For the two-phase incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with surface tension, we derive an appropriate weak formulation incorporating a variational formulation using divergence-free test functions. We prove a consistency result to justify our definition and, under reasonable regularity assumptions, we reconstruct the pressure function from the weak formulation.
We consider a two-phase flow of two incompressible Newtonian fluids. The isothermal flow in a bounded domain , , and on a finite time interval is described in Eulerian coordinates by a velocity field and a scalar pressure function . For each time , a hypersurface separates Ω into two disjoint subsets and of Ω, i.e., we have and . The regions and are referred to as bulk phases, and correspond to different phases of the fluid. Physically they are characterised by (constant) densities and corresponding viscosities , . For convenience, throughout this paper we will require that the interface is compactly contained in the fluid domain, that is, . In particular, the interface does not intersect the domain boundary, i.e., . This, in turn, means that and .
Assuming the interface to be sufficiently regular, and the velocity v and the pressure p to be sufficiently smooth functions on , such that the one-sided limits on from exist, the flow is described by the following free-boundary problem
for every . The initial phases , and the initial position of the interface, as well as the initial velocity , are given. The unknowns are the velocity , the pressure and the interface (free-boundary) . Here and in the sequel, stands for the jump across the interface in the direction of the exterior unit-normal field of . For a given quantity f and , this is, explicitly,
By and , we denote the normal velocity and the mean curvature of , for fixed t, both taken with respect to . Moreover, in (1.6), denotes the surface-tension constant, and the stress tensor is defined by
The partial differential equations (1.1)–(1.3) are the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) model the conservation of linear momentum and the incompressibility condition (1.3) corresponds to conservation of mass in each bulk phase. These partial differential equations in the bulk phases are coupled by the interface conditions (1.4)–(1.6): the velocity field is continuous across the interface by (1.4). Due to (1.5), the interface is transported purely by the bulk fluid flow. The interface condition (1.6) is (a dynamic version of) the Young–Laplace law relating the jump of the normal stress to the mean curvature κ. The velocity boundary condition (1.7) is the no-slip condition at the boundary of the fluid domain Ω. With (1.8), we prescribe initial values for the velocity.
The question of (unique) solvability of the free-boundary problem (1.1)–(1.8) and related systems has been studied by many authors: in the framework of Hölder spaces, Denisova and Solonnikov first studied the corresponding two-phase Stokes problem [10]. Later they proved well-posedness of (1.1)–(1.8) for appropriate initial data [11]. Existence results in the context of maximal -regularity (so-called strong solutions), which are even real analytic for positive times, are due to Prüss and Simonett [21] and Köhne, Prüss and Wilke [16], and in a varifold context due to Plotnikov [19,20] and the first author [1]. In general, the existence of weak solutions to (1.1)–(1.8) is an open problem, cf. [2, Section 2.2].
This paper summarizes the result of [8, Chapter 4] and is organised as follows: In Section
2
we will introduce our notation and provide some preliminary results. In Section
3
we will derive a weak notion of solutions which uses divergence-free test functions. This will lead to a weak formulation that does not incorporate the pressure function.
In the remainder of the paper we shall justify our approach and reconstruct a pressure function from the weak formulation: In Section
4
we shall provide the functional-analytic background and introduce Sobolev spaces on time-dependent domains. In Section
5
, under reasonable regularity assumptions, we will reconstruct the pressure function from the weak formulation.
Notation and preliminaries
Let , , be open. The space of smooth and compactly supported functions in U is denoted by and is the subspace of of divergence-free functions. Moreover, for , we define
For a Banach space X, its dual is designated by . For a measurable set and , and denote the standard Lebesgue spaces of scalar and X-valued functions, respectively. If , we simply write . is the Sobolev space of order and integrability exponent r. By , we denote the closure of in , and we set and . The corresponding dual spaces we abbreviate as , where , and . Furthermore, and denote the closure of in and , respectively. For , we define
Furthermore, for , we use the notation . The space has the following useful characterisation; see [24, Lemma II.2.2.3].
(Characterisation of ).
Forand, letbe a bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary. Then there holds
It is convenient to introduce the spaces
and
Functions of bounded variation and sets of finite perimeter
For and a finite -valued Radon measure μ and a Borel set , the total-variation measure of E is defined by
where the supremum is taken over all pairwise disjoint partitions of measurable sets , , such that . A function is said to be of bounded variation if its distributional gradient is a finite -valued Radon measure. The set of all functions of bounded variation is denoted by , and the set contains all functions , such that for a.e. . A measurable set has finite perimeter in U if its characteristic function belongs to . By the structure theorem of sets of finite perimeter, there holds , where is the -dimensional Hausdorff measure and is the so-called reduced boundary of E, and, moreover, for all ,
where is the generalized outer unit normal; cf. e.g. [6, Theorem 3.36]. Note that, if E has -boundary, then and coincides with the usual outer unit normal.
Hypersurfaces
We briefly recall some facts from differential geometry. For a more complete treatment, cf. for instance [9, Section 2], [14, Section 16.1] and [15]. We call , , a -hypersurface, , if, for each , there exist an open neighbourhood of and a function with
In the case , we briefly call Γ a hypersurface. For a hypersurface Γ, the space consists of all functions such that there exist a neighbourhood of Γ and a function with . The tangent space of a hypersurface , at a point , is defined by
A hypersurface Γ is called oriented if there exists a function such that, for all , there holds and , i.e., for any . The function ν is called unit-normal field (or, briefly, normal). On an oriented hypersurface with unit-normal field ν, for , the tangential gradient is defined as
For , the tangential divergence is defined as
For an oriented hypersurfacewith unit-normal field ν, definebyforand. Then, for every, the matrixis symmetric andis an eigenvector ofwith corresponding eigenvalue 0.
The foregoing proposition allows one to define the mean curvature of an oriented hypersurface.
(Mean curvature).
For an oriented hypersurface with unit-normal field ν, let and let be defined as in (2.1).
The principal curvatures of Γ in x are the eigenvalues of belonging to eigenvectors orthogonal to .
The mean curvature is the trace of , i.e.,
Note that, in view of the above definitions, there holds . Moreover, for and , there holds the integration-by-parts formula
see [14, Lemma 16.1].
For the treatment of time-dependent interfaces, we need the notion of evolving hypersurfaces, and have to define its normal velocity.
(Evolving hypersurfaces).
Let be an interval. For a family of oriented hypersurfaces, define
is called a -family of evolving oriented hypersurfaces, or, briefly, a family of evolving hypersurfaces, if Γ is a -hypersurface in and there exists a function such that is oriented by for every .
The normal velocity of at a point is given by
where , for some subinterval with , such that and for all .
The definition of the normal velocity V does not depend on the choice of the function η. Moreover, for any , there holds ; see [15, Theorem 5.5].
Finally, we provide some transport identities for integrals, which allow one to calculate time derivatives of integrals over time-dependent domains and hypersurfaces.
(Transport theorem).
For some interval, letbe a family of evolving hypersurfaces in the sense of Definition
2.4
. In addition, for every, assume thatfor some open, bounded set. Denote bythe unit-normal field ofpointing outward to, bythe mean curvature ofand bythe normal velocity of, respectively, with respect to.
Ifis an open set such thatthen, for every, there holds
Let Γ be as in (
2.3
). If, then, for and, there holdsIn particular,
See [9, Appendix] or [15, Theorems 6.1 and 6.4]. □
The notion of weak solutions
The free-boundary problem (1.1)–(1.8) incorporates two disjoint subregions and of the domain Ω, where the fluid is of constant density and , respectively. This means that the associated density function is given by
Note that in . Moreover, the nature of is encoded in the characteristic function
and vice versa. In many situations, it is convenient to use that (1.1) and (1.2) are equivalent to
To motivate a weak formulation, we consider sufficiently smooth solution triplets of (1.1)–(1.8); see Assumptions 3.1 below. More precisely, for the pair , we derive a variational formulation for (3.3) incorporating divergence-free test functions, an energy equality and a weak formulation of the pure transport of the interface (1.5) in terms of a transport equation for χ.
(Existence of smooth solutions).
Let the following conditions be satisfied.
Regularity of initial interface. is a -hypersurface, inducing a disjoint partition , such that
Define the initial associated density function by
and define by
Regularity of initial velocity. belongs to . Additionally, the restrictions to satisfy
Existence of smooth solutions. is a solution triplet satisfying equations (1.1)–(1.8) with the following regularity properties.
Regularity of velocity and pressure. There exist open sets with
as well as functions and such that
Regularity of interface. is a family of evolving hypersurfaces in the sense of Definition 2.4 such that is a pairwise disjoint partition of Ω and for all . Additionally, for , let be such that is the unit-normal field pointing outward to for all .
Variational formulation
In the spirit of the theory of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations; see for example [7,24], we will use divergence-free test functions in the weak formulation. This choice leads to a weak formulation lacking the pressure function. In order to justify this approach, one has to reconstruct the pressure from the weak formulation.
For the treatment of time derivatives in (1.1) and (1.2) and for later use, we provide the following consequences of the transport theorem (Theorem 2.6).
(Transport identities).
Suppose that Assumptions
3.1
are valid. Then, for everyand every, the following statements hold true.
.
.
In view of (1.4), we simply write on , where
Let . To prove the first statement, we apply Theorem 2.6 to obtain
and, likewise,
Recalling the definition of ρ from (3.1), we infer that
The second claim now follows analogously, with v taking the role of ψ. □
(Weak differentiability of v).
Let. If Assumptions
3.1
are satisfied, thenis weakly differentiable in Ω.
Let . In view of Assumptions 3.1, there holds
For any and any , integration by parts yields
Since, by (1.4), there holds , the claim follows. □
The following weak concept of mean curvature will be useful for obtaining a variational formulation of (1.6).
(Weak-mean-curvature functional).
Letand suppose that Assumptions
3.1
are satisfied. For everywithin Ω, there holds
Let and with be arbitrary. We apply the integration-by-parts formula (2.2) to and sum over . Denoting , and , as ψ is divergence free, this implies
□
Note that the right-hand side of (3.5) is well-defined if Γ is merely the reduced or the essential boundary of a set of finite perimeter. Then one has to interpret as generalised inner (or outer) normal to Γ.
(Weak form of linear-momentum balance).
Let Assumptions
3.1
hold true. For every, there holds
Multiplying (3.3) by and integrating with respect to space and time leads to
Applying the first statement of Lemma 3.2 to deal with the time derivative leads to
To each of the remaining terms in (3.7), we shall apply the integration-by-parts formula on the spatial domains and : By (1.3) and (1.4), we infer
Using Proposition 3.3 and , we analogously obtain that
In view of , we have
Now combining (3.7)–(3.11) leads to
where the last identity follows by (1.5) and (1.6). Finally, Lemma 3.4 yields (3.6). □
Energy equality
In an analogous manner to Lemma 3.5, we may derive the following energy identity.
(Energy equality and a priori bounds).
Let Assumptions
3.1
hold true. For allsuch that, the following energy equality is satisfied.Moreover, if the initial energyis finite, then there holds
Let be such that . We multiply (3.3) by v and integrate with respect to space and time. This leads to
We shall evaluate the integral expression successively. For the treatment of the time derivative, we apply Lemma 3.2 to obtain
For the treatment of the remaining terms in (3.14), we shall repeatedly integrate by parts with respect to the spatial variable for fixed : for the computation of the second term in (3.14), we use that, in view of (1.3), there holds in , which implies
Proceeding as in (3.10) and using leads to
To treat the pressure term in (3.14), we may again use (1.3). Using calculations as in (3.11), we infer that
Now we may combine (3.14)–(3.18). Altogether, by (1.5) and (1.6), we obtain
Now (3.12) follows by observing that, in view of Theorem 2.6, there holds
Suppose that the initial energy , defined by (3.13), is finite and let . Recall from (3.1) that there holds a.e. in Ω. Making in (3.12) the choice and implies
Hence . Similarly, we obtain that
Due to the boundary condition (1.7), and using Korn’s inequality [22, Theorem 1.33], we infer that .
In the remainder of the proof we fix . In view of (1.3) and Lemma 2.1, v belongs to . To explore the regularity of ρ, we recall that, in view of (3.1), for every , there holds a.e. in Ω and, in particular, ρ belongs to . Additionally, for any , we have
Consequently, is a finite Radon measure and there holds
Due to Assumptions 3.1, has a Lipschitz boundary and . Then, we get
Finally, from the energy equality (3.12), it follows that is uniformly bounded in t. Altogether, we have proven that . □
Transport equation
The interface condition (1.5) can be expressed by the following transport equation for χ in distributional form, cf. [1, Section 2.5].
(Transport equation).
Let Assumptions
3.1
hold true. Then, for all, there holds
Let . Applying Theorem 2.6 to φ and integrating with respect to time yields
Recalling (1.5), we use that on to obtain
As and are the characteristic functions of and , respectively, see (3.2) and (3.4), the identity (3.20) follows. This finishes the proof. □
The previous result motivates the following definition.
(Weak solutions of the transport equation).
For prescribed functions and , is called a weak solution of the transport equation
provided that for every , (3.20) holds true.
The weak formulation
We seek to introduce a weak formulation for (1.1)–(1.8). To this end, we restrict the class of weak solutions to pairs satisfying the energy inequality (3.12). For well-prepared initial data , this suggests the regularity classes and . For a.e. , there exist a measurable set and an induced characteristic function of such that, a.e. in Ω, there holds
Here and subsequently, we refer to as measure-theoretic representative set of . This, in turn, leads to the representation
Notice that this procedure makes the identity well-defined in a measure-theoretic sense. As is of bounded variation, we may define the interface by , where denotes the reduced boundary of . Hence the variational formulation (3.6) remains meaningful if we understand the outer unit normal in the (measure-theoretic) sense of the generalised outer unit normal given by
Additionally, we require χ to solve the corresponding transport equation in the sense of Definition 3.8. and we maintain the assumption that is compactly contained in Ω. Finally, the results of the Lemmas 3.5–3.7 motivate the following weak formulation of (1.1)–(1.8).
(Weak formulation).
Let be prescribed initial data, such that the measure-theoretic representative set of is compactly contained in Ω, i.e., , and has the representation
where is the induced characteristic function of that is given by
Then is called a weak solution of (1.1)–(1.8) with prescribed initial data if the following conditions are fulfilled.
Regularity of associated density., and the measure-theoretic representative set of is compactly contained in Ω; that is, for a.e. , there holds .
Regularity of velocity..
Weak form of linear-momentum balance. For each , there holds
where is the reduced boundary of , and denotes the corresponding generalised outer unit normal.
Energy inequality. For a.e. , including , there holds
for all .
Transport equation. The induced characteristic function χ given by , that is,
is a weak solution of the transport equation (3.22) with velocity v and prescribed initial data in the sense of Definition 3.8.
From now on, we will always consider weak solutions in the sense of the foregoing definition. For convenience, for any weak solution , we will use the notation
where, as in the previous definition, denotes the measure-theoretic representative set of and . This means that, via , this notation leads to a pairwise disjoint partition of Ω. Note that if the set is sufficiently smooth, its topological and reduced boundary coincide, i.e., . This is consistent with Assumptions 3.1.
(Energy inequality).
The energy inequality (3.24) restricts the class of weak solutions in Definition 3.9. This approach is in the spirit of the theory of weak solutions for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations: in this case, for , weak solutions are unique, whereas, for , it can be shown that weak solutions are unique if one weak solution satisfies an additional regularity assumption, referred to as Serrin’s condition, cf. [24, Theorem V.1.5.1].
Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces on time-dependent domains
We are interested in functions that take values in Lebesgue or Sobolev spaces on time-dependent domains , cf. also [3,4,18,23]. We require the family to be parametrised in the following way, cf. [23, Assumption 1.1].
(Time evolution).
Let , , be a bounded domain with boundary of class . Assume that the time evolution of the family is described via a time-dependent -diffeomorphism , i.e., for every , there holds
Denote by the corresponding outer unit normal and by the normal velocity of with respect to ν. For , denotes the set of all bounded, continuous real-valued functions on Q and is given by
where .
Regularity of initial domain. The initial domain is a bounded domain with -boundary and let .
Regularity of Φ..
Preservation of volume. for all .
(Space-time domain).
Let Φ be as in Assumptions
4.1
. Then the functionbelongs to. Moreover, Λ is invertible with inverse function, whereIn particular,andhas a Lipschitz boundary.
As by Assumptions 4.1, it follows that . Moreover, Λ is invertible and . Hence, , and thus . Observing that is Lipschitz and that finishes the proof. □
(Normal velocity).
Suppose that Assumptions
4.1
hold true. Then, for every, there holds
For , fix . By Assumptions 4.1, restriction to the respective boundaries yields diffeomorphisms and, for , . Therefore, defines a -mapping with . Thus η is an admissible choice in Definition 2.4, which yields
Consequently, V has the stated representation in terms of Φ. □
By means of the transformation , we may transform Lebesgue and Sobolev functions defined on to functions on . For this purpose, for , we introduce the transformation defined by
for and ; see [23, equation (10)]. The main properties of the transformation (4.1) are collected in the next lemma; see also [23, Section 3]. In particular, it turns out that defines a divergence-preserving operator.
(Properties of ).
Suppose thatis as in Assumptions
4.1
. Let,,and. Then the operatordefined by (
4.1
) has the following properties.
The mappingis an isomorphism. Its inverse operatoris given byfor.
There are constants, which do not depend on t, such that
The mappingis an isomorphism.
For any, there holdsand. Moreover,is an isomorphism.
The proof is straightforward. See [8, Lemma 4.4.6] for details. □
We are interested in functions of the form or . To define these function spaces, we will always suppose that satisfies the regularity conditions gathered together in Assumptions 4.1. For functions , the distributional derivatives with are well-defined. This allows us to define the following Bochner-type function spaces.
(Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces on time-dependent domains).
The space consists of all such that for a.e. , and .
The space consists of all such that, for all with , there holds .
The space consists of all such that .
The vector-valued versions of the above spaces are given by
Let stand for either or . The space is equipped with the norm
The space is equipped with the norm
We want to point out that, in the foregoing Definition 4.5 we crucially used the fact that all defined function spaces are subspaces of .
We may use to transform functions from the previous definitions to functions taking values in time-independent Lebesgue or Sobolev spaces, i.e., functions belonging to the usual Bochner spaces. To this end, we define by
Owing to the time-independent bounds on and its inverse from Lemma 4.4, the transformation properties carry over to , as we now show. The function spaces introduced in Definition 4.5 are transformed as follows.
(Properties of ).
Suppose that Assumptions
4.1
hold true. Let,and. Denote by,, either of the spaces,or. Then, given by (
4.3
), is a diffeomorphism between the spacesandas well as between the spacesand
By Lemma 4.4, is an isomorphism between spaces of the form and . For the proof of the remaining claim, we study the transformation of time derivatives. Let . Hence . By the definition of , there holds that . To prove that belongs to , we use the mapping , which belongs to , by Corollary 4.2, and that we may write
for any . Using the product and the chain rule, we see
Recalling (4.4), it follows that
Since Φ and Λ belong to and , respectively, the functions , and are continuous and bounded on . Moreover, , , , and belong to . This implies , and thus . The remaining claim follows by similar arguments, as in the proof of Lemma 4.4. □
In the spirit of Theorem 2.6, we obtain the following integration-by-parts formula for Sobolev spaces on time-dependent domains.
(Integration by parts).
Suppose that Assumptions
4.1
hold true. For, letand. Then there holds
By Corollary 4.2, the space-time domain has a Lipschitz boundary. By density of in
see [12, p. 127, Theorem 3], there exists an approximating sequence such that in as . Using Theorem 2.6, we obtain
Hence
In view of Corollary 4.2 and Proposition 4.3, the normal velocity V is bounded. By standard properties of the trace operator [12, p. 133, Theorem 3], we obtain (4.5) by letting in the final equation. □
Consistency of the weak formulation
The notion of weak solutions for the sharp-interface model incorporates the variational formulation (3.23), using test functions from the space . Just as in the theory of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations, this choice removes the pressure function from the weak formulation, cf. [24, Definition V.1.1.1]. Thus it is not clear that the test space is appropriate. To justify this choice, we will prove that, under additional regularity assumptions given below, it is possible to reconstruct a pressure function from the weak formulation. To this end, we will basically proceed in two steps. Firstly, we will reconstruct an associated pressure function in the whole space-time domain . Secondly, we shall readjust the associated pressure function separately in the space-time domains
to satisfy the dynamical Young–Laplace law (1.6) in an appropriate trace sense.
Assume that is a bounded domain with boundary of class . Let be a weak solution of the free-boundary problem (1.1)–(1.8) in the sense of Definition 3.9 with respect to prescribed initial data , such that the measure-theoretic representative set of is compactly contained in Ω and has a -boundary. Moreover, let the following regularity properties hold true.
Regularity of interface. For any , is a diffeomorphism as in Assumptions 4.1, such that the time evolution of the measure-theoretic representative set of is described by , i.e., for every , there holds
Additionally, for all , the interface is compactly contained in Ω, that is, . Denote by the unit normal to pointing outward to and by the normal velocity of with respect to . Similarly, let the time evolution of be described by a diffeomorphism satisfying Assumptions 4.1.
Regularity of velocity.
The mean-curvature functional for smooth interfaces
Due to Assumptions 5.1, the family of interfaces has additional regularity properties. This allows us to extend the mean-curvature function to the space-time domain . For the proof, we study the transformation of the trace spaces and .
(Transformation of trace spaces).
Suppose that Assumptions
5.1
hold true, and let. Then the pullback operator, defined byfor, induces linear homeomorphismssuch thatfor every, andfor everywith constantsindependent of u and t. In particular, there are constantssuch that
The estimate (5.2) follows from (5.1) applied to the constant function . The proof of the remaining claims can be found in [4, Section 5.4.1]. □
(Mean-curvature functional).
If Assumptions
5.1
hold true, then there exists a functionwith the following properties.
Let. For the trace ofon the boundary, there holds
The zero extension K oftobelongs toand, for every, there holds
Let . We apply the pullback operator , introduced in Lemma 5.2, to the mean-curvature function . For notational convenience, we suppress the upper index and simply write and in the remainder of this proof. We define for . Since has a -boundary, there exists a weak solution of
depending on t, which additionally satisfies the estimate
for some constant , depending on , but independent of t; see [7, Theorem III.4.1]. By Assumptions 5.1 and the foregoing Lemma 5.2, we infer that for a suitable constant , independent of t, there holds
Therefore, the function defined by for belongs to and, by construction, satisfies (5.3).
Concerning the second claim, we define , for any , by
Then K belongs to . For every , we then obtain
Taking into account (5.3), we conclude the first identity in (5.4). Noting that the last equality in (5.4) follows from Lemma 3.4 finishes the proof. □
For our purposes, it is important to note that, if Assumptions 5.1 are satisfied, then Lemma 5.3 allows one to replace (3.23) by
for all . It is also convenient to introduce given by
for . Note that, for all , there holds
Existence of an associated pressure function
We shall prove the existence of an associated pressure function, that is, a distribution such that
The theory of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations provides us with the following key tool.
Letand let. Ifsatisfiesthen there exists a uniquesatisfyingin; that is,for all, and, for a.e., there holds
Although the functional , defined by (5.7), vanishes on due to (5.8), the functional
does not in general belong to any -space. To circumvent this problem, we improve the properties of this functional by taking into account Assumptions 5.1.
Suppose that Assumptions
5.1
are satisfied. Then there holdsfor any.
Since, by Assumptions 5.1, v belongs to
for any , the integration-by-parts formula (Lemma 4.8) yields
Recalling that finally yields the claim. □
(Time derivatives across the interface).
In (5.9), the domain of integration is instead of the whole domain Ω, despite the fact that has Lebesgue measure zero. This is because, by Assumptions 5.1, the restrictions of v to belong to some -space. However, this does not give any information about the behaviour of on the interface . In particular, we cannot assume that exists in the sense of weak derivatives on .
We now prove some preparatory results, which incorporate the additional properties from Assumptions 5.1, before we reconstruct the pressure function with the help of Theorem 5.4.
If Assumptions
5.1
are satisfied, then v has the following properties.
in.
For every, there holds
For every, there holds
(1) By Definition 3.9, . In particular, this means that . Finally, Lemma 2.1 implies the first claim.
(2) Let . The first equality in (5.10) follows from the first statement of Theorem 2.6. For the proof of the second equality in (5.10), we use that χ is a weak solution of the transport equation (3.22). Thus, by (3.20), we have
Using integration by parts and in , it follows
This proves (5.10).
(3) Due to Assumptions 5.1, there holds
By Corollary 4.2, has a Lipschitz boundary, and therefore is dense in ; see [12, p. 127, Theorem 3]. This means that there exists an approximating sequence such that in as . For any , for , we obtain
and
since and . As χ is a weak solution of the transport equation, by (3.20), we infer that
Now (5.12) and (5.13) allow us to pass to the limit . This yields
As the integration-by-parts formula (see Lemma 4.8) applies to the left-hand side and as in , we obtain
This justifies (5.11), which completes the proof. □
Next, we explore the regularity of the convective term .
Let be given by (4.3). In view of Proposition 4.7, there holds that
and it is sufficient to verify that for . To this end, we will use the continuous embedding
see [5, Chapter III, Theorem 4.10.2] and [17, Théorème 12.4]. As (5.14) implies that , taking into account the embedding (5.15), we conclude that
Then, by Hölder’s inequality, we obtain
which completes the proof. □
Using Proposition 5.5, we improve the regularity of the functional ; see (5.7).
Suppose that Assumptions
5.1
hold true and letbe as in (
5.7
). For, definebyThenextends to a functional belonging to. Moreover, there holdsfor all.
In view of Assumptions 5.1, Lemma 5.8, Definition 3.9 and Lemma 5.3, extends to a functional belonging to the class .
Let . It suffices to show that
To this end, we integrate by parts on , and use Proposition 5.7, to see that
Finally, applying Proposition 5.5 implies (5.17). □
Taking into account the additional smoothness Assumptions 5.1, we can prove the existence of an associated pressure function.
(Reconstruction of associated pressure).
Let Assumptions
5.1
be satisfied. Then there exists some functionsuch that its restrictionstobelong toand satisfywheredenotes the extension of the mean-curvature function as in Lemma
5.3
.
In view of Proposition 5.9 and (5.8), for any , there holds . Since belongs to , by Theorem 5.4, there exists a function such that, for the distributional gradient , there holds
For any , since in and , this leads to
As , due to Assumptions 5.1, this implies that belongs to . Additionally, since v is divergence free, we conclude the first identity in (5.18). As the statements about follow analogously, this finishes the proof. □
The pressure jump
The question left to answer is whether there are pressure functions such that the Young–Laplace law (1.6) holds true. That is, whether
is satisfied on the interface . A first step towards an affirmative answer to this question is to understand the “jump brackets” in an appropriate sense: in Theorem 5.10 we reconstructed a pressure function p such that, for its restrictions to , there holds
In particular, for a.e. , the traces are well-defined in the Sobolev sense, and there holds
Therefore, the statement of Theorem 5.10 suggests that the pressure jump on the space-time interface
belongs to the space which is given by either of the equivalent definitions
and
Likewise, we introduce the n-dimensional version of the latter space and define
To give the jump condition (5.19) a meaning, in the remaining part of this chapter, we will interpret the “jump brackets” in the sense of Sobolev traces without changing the notation. More precisely, for a function such that the restrictions to belong to , we denote
where and denote the traces of on the interface taken with respect to the domains and , respectively. Analogously, for a function such that the restrictions to belong to , we denote . To construct a pressure function respecting the Young–Laplace law, we provide the following two technical lemmas.
Letbe a bounded subdomain of Ω with Lipschitz boundaryand outer normal. Then, for, there holdsif and only if there exists a functionsuch that
Let satisfy (5.21). Then there holds
The opposite direction follows by [13, Theorem IV.1.1]. □
The following variant of the fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations allows one to deal with divergence-free test functions.
Let Assumptions
5.1
hold true. Ifsatisfiesfor all, then the tangential projectionvanishes on, i.e., for a.e., there holdson. Moreover, the normal projectionbelongs to. Moreover, for a.e., there holdson, where the functionbelongs toand is given by
We split the proof of the lemma into several steps.
Step 1. By assumption, for a.e. , the fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations implies
for all . Passing on to , for any , there holds
Let be such that . Applying Lemma 5.11 on and , respectively, there exist functions and such that in , in , on and on . As , see Lemma 2.1, the composite function
is an admissible test function in (5.24), which finally yields
Step 2. For a.e. , there holds and , by assumption. Hence, the function belongs to and satisfies
In particular, is an admissible choice in (5.25), which implies
since . This proves the first claim.
Step 3. From , we infer that . For the proof of (5.22), we consider given by
Since, by the definition of , vanishes, is an admissible function in (5.25). Thus we get
and, by the definition of , we conclude that
and hence, we have
Hence vanishes -a.e. on .
Step 4. We shall prove that the function , given by (5.23), is measurable. To this end, we use the pullback operator introduced in Lemma 5.2 and define for and . Then, in view of Lemma 5.2, the function belongs to . In particular, B is Bochner measurable. This means that there exists a sequence of simple functions such that, for a.e. , there holds in as . For and , define
where denotes the inverse of . Using Lemma 5.2 again, we conclude that, for any , is a linear functional that, for any , satisfies
and, consequently,
for a constant independent of . Hence defines an element of , where the constant of continuity does not depend on . Then, , defined by for , is a simple function for every . Moreover, for a.e. , we infer that as . Since there holds
we conclude that is a measurable function.
Step 5. In view of (5.26) and (5.27), there is some constant such that
Hence we have and, as , it follows that . This finishes the proof. □
The existence statement of Theorem 5.10 and the preparatory Lemma 5.12 now allow us to construct a pressure function satisfying the jump condition of the Young–Laplace law.
(Reconstruction of pressure).
Let Assumptions
5.1
be satisfied. Then there exists a unique functionwith the following properties.
.
For a.e., there holds.
a.e. in.
a.e. in.
in.
The uniqueness of p is a direct consequence of the zero-mean condition. In the remainder we shall construct the desired function p with the help of the functions from Theorem 5.10 and the function from Lemma 5.3: Consider the function
Notice that, by Lemma 5.3 and Theorem 5.10, belongs to and, in the almost-everywhere sense, there holds
in and, likewise, a.e. in . We remark that these properties remain valid for
for arbitrary functions . Therefore, it is sufficient to prove that there exists some such that, for a.e. , there holds
on . This is because the functions and provide two degrees of freedom: for a.e. , the first may be used to remove the function C from the previous equation. For example, by making the choice and , the function p satisfies the desired jump condition. If p does not have the zero-mean property, the second degree of freedom may be used to subtract its mean value.
Let . By the definition of , there holds
This implies
In view of Proposition 5.7 and Theorem 5.10, we conclude that
Recalling that and applying integration by parts leads to
where is given by (5.16). Since , in view of Proposition 5.9, we conclude that
Finally, in view of Lemma 5.12, there exists a function such that (5.28) is valid. □
References
1.
H.Abels, On generalized solutions of two-phase flows for viscous incompressible fluids, Interfaces Free Bound.9(1) (2007), 31–65. doi:10.4171/IFB/155.
2.
H.Abels and H.Garcke, Weak solutions and diffuse interface models for incompressible two-phase flows, in: Handbook of Mathematical Analysis in Mechanics of Viscous Fluids, Springer, 2018, pp. 1268–1327.
3.
A.Alphonse, C.M.Elliott and B.Stinner, An abstract framework for parabolic PDEs on evolving spaces, Port. Math. (NS)72(1) (2015), 1–46. doi:10.4171/PM/1955.
4.
A.Alphonse, C.M.Elliott and B.Stinner, On some linear parabolic PDEs on moving hypersurfaces, Interfaces Free Bound.17(2) (2015), 157–187. doi:10.4171/IFB/338.
5.
H.Amann, Linear and Quasilinear Parabolic Problems. Vol. 1: Abstract Linear Theory, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1995.
6.
L.Ambrosio, N.Fusco and D.Pallara, Functions of Bounded Variation and Free Discontinuity Problems, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2000.
7.
F.Boyer and P.Fabrie, Mathematical Tools for the Study of the Incompressible Navier–Stokes Equations and Related Models, Springer, New York, NY, 2013.
8.
J.Daube, Sharp-interface limit for the Navier–Stokes–Korteweg equations, PhD thesis, University of Freiburg, 2016. doi:10.6094/UNIFR/11679.
9.
K.Deckelnick, G.Dziuk and C.M.Elliott, Computation of geometric partial differential equations and mean curvature flow, Acta Numerica14 (2005), 139–232. doi:10.1017/S0962492904000224.
10.
I.V.Denisova and V.A.Solonnikov, Solvability in Hölder spaces of a model initial-boundary value problem generated by a problem on the motion of two fluids, Journal of Mathematical Sciences70(3) (1991), 1717–1746. doi:10.1007/BF02149145.
11.
I.V.Denisova and V.A.Solonnikov, Global solvability of a problem governing the motion of two incompressible capillary fluids in a container, Journal of Mathematical Sciences185(5) (2012), 668–686. doi:10.1007/s10958-012-0951-8.
12.
L.C.Evans and R.F.Gariepy, Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1992.
13.
G.P.Galdi, An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier–Stokes Equations. Steady-State Problems, 2nd edn, Springer, New York, NY, 2011.
14.
D.Gilbarg and N.S.Trudinger, Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, 2nd edn, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 224, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001, XIII, 513 p.
15.
M.Kimura, Geometry of hypersurfaces and moving hypersurfaces in for the study of moving boundary problems, in: Topics in Mathematical Modeling, Jindr˘ich Nec˘as Cent. Math. Model. Lect. Notes., Vol. 4, Matfyzpress, Prague, 2008, pp. 39–93.
16.
M.Köhne, J.Prüss and M.Wilke, Qualitative behaviour of solutions for the two-phase Navier–Stokes equations with surface tension, Math. Ann.356(2) (2013), 737–792. doi:10.1007/s00208-012-0860-7.
17.
J.L.Lions and E.Magenes, Problèmes aux Limites Non Homogenes et Applications, Vol. 1, Dunod 1, Paris, 1968, XIX.
18.
P.Nägele, Monotone operator theory for unsteady problems on non-cylindrical domains, PhD thesis, University of Freiburg, 2015. doi:10.6094/UNIFR/10187.
19.
P.I.Plotnikov, Generalized solutions of a problem on the motion of a non-Newtonian fluid with a free boundary, Sibirsk. Mat. Zh.34(4) (1993), 127–141, iii, ix.
20.
P.I.Plotnikov, Compressible Stokes flow driven by capillarity on a free surface, in: Navier–Stokes Equations and Related Nonlinear ProblemsPalanga, 1997, VSP, Utrecht, 1998, pp. 217–238.
21.
J.Prüss and G.Simonett, On the two-phase Navier–Stokes equations with surface tension, Interfaces Free Bound.12(3) (2010), 311–345. doi:10.4171/IFB/237.
J.Saal, Maximal regularity for the Stokes system on noncylindrical space-time domains, J. Math. Soc. Japan58(3) (2006), 617–641. doi:10.2969/jmsj/1156342030.
24.
H.Sohr, The Navier–Stokes Equations. An Elementary Functional Analytic Approach, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2001.