Theorem 4.1. We assume that hat (2.6)-(2.11) hold. Then, for every
such that
on
, the system (2.1)-(2.4) possesses a unique weak solution
such that,
and
Proof. i) Uniqueness:
Let
and
be two solutions to (2.1)-(2.4) with initial data
and
, respectively. We set
and
Then, we have
(4.1)
(4.2)
(4.3)
(4.4)
(4.5)
(4.6)
We multiply (4.1) by
and have, owing to (2.8),
(4.7)
Note that it follows from (4.2) that
(4.8)
and
(4.9)
We thus deduce that
(4.10)
and (4.10) yields, by the Poincare-Wirtinger inequality
(4.11)
Writing next
(4.12)
it follows that
(4.13)
Now, we rewrite (4.4) as
(4.14)
Multipling (4.14) by
and integrating over
, we obtain
(4.15)
Summing (4.13) and (4.15), owing to (4.9), we have in particular, setting
an inequality of the form
(4.16)
and hence
(4.17)
Noting also that
(4.18)
we deduce from (4.17) and (4.18) the uniqueness as well as the continuous dependence with respect to the initial data.
ii) Existence: The proof of existence is done as follows
First of all: Approximated problems
Let
be an orthonormal in
and orthigonal in
family associated with the eigenvalues
of the operator A associated with Neumann boundary conditions,
We set, for
and
We introduce the following approximated problems:
Find
,
given, such that
(4.19)
(4.20)
(4.21)
(4.22)
where
(4.23)
is the orthogonal projector from
onto
(for the
-metric). This means that
(4.24)
Note that (4.19)-(4.22) is equivalent t to the following problem:
(4.25)
(4.26)
(4.27)
Secondly: Existence of a local in time solution
The existence of a local, and then maximal, (in time) solution to the approximate problem (4.19)-(4.23) is standard. Indeed, we have to solve a Lipschitz finite-dimensional system of ODEs to find
, defined on
.
Thirdly: Energy decayH
All constants below are independent of m.
We note that (3.20) can be rewritten, equivalently, as (
,
and
)
(4.28)
where
i.e., the energy decay also holds for the approximated problems. This also yields that the maximal solution is global in time, i.e.,
.
Fourth: Further a priori estimates
Similarly, we rewrite (3.24) as
(4.29)
where
satisfies
(4.30)
Fifth: Passage to the limit
It follows from the above and standard Aubin-Lions compactness results, and
such that
and
as
, for all
.
Next, it follows from the above almost everywhere convergence of
, we can note that it follows from on classical (Aubin-Lions type) compactness results that, at least for a subsequence that we do not relabel,
for a proper
,
, which implies that
Therefore,
in
weakly (see, e.g., [18]), which is sufficient to pass to the limit in the weak formulation.
Sixth: Continuity with respect to time
We first note that it follows from standard results that, since, e.g.,
,
,
and
, where the index
denotes the weak topology and the weak continuity follows from the Strauss lemma (see, e.g., [19]).
It follows from Theorem 4.1 that we can define the family of solving operators
where
with
and
Furthermore, this family of solving operators forms a semigroup, i.e.,
and
,
, which is continuous with respect to the
-topology.
Finally, it follows from (3.29) that we have the
Theorem 4.2. The semigroup
is dissipative in
, in the sense that it possesses a bounded absorbing set
(i.e.,
such that
implies
).
Remark 4.1. The dissipativity is a first step in view of the study of the (temporal) asymptotic behavior of the associated dynamical system. In particular, an important issue is to prove the existence of finite-dimensional attractors: such objects describe all possible dynamics of the system; furthermore, the finite-dimensionality means, very roughly speaking, that, even though the initial phase space
has infinite dimension, the reduced dynamics can be described by a finite number of parameters (we refer the interested reader to, e.g., [20] for discussions on this subject). This will be studied elsewhere.
5. Conclusion
We proposed in this article a phase-field model based on Type III Heat Conduction. In particular, we proved the existence and uniqueness of solutions, as well as the dissipativity of the associated solution operators.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the referees for their careful reading of the manuscript and their useful comments. This note was written while A.J. Ntsokongo was visiting the Laboratoire de Mathematiques et Application de l’Université de Poitiers. He wishes to thank this institution for its warm hospitality.