On the Strongly Damped Wave Equations with Critical Nonlinearities ()
Received 6 August 2015; accepted 23 April 2016; published 26 April 2016

1. Introduction
This paper deals with a class of wave equations with strong damping
(1)
Here
is a bounded domain with
boundary, and
is the coefficient of strong damping. Let
, then the negative Laplacian
, denoted by A, is a positive definite and self-adjoint operator defined in X with compact inverse. For each
, there define
and
as the fractional power of A and its domain endowed with the graph norm respectively. Evidently, in this setting,
,
,
, and for all
, we have
.
(2)
(3)
and we can treat it in the framework of semigroup of operators.
By using the notation of e-regular solution introduced in [4] [5] together with interpolation and extrapolation spaces, and under the Lipschitz condition,
(4)
.
Carvalho-Cholewa in [1] and lately Carvalho-Cholewa-Dlotko in [2] studied the local existence and regularity of the e-regular (or Y-regular in this paper) solution of Equation (1). Under the dissipative condition,
. (5)
2. Main Results and Proofs
Lemma 2.1 Suppose that X and Y are two Banach spaces, A is a sectorial operators defined in X, and B is a linear operator densely defined in Y. Suppose also there is a homeomorphism
satisfying
, then B is also sectorial together with
and
(see [7] , §5.2).
Lemma 2.2 The operator matrix
is sectorial in the new space
, and
. Moreover, the domain
equipped with the graph norm is equivalent to the product space
(cf. [8] ).
For the Hilbert space
and the operator
introduced above, consider the interpolation-
extrapolation Hilbert scale
, where
if
,
if
, and
is the realization of A in the space
. For the real and complex interpolation methods, please refer to
Define the realization of
in
as follows:
![]()
![]()
It is easy to check that, for all
,
in the sense of equivalent norms. Furthermore, we have
Lemma 2.3
is sectorial in the state space
with the same spectrum as
has.
Proof: This lemma can be easily verified by Lemma 2.1, together with the fact that the following operator
![]()
![]()
is an isomorphism between
and
, satisfying
. ,
Consider another operator matrix
defined below,
![]()
![]()
Evidently,
is closed in the space
with domain
. And for all
and
, we have
![]()
This tell us that,
is contained in
, the adjoint operator of
. In order to show the equality
, it suffices to check that
, which is a consequence of the following lemma.
Lemma 2.4
is sectorial in
with the spectrum
.
Proof of this lemma is much similar to that of Lemma 2.3, and here we omit it.
Denote
, which is isomorphic to the product space
according to the graph norm.
Now we can give some representations for the interpolation and extrapolation spaces attached to
. For each
, we have
(6)
and
![]()
Thus by the dual principle (refer to [10] , Ch. V, thm. 1.5.12), we obtain
![]()
Hence, for each
, we have that
(7)
in the sense of isomorphism.
Let us study the nonlinear operator
in the case
and
in new state spaces.
Theorem 2.5 Take
, then under the assumption (4), for each
,
is bounded and locally Lipschitz. More precisely,
verifies
(8)
Proof: Firstly using the embedding
, we can easily deduce that
if
, and
for all
if
. Notice that
for all
. Hence for the number s satisfying
, by invoking (4), we find that the Nemytskij operator of f, denoted also by f verifies
![]()
This inequality, together with the definition of
and (7) leads to the desired inequality (8).
If
, then we have the following embedding
(9)
(10)
And simple calculations show that in case
, for all
and
, inequalities
![]()
and
![]()
hold simultaneously. Thus for the number r verifying the restriction in (10), the other number
satisfies the restriction in (9). Hence by invoking (9), (10) and (4), we obtain
![]()
which means that inequality (8) still holds in the case
. This complete the proof. ,
Theorem 2.6 Let
, then under the assumption (4), for all
, the operator
satisfies
(11)
Similar to Thm. 2.5, core of the proof for this theorem is to check the validity of the following inequality
![]()
under condition (4). Here we omit the whole process.
Remark 2.7 In the new state spaces, the nonlinearity
turns to be a subcritical map (please compare to [1] [2] ).
we know that for the initial point
, there exists a unique e-regular (or in other words Y-regular) solution
defined on an interval
for some
, s.t.
(12)
for some
, and Equtaion (2) is satisfied in the space
. If
lies in the space
, then thanks to (8), there exists another interval
, on which there is a unique
-regular solution
satisfying
(13)
Take
, then by the uniqueness and regularity mentioned above, we can easily find that an
-regular solution is equal to a Y-regular one on the common existing interval if they have the same initial value.
Denote by
and
respectively the maximal intervals of
existing as a Y-regular solution and as an
-regular one with
. In the following paragraph, we will prove that
. Evidently
since
. For the inverse inequality, it suffices to show that
for arbitrary
(cf. [12] ). This can be done by bootstrapping.
Taking any
, and using (13) and (6), we obtain
(14)
Regard
and
as the initial time and space respectively, then by invoking the local existence and uniqueness of the
-regular solution, we can find a time
, such that
![]()
Here the time
depends on the norm
due to the subcriticality of
(8). Notice that
is uniformly continuous in
on any bounded interval
thanks to (13) and
(14), therefore it can be extended to the whole interval
as an
-regular solution. And similar to (14), for any
, we have that
![]()
The above inclusion is valid for all
due to the arbitrariness of
. Thus using the procedure performed above, we can deduce that, as an
-regular solution,
![]()
for all
.
Select
so that
, and repeat the above step k times, we finally obtain
(15)
for all
, and
. Thus, for any
, we can conclude that
, which leads to the desired conclusion
.
Theorem 2.8 Every Y-regular solution
of the problem (2) + (3) with
is exactly the strong one on its maximal interval of existence
. More precisely,
verifies all the following properties
・
for all
,
・ Equation (2) holds in
for all
, and
・ either
, i.e.
blows up in finite time, or
, i.e.
exists globally.
Proof: Choose
so that
, then the inclusion (15) and the imbedding
jointly produce 1). Moreover, thanks to (11), if we regard
(
) as the initial space, and use the existence and uniqueness of the
-regular solution, we can derive 2). Suppose that condition
(16)
holds, then as an
-regular solution,
can be extended onto the whole interval
since
is subcritical and
. Therefore
, and
exists globally as a Y-regular solution (it is a global strong solution indeed). This results means that (iii) holds. ,
Remark 2.9 From Thm. 2.8(i), one can conclude that the first component function
of a Y-regular solution
belongs to
for all
, and satisfies Equation
(1) in the strong sense on its maximal existing interval
definitely. In [6] , the authors showed that,
is the strong solution under the extra conditions
and
. And in [2] , the authors proved that
is the classical one whenever
. In this sense, Thm 2.8 is a useful supplement to the above two results.
Remark 2.10 Under the assumptions (4) and (5), the following estimate is valid for
(see [6] [13] ):
![]()
where
![]()
is the energy functional attached to (2). Thus for every
, condition (2.11) holds, and consequently
,
is globally defined.
3. Further Discussions
By introducing some new state spaces, we investigate the higher regularity and global existence of the weak solution of the wave Equation (1) for the critical growth exponent
in the case
. Results obtained here show that criticality of the nonlinearity attached to a semilinear parabolic system is not absolutely. It depends on the state spaces selected in many concrete situations. On the other hand, we have to admitted that, methods used here are inadequate for
, since criticality of
does not change anymore (
), regardless of the space
we selected. In this case, condition (2.11) does not guarantee the global existence of the Y-regular solution any more. In [14] , the authors proved that, under
hypotheses (4) and (5), every Y-regular solution
arising in Y can be extended onto the whole interval
as a
-regular solution (
) or a piece-wise e-regular solution in other words (see
1)
for every
,
2)
, and
3) there is a sequence of singular times
with
, s.t. on each
(
),
is a Y-regular solution, and
for each
.
Thus, we can also consider the existence and regularity of the universal attractors.