Abstract
In this paper, we prove new estimates on temporal-spatial decays in \(L^1\) for solutions to the Stokes equations in the half spaces. Our approach is based on the Ukai’s solution formula of the Stokes equations and heat kernel estimates.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In this paper, we consider the Stokes equation
where
-
\(n\ge 2\), and \(\mathbb {R}^n_+=\{x=(x',x_n): x'\in {\mathbb {R}}^{n-1}, x_n>0\}\) is the upper-half space of \({\mathbb {R}}^n\);
-
\(u=(u_1(x,t), u_2(x,t),\ldots , u_n(x,t))\) and \(p=p(x,t)\) are unknown velocity vector and the pressure, respectively;
-
the initial data \(u_0=u_0(x)\) is assumed to satisfy a compatibility condition: \(\nabla \cdot u_0 =0\) in \({\mathbb {R}}^n_+\) and the normal component of \(u_0\) equals to zero on \(\partial \mathbb {R}^n_+\).
The estimates of the solution to the Stokes equation play an important role in the study of the temporal and the spatial decays for weak solutions to the Navier–Stokes equation. See [6, 10, 12, 13, 15] and the references therein.
Denote by A the Stokes operator \(-P\Delta \) in \(\mathbb {R}^n_+\), where P is the projection: \(L^r(\mathbb {R}^n_+)\rightarrow L^r_\sigma (\mathbb {R}^n_+)\), \(1<r<\infty \). Then the solution to (1) can be written as \(u(t,x)=e^{-tA} u_0\). In the whole space \(\mathbb {R}^n\), the flow \(e^{-tA}\) behaves similarly to the heat Laplacian semigroup \(e^{t\Delta }\); hence,
for all \(1\le p\le q\le \infty \). However, this is not the case in the half-space \(\mathbb {R}^n_+\). Precisely, in the half-space case, we have
for all \(1< p\le q\le \infty \) or \(1\le p< q\le \infty \). See [10]. It is worth noticing that unlike the whole space case, (2) does not hold true for \(p=q=1\). In fact, it was proved in [7] that there exists a function \(u_0\in L^1(\mathbb {R}_+^n)\) such that \(e^{-tA} u_0\notin L^1(\mathbb {R}_+^n)\). In order to deal with \(L^1(\mathbb {R}_+^n)\) estimates, we need certain extra condition on the initial data \(u_0\). We first recall the main result in [1, Theorem 1.1].
Theorem A. Assume that the initial date \(u_0\) satisfies \(\nabla \cdot u =0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^n_+\) and
Then, there is a constant C independent of \(u_0\) such that
and
where
with \({\mathcal {H}}^1(\mathbb {R}^n)\) being the Hardy space on \(\mathbb {R}^n\). (See (19) for the precise definition of the Hardy space).
Then in [12] a stronger condition than (3) is considered. A vector \(a=(a_1, a_2,\ldots , a_n)\) on \(\mathbb {R}^n_+\), \(n\ge 2\) satisfies the tangential parity condition if
-
(i)
for \(1\le j,k\le n-1\) (\(n\ge 3\)) with \(j \ne k\), \(a_j(x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_{n-1},x_n)\) is odd in \(x_j\) and even in \(x_k\); and \(a_1(x_1,x_2)\) is odd in \(x_1\) if \(n=2\);
-
(ii)
for \(1\le j\le n-1\), \(a_n(x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_{n-1},x_n)\) is even in each \(x_j\).
Then it was proved that
Theorem B. [12] Assume that the initial date \(u_0=(u^1_{0}, u^2_{0},\ldots , u^n_{0})\) satisfies \(\nabla \cdot u =0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^n_+\) and \(u^n_{0}|_{\partial \mathbb {R}^n_+}=0\). Suppose further that \(u_0\) satisfies the tangential parity condition. Then, for any \(0<\alpha \le 1\) and \(t>0\)
It is important to note that the method in [1] used to obtain the estimates (4) and (5) can not be applied to derive the estimate (6). This is a reason why in [12], the tangential parity condition is assumed to obtain the estimate (6). We would like to emphasize that the tangential parity condition is stronger than condition (3). It is worth noticing that such estimates (4) and (5) are not useful to study the long-time behaviour of solutions to the corresponding Navier–Stokes equation under the tangential parity condition. See for example [12].This show the motivation of the estimate (6).
The main aim of this paper is to prove the following general estimate.
Theorem 1.1
Assume that the initial date \(u_0\) satisfies \(\nabla \cdot u_0 =0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^n_+\) and the condition (3). Then for any \(t>0\), and \(0< \alpha \le 1\) and \(0\le \beta \le 1\),
Some comments are in order:
-
(a)
Since the tangential parity condition is stronger than (3), Theorem 1.1 is still true under the tangential parity condition. Therefore it is also interesting to study the \(L^1\) decay estimates for the solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations. However, we do not pursue this problem in this paper. Such a result should be elsewhere.
-
(b)
It is easy to see that the estimate (7) turns out to be the estimates (4) and (5) when we choose \((\alpha , \beta )=(1,1)\) and \((\alpha , \beta )=(1,0)\). Moreover, using the inequality \(|y'|\le |y|\) and \(y_n\le |y|\), the estimate (7) deduces, for \(\alpha \in (0,2]\)
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert e^{-tA}u_0\Vert _{L^1(\mathbb {R}_+^n)}\le Ct^{-\frac{\alpha }{2}}\int _{\mathbb {R}^n_+}|x|^{\alpha }|u_0(x)|dx, \end{aligned}$$which extends the range of \(\alpha \in (0,1]\) in (6) under the weaker assumption (3).
We would like to point out that the approaches in [1, 12] can not be applicable to derive the estimate (7). More importantly, although the decay estimates in [1, 12] hold true, there are gaps in their proofs. For example (please see the definitions of \(\Lambda \) and E(t) in Sect. 3), both papers used the fact that \(eE(t)u_0\in {\mathcal {H}}^1(\mathbb {R}^n)\), but this statement was not proved and it is not clear if this is true. See [1, p.17] and [12, p.1542]. Moreover, one of the key ingredients is proving the following \(\partial _j \Lambda ^{-1}eE(t)u_0\in {\mathcal {H}}^1(\mathbb {R}^n)\). However, what was proved in [1, 12] is \(\partial _j \Lambda ^{-1}E(t)u_0\in {\mathcal {H}}^1(\mathbb {R}^n)\). See the proof of [1, Lemma 3.3] and [12, Lemma 2.2]. Therefore, our approach fills in the gaps of the proofs of Theorem A and Theorem B in [1, 12].
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2, we prove some kernel estimates which play an essential role in proving temporal-spatial decay estimates for the Stokes equation. The proof of Theorem 1.1 will be given in Sect. 3.
Throughout the paper, we always use C and c to denote positive constants that are independent of the main parameters involved but whose values may differ from line to line. We will write \(A\lesssim B\) if there is a universal constant C so that \(A\le CB\) and \(A\sim B\) if \(A\lesssim B\) and \(B\lesssim A\).
2 Heat kernel estimates
In this section, we prove a number of kernel estimates which play an important role in the proof of the main result.
Lemma 2.1
Let \(d\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \(\alpha >0\). Then we have
for all \(y\in {\mathbb {R}}^d\) and \(t>0\). As a consequence,
Proof
We have
It is obvious that
It remains to estimate the sum in (8). To this end, we write
This proves the first inequality.
The second inequality follows directly from the first one and the following inequality
This completes our proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.2
Let \(\epsilon , \alpha , \gamma >0\). Then there exists C such that
-
(i)
for every \(y\in \mathbb {R}^d\) and \(t>0\),
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\mathbb {R}^d} \frac{1}{t^{d}}\Big (\frac{t}{t+|x-y|}\Big )^{d+\epsilon }dx \le C; \end{aligned}$$ -
(ii)
for every \(M, t>0\),
$$\begin{aligned} \int _0^\infty \frac{s^\alpha }{(s+t)^{\alpha +\gamma }}\Big (1+\frac{M}{s+t}\Big )^{-(\alpha +\gamma )}\frac{ds}{s}\le \frac{C}{(t+M)^\gamma }. \end{aligned}$$
Proof
(i) The proof of this item is simple and we omit the details.
(ii) We write
For the term \(E_1\), we have
For the term \(E_2\), it is obvious that
This completes our proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.3
Let \(d\in {\mathbb {N}}\), \(\alpha \in (0,1]\) and \(\gamma \in [0,\alpha )\). Then for any \(y\in {\mathbb {R}}^d\) and \(t>0\), we have
Proof
We have
For the term E, using Lemma 2.1,
For the second term F, we have
Using the inequality \(e^u -1 \lesssim u^\alpha \) for \(\alpha , u\in [0,1]\), we have
where in the last inequality we used Lemma 2.1.
In order to take case of the term \(F_1\), we write
where
Hence, it suffices to show that
To do this, we consider these two terms separately.
\(\underline{\hbox {Estimate of }F_{11}}\)
We have
Using \(e^u -1 \lesssim u^\alpha \) for \(\alpha , u\in [0,1]\),
Owing to the following inequality
we obtain
where in the last inequality we used Lemma 2.1.
For the term \(G_2\), we have
Similarly to the estimate of \(G_1\), we have
For the term \(G_{21}\), we write
Using Lemma 2.1,
For the term \(H_2\), note that \(|x-y|\sim |x|\) as \(|x|>2|y|\). Hence, by Lemma 2.1,
where in the second inequality we used the inequality
Collecting the estimates of \(H_1, H_2, G_{21}, G_{22}\), we come up with
Taking this and the estimate of \(G_1\) into account, we have
\(\underline{\hbox {Estimate of} F_{12}}\)
We have
We take care of \(M_2\) first. Since \(\langle x,y\rangle <0\) in this situation, we have
At this stage, arguing similarly to the estimates of \(H_1\) and \(H_2\), we have
It remains to estimate \(M_1\). We have
This, along with the following inequality \(e^u -1 \lesssim u^\alpha \) for \(\alpha , u\in [0,1]\), yields
At this stage, using the argument in the estimations of \(H_1\) and \(H_2\), we arrive at
This, along with the estimate of \(M_2\), implies
This completes our proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.4
For every \(\alpha \in (0,1]\) and \(\gamma \in [0,\alpha )\), we have
for all \(y>0\).
Proof
We write
The desired estimate then follows from Lemma 2.3. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.5
Let \(d\in {\mathbb {N}}\), \(\alpha \in (0,1]\), \(\gamma \in [0,1]\) and \(j=1,\ldots , d\). Then we have, for any \(y\in \mathbb {R}^d\),
Proof
We have
As a consequence,
where
and
By making use of the following inequalities
and
the estimates of \(E_1\) and \(E_3\) can be obtained by the argument used in the proof of Lemma 2.3. Hence,
It remains to estimate \(E_2\). To do this, using the following inequality
we have
where in the last inequality we used Lemma 2.1. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.6
Let \(\alpha \in [0,1]\) and \(c_0, c_1>0\). Then we have
for every \(s, t>0\), \(x\in \mathbb {R}\) and \(y>0\), and for some \(c>0\).
Proof
In order to prove the lemma. We will employ the following simple inequality whose proof will be omitted: let \(a>0\). Then there exists \(c>0\) such that for any \(s,t>0\) and \(x,y\in \mathbb {R}\), we have
We consider two cases: \(t<|y|^2\) and \(t\ge |y|^2\).
Case 1: \(t<|y|^2\)
In this situation, we have
for some \(c>0\), where we used (9) in the second inequality.
Case 2: \(t\ge |y|^2\)
In this case, we have
For \(E_2\), we write
Using the inequality \(e^u -1 \lesssim u^\alpha \) for \(\alpha \in [0,1]\) and \(u\lesssim 1\), we have
for some \(c>0\), where we used \(e^{-\frac{(y+z)^2}{c_0t}}\le e^{-\frac{(y+z)^2}{2c_0t}}e^{-\frac{z^2}{2c_0t}}\) (since \(y, z\ge 0\)) in the second inequality and (9) in the last inequality.
For the term \(E_1\), we notice that \( yz>4t\ge 4y^2\), and hence \(z>4y\). In this situation,
so that
for some \(c'>0\).
Therefore,
for some \(c>0\), where we used the following estimate
in the third inequality and used (9) in the last inequality.
This completes our proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.7
Let \(d\in \mathbb {N}\), \(\alpha \in (0,1]\) and \(a>0\). Then we have, for every \(x,y\in \mathbb {R}^d\),
Proof
We write
Using the fact that
and Lemma 2.2 we have
For the second term, we note that
Hence, for \(s+t>|y|^2\), we consider two cases.
Case 1: If \(|x|\le 2|y|\), then we have
Case 2: If \(|x|\ge 2|y|\), then we have \(|x-y|\sim |y|\). If \(|x||y|\ge (s+t)^2\), then we have we have
Otherwise, if \(|x||y|\ge (s+t)^2\), then we write
where in the second inequality we used the following inequality \(|1-e^{x}|\lesssim |x|^\alpha \) for all x with \(|x|\lesssim 1\).
Therefore,
So, we have proved that
This, along with Lemma 2.2, implies
as desired.
This completes our proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.8
Let \(d\ge 2\), \(\alpha \in (0,1]\) and \(c, c'>0\). Then, for \(x=(x',x_d), y=(y',y_d)\in \mathbb {R}^n\) and \(j=1,\ldots , d-1\), we have
where \((0',y_d)=(0,\ldots ,0,y_d)\in \mathbb {R}^d\).
Proof
The proof of this Lemma is similar to that of Lemma 2.7 and we would like to leave the details for the interested reader. \(\square \)
3 Temporal-spatial decay estimates for the Stokes equations
This section is devoted to prove the temporal-spatial decay estimates for the Stokes equations in Theorem 1.1.
We first make some conventions of notations. For \(x\in \mathbb {R}^n\), we denote its tangential components \((x_1,\ldots , x_{n-1})\) by \(x'\in \mathbb {R}^{n-1}\), so that \(x=(x',x_n)\). We set \(\partial _j =\partial /\partial x_j\), \(\nabla '=(\partial _1,\ldots ,\partial _{n-1})\), \(\Delta '=\sum _{j=1}^{n-1}\partial ^2_j\), and \(\Delta _n=\partial _n^2\).
The Riesz transforms \(R_j\) \((j=1,\ldots , n)\), \(S_j\) \((j=1,\ldots , n-1)\), and the operator \(\Lambda \) are defined by
We set \(R'=(R_1,\ldots , R_{n-1})\), \(S=(S_1,\ldots , S_{n-1})\), and define
where r is the restriction operator from \(\mathbb {R}^n\) to \(\mathbb {R}^n_+\), and e is the zero extension operator from \(\mathbb {R}^n_+\) to \(\mathbb {R}^n\) defined by
We also define the operators E(t) and F(t) by
where \(G_t\) is the Gauss kernel \(H_t(x)=(4\pi t)^{-n/2}e^{-|x|^2/4t}\). Note that E(t) and F(t) are the semigroups generated by the Dirichlet Laplacian and Neumann Laplacian, respectively.
We recall the following result in [19] regarding the solution formula of the Stokes equation (1).
Theorem 3.1
The solution to (1) can be expressed as
where \(V_1u_0 = -S\cdot u_0' + u_0^n\), and \(V_2u_0=u_0' +Su_0^n\).
It is easy to see that the solution u defined in Theorem 3.1 is given as a restriction \(r{\bar{u}}\) of \({\bar{u}} =({\bar{u}}^1,\ldots , {\bar{u}}^{n-1},{\bar{u}}^n):= ({\bar{u}}',{\bar{u}}^n)\) of the form
In order to prove Theorem 1.1 we need the following representations for \({\bar{u}}\) in [1, 12].
Proposition 3.2
Let \({\bar{u}}\) is given by (14) and (15). Then we have
where \({\widetilde{E}}(t)\) is an operator defined by
for all \(x\in \mathbb {R}^n\) and \(f\in L^1(\mathbb {R}^n_+)\).
We now recall the definition of the Hardy space \({\mathcal {H}}^1(\mathbb {R}^n)\). See [18]. A function \(f\in L^1(\mathbb {R}^n)\) is said to be in Hardy space \({\mathcal {H}}^1(\mathbb {R}^n)\) if
where \(H_t\) is the heat kernel of the Laplacian defined by
In the sequel, we denote
and
Then we have
In order to prove Theorem 1.1 we need the following auxiliary estimates.
Proposition 3.3
Assume that \(a \in L^1(\mathbb {R}^n_+)\) satisfies
then for any \(1\le j\le n-1\), \(t>0\), \(\alpha \in (0,1]\) and \(\beta \in [0,1]\),
and
Proof
Proof of (21)
Denote by \(a^*\) the odd extension of a from \(\mathbb {R}^n_+\) to \(\mathbb {R}^n\), i.e.
Then we have
which implies that for \(s>0\),
Therefore,
Using the fact that \(\int _{\mathbb {R}^{n-1}}a(y',y_n)dy'=0\),
where
and
We consider two cases: \(\beta >0\) and \(\beta =0\).
Case 1: \(\beta >0\)
We have
Then applying Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4,
Case 2: \(\beta =0\)
Take \(\gamma \in (0,\alpha )\). Then we have, from (25),
Applying Lemma 2.4 to the first supremum and Lemma 2.1 for the second supremum, we find that
This completes the proof of (21).
Proof of (22) Note that \(\Lambda ^{-1}=(-\Delta ')^{-\frac{1}{2}}\). Hence, by the subordination formula,
It follows that, for \(j=1,\ldots , n-1\),
This, in combination with (20), implies
where we recall that \(F_{1,t}(z_n,y_n)= H_{1,t}(z_n-y_n)-H_{1,t}(z_n+y_n)\).
and
Consequently,
From Lemma 2.1,
and
These two inequalities and (28) imply that
Proof of (23)
Using the subordination formula,
we have, for \(j=1,\ldots , n-1\),
We then apply (20) to write
Applying Lemma 2.6,
Therefore,
Then applying Lemma 2.8,
From Lemma 2.1,
This, along with (29), implies that
\(\square \)
We are now ready to give the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1:
Using Proposition 3.2, we have
At this stage, using Proposition 3.3 and the boundedness of the Riesz transforms \(R_j\) on the Hardy space \({\mathcal {H}}^1(\mathbb {R}^n)\) for \(j=1,\ldots , n\), we have
Similarly,
This completes our proof. \(\square \)
References
Bae, H.-O.: Temporal decays in \(L^1\) and \(L^{\infty }\) for the Stokes flow. J. Differ. Equ. 222, 1–20 (2006)
Bae, H.-O., Jin, B.J.: Upper and lower bounds of temporal and spatial decays for the Navier–Stokes equations. J. Differ. Equ. 209(2), 365–391 (2005)
Brandolese, L.: On the localization of symmetric and asymmetric solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations in \({\mathbb{R}}^n\). C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 332, 125–130 (2001)
Brandolese, L.: Space-time decay of Navier–Stokes flows invariant under rotations. Math. Ann. 329, 685–706 (2004)
Brandolese, L., Vigneron, F.: New asymptotic profiles of nonstationary solutions of the Navier–Stokes system. J. Math. Pures Appl. 88, 64–86 (2007)
Borchers, W., Miyakawa, T.: \(L^2\) decay rate for the Navier–Stokes flow in half spaces. Math. Ann. 282, 139–155 (1988)
Desch, W., Hieber, M., Prüss, J.: \(L^p\) -theory of the Stokes equation in a half-space. J. Evol. Equ. 1, 115–142 (2001)
Farwig, R., Sohr, H.: Weighted energy inequalities for the Navier–Stokes equations in exterior domains. Appl. Anal. 58(1–2), 157–173 (1995)
Farwig, R., Sohr, H.: Global estimates in weighted spaces of weak solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations in exterior domains. Arch. Math. 67, 319–330 (1996)
Fujigaki, Y., Miyakawa, T.: Asymptotic profiles of non stationary incompressible Navier–Stokes flows in the half-space. Methods Appl. Anal. 8, 121–158 (2001)
Giga, Y., Matsui, S., Shimizu, Y.: On estimates in hardy spaces for the Stokes flow in a half space. Math. Z. 231, 383–396 (1999)
Han, P.: Long-time behavior for the nonstationary Navier–Stokes flows in \(L^1({\mathbb{R}}_+^n)\). J. Funct. Anal. 266, 1511–1546 (2014)
Leray, J.: Sur le mouvement dún liquide visqueux emplissant léspace. Acta Math. 63, 193–248 (1934)
Miyakawa, T.: Hardy spaces of solenoidal vector fields, with applications to the Navier–Stokes equations. Kyushu J. Math. 50, 1–64 (1996)
Schonbek, M.E.: Lower bounds of rates of decay for solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations. J. Am. Math. Soc. 4(3), 423–449 (1991)
Schonbek, M.E.: Asymptotic behavior of solutions to the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes equations. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 41(3), 809–823 (1992)
Shimizu, Y.: \(L^{\infty }\)-estimate of first-order space derivatives of Stokes flow in a half space. Funkcial. Ekvac. 42, 291–309 (1999)
Stein, E.M.: Topics in Harmonic Analysis Related to the Littlewood–Paley Theory. Annals of Mathematics Studies, Number 63. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1970)
Ukai, S.: A solution formula for the Stokes equation in \({\mathbb{R}}_+^n\). Commun. Pure Appl. Math. XL, 611–621 (1987)
Acknowledgements
The author was supported by the research Grant ARC DP220100285 from the Australian Research Council. The author would like to thank the referee for useful comments and suggestions.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Bui, T.A. Temporal-spatial decays for the Stokes flows in half spaces. Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 29, 23 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00030-022-00751-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00030-022-00751-w