Abstract
In this paper we consider radially symmetric solutions of the following parabolic–elliptic cross-diffusion system
in \(\Omega \times (0,\infty )\), with \(\Omega \) a ball in \({\mathbb {R}}^N\), \(N\ge 3\), under homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, where \(g(u)= \lambda u - \mu u^k\), \(\lambda>0, \ \mu >0\), and \( k >1\), \(f(|\nabla v|^2 )= k_f(1+ |\nabla v|^2)^{-\alpha }\), \(\alpha >0\), which describes gradient-dependent limitation of cross diffusion fluxes. The function m(t) is the time dependent spatial mean of u(x, t) i.e. \(m(t):= \frac{1}{|\Omega |} \int _{\Omega } u(x,t) \,dx\). Under smallness conditions on \(\alpha \) and k, we prove that the solution u(x, t) blows up in \(L^{\infty }\)-norm at finite time \(T_{max}\) and for some \(p>1\) it blows up also in \(L^p\)-norm. In addition a lower bound of blow-up time is derived. Finally, under largeness conditions on \(\alpha \) or k, we prove that the solution is global and bounded in time.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Let us consider the chemotaxis system with flux limitation with source term,
with \(\Omega \) a ball in \({\mathbb {R}}^N\), \(N\ge 3\), \(m(t) = \frac{1}{ |\Omega |}\int u(x,t) \,dx >0\), \(\int _{\Omega } v \,dx=0\),
with some \(k_f >0\) and \(\alpha >0\),
with \(\lambda>0, \ \mu >0\), and \( k >1\), \(u_0\) is a given nonnegative function.
The chemotaxis model (1.1) with \(g(u)=0\) and \(f( |\nabla v|^2)=1\) is just the classical Keller–Segel system (see [11]), which permits the concentration phenomena to result in the possible blowing up of solutions, and has been extensively studied since 1970 s, such as the existence of global bounded solutions and the detection of some solutions blowing up in either finite or infinite time, in a great number of literature (see [1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15,16,17] and the references therein).
We refer that in the case \(f( |\nabla v|^2)=1\), \(\chi >0\) with \(g(u)=\lambda u - \mu u^k\), \(\lambda \ge 0, \ \mu \ge 0\), and \(1< k< \frac{3}{2}+ \frac{1}{2n-2}\), \(\Omega \) a ball in \({\mathbb {R}}^N,\) with \(N\ge 5\), Winkler in [20] proved that there exist initial data such that the radially symmetric solution blows up in finite time. In [21], with \(\Omega \) a ball in \({\mathbb {R}}^N, N\ge 3, \lambda \in {\mathbb {R}}, \mu>0, k>1,\) and with m(t) replaced by the function v(x, t) in the second equation, under the assumption
the author derived a condition on the initial data sufficient to ensure the occurrence of blowing up solutions in finite time.
The range of k has been improved by Fuest in [8], where a nonnegative initial datum \(u_0\) has been constructed such that the solution blows up in finite time when \(\chi =1\),
The value \(k=2\) is critical in the four and higher dimensions.
Recently the case f depending on the gradient of v (flux limitation term) received considerable attention in the biomathematical literature.
The most relevant results on flux limitation concern the case \(g(u)=0\).
In particular
\(\diamond \) If \(f( |\nabla v|^2)= |\nabla v|^{p-2} \), \(\chi >0\), \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N, \)
Negreanu and Tello [17] obtained uniform bounds in \(L^{\infty } (\Omega )\) and the existence of global in time solutions; for the one-dimensional case there exist infinitely many non-constant steady-states for \(p\in (1,2)\).
\(\diamond \) If \(f( |\nabla v|^2)= \frac{1 }{ \sqrt{1+ |\nabla v|^2 } } \) and \(\Delta u\) is replaced by \(\nabla \cdot \bigl ( \frac{ u \nabla u }{\sqrt{u^2+ |\nabla u|^2}}\bigr )\), Bellomo and Winkler [2] obtained the global existence of bounded classical solutions for arbitrary positive radial initial data \(u_0 \in C^3(\overline{\Omega })\) when
In Bellomo and Winkler [3], the authors shows that the above conditions are essentially optimal in the sense that if \(\chi >1\) and
there exists \(u_0\in C^3(\overline{\Omega })\) with \(\int _{\Omega } u_0=m,\) such that there exists a a unique blowing up classical solution.
\(\diamond \) If \(f(|\nabla v|^2)\ge K_f \bigl ( 1+ |\nabla v|^2 \bigr )^{-\alpha }, \ K_f>0\), \(\chi =1\), \(0< \alpha < \frac{ N-2}{2(N-1) }\), \(\Omega \) a ball in \({\mathbb {R}}^N,\) with \(N\ge 3\), for a considerably large set of radially symmetric initial data, the problem admits solutions blowing up in finite time in \(L^\infty \)-norm for the first component. Otherwise, if \(f(|\nabla v|^2)\le K_f \bigl ( 1+ |\nabla v|^2 \bigr )^{-\alpha }\), \(\chi =1\) and \(\alpha \) satisfies
in general (not symmetric setting), a global bounded solution exists [22].
The case \(\alpha = \frac{ N-2}{2(N-1) }\) plays the role of a critical exponent and it is still an open problem.
\(\diamond \) If \( f(|\nabla v|^2)=K_f \bigl ( 1+ |\nabla v|^2 \bigr )^{-\alpha }, \ K_f>0\), \(\chi =1\), \(0< \alpha < \frac{ N-2}{2(N-1) }\), \(\Omega =B_R(0)\subset {\mathbb {R}}^N,\) with \(N\ge 3\), Marras, Vernier-Piro and Yokota [14], for suitable initial data, proved that a solution which blows up in \(L^\infty \)-norm blows up also in \(L^p\)-norm for some \(p>\frac{N}{2}.\) Moreover, a safe time interval of existence of the solution [0, T] is obtained, with T a lower bound of the blow-up time.
Less attention was payed to the case with f depending on the gradient of v in presence of a source term g(u).
It is the purpose of the present paper to address the above question for a class of functions g(u) modeling sources of logistic type: \(g(u)=\lambda u - \mu u^k\), \(\lambda>0, \ \mu >0\), and \( k >1\).
Main results The present work is addressed to study the behavior in time of the solutions of problem (1.1) with \(\chi =1\) in presence of the flux limitation term and the source term \(g(u)=\lambda u - \mu u^k\) to varying \(k\in (1,2]\). In particular in Sect. we construct an initial data such that the solution of problem (1.1) blows up in \(L^{\infty }\)-norm in the following sense.
Theorem 1.1
(Finite-time blow-up in \(L^\infty \)-norm) Let \(\Omega = B_R(0) \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\), \(R>0,\) \(N\ge 3\). Suppose that
Then for all \(m_0>0\) there exist radially symmetric as well as radially decreasing initial data
with
and some positive constant \(\mu _0\) such that if
then (1.1) possesses a unique classical solution (u, v) in \(\Omega \times (0,T_{max})\), for some \(T_{max} \in (0, \infty )\), which blows up at \(T_{max}\) in the sense that
The second purpose of this paper is to prove that the solutions of (1.1) blow up at finite time in \(L^p\)-norm, for some \(p>1\), if they blow up in \(L^{\infty }\)-norm (Sect. 4).
Theorem 1.2
(Finite-time blow-up in \(L^p\)-norm) Let \(\Omega = B_R(0) \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\), \(N\ge 3\) and \(R>0\). Then, a classical solution (u, v) of (1.1) for \(t \in (0, T_{max})\), provided by Theorem 1.1, is such that for all \(p>\frac{N}{2}\),
The investigation on blow-up solutions of system (1.1) goes on with the study of the behavior near the blow-up time \(T_{max}\) (Sect. 5). The goal is to obtain a safe time interval (0, T), (\(T<T_{max}\)), of existence of the solutions of (1.1); to this end, we define, for all \(p>1\), the auxiliary function
and we determine a lower estimate of the blow-up time \(T_{max}\).
Theorem 1.3
(Lower bound of blow-up time) Let \(\Omega = B_R(0) \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\), \(N\ge 3\), \(R>0\) and let \(\Psi \) be defined in (1.7). Then, for all \(p>\frac{N}{2}\) and some positive constants \(B_1, B_2, B_3, B_4\), the blow-up time \(T_{max}\) for (1.1), provided by Theorem 1.1, satisfies the estimate
with \(\gamma _1:= \frac{p+1}{p}, \ \ \gamma _2:=\frac{2(p+1)-N}{2p-N}, \ \ \gamma :=\frac{2(p+1) - \frac{N(p+1)(1+\epsilon )}{p+1+\epsilon } }{2p-\frac{N(1+\epsilon )(p+1)}{p+1+\epsilon }}, \ \ 0<\epsilon <\frac{2p}{N}-1\).
Corollary 1.4
Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.2, let (u, v) be a solution of (1.1) and \(\Psi (t)\) and \(\Psi _0\) defined in (1.7). Then there exists a safe interval of existence of (u, v) say [0, T] with
We remark that \( \frac{1}{ {\mathcal {A}} (\gamma -1) \Psi _0^{\gamma -1}} \) is explicitly computable.
We observe that the blow-up phenomena can be avoided for different choises of the data. Moreover, we will prove that the results in Theorem 1.1 with \(f(|\nabla v|^2 )= k_f(1+ |\nabla v|^2)^{-\alpha }\) fulfilling \(0<\alpha <\frac{N-2}{2(N-1)}\) and \(\kappa \le 2\) cannot be improved. In fact if \(\alpha >\frac{N-2}{2(N-1)}\) or \(\kappa >2\) we obtain that the global solution is bounded (Sect. 6).
Theorem 1.5
(Global existence and boundedness) Let \(\Omega = B_R(0) \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\), \(N\ge 3\), \(R>0\). Assume that either one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
-
1.
\(\alpha >\dfrac{N-2}{2(N-1)}\) and \(k>1\),
-
2.
\(\alpha >0\) and \(k>2\).
Then for all radially symmetric nonnegative initial data \(u_0 \in C^0(\bar{\Omega })\), system (1.1) possesses a unique global classical solution (u, v) in \(\Omega \times (0,\infty )\), which is bounded in the sense that
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we present some preliminary lemmata which we shall use in the proof of our main results.
Lemma 2.1
Let \(N\ge 1\), and assume that \(\Omega =B_R(0) \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) for some \(R>0\), f, g satisfy (1.2), (1.3) and that \(u_0 \in C^0(\bar{\Omega })\) is nonnegative and radially symmetric with respect to \(x=0\). Then there exist \(T_{max} \in (0, \infty ]\) and a unique pair
which solves (1.1) in the classical sense in \(\Omega \times (0, T_{max}).\) Moreover, we have \(u>0\) in \(\Omega \times (0,T_{max})\), and both \(u(\cdot , t)\) and \(v(\cdot , t)\) are radially symmetric with respect to \(x=0\) for all \(t\ge 0\). Finally,
We next give some properties of the Neumann heat semigroup which will be used later. For the proof, see [4, Lemma 2.1] and [19, Lemma 1.3].
Lemma 2.2
Let \((e^{t \Delta })_{t\ge 0}\) be the Neumann heat semigroup in \(\Omega \), and let \(\mu _1 >0\) denote the first non zero eigenvalue of \(-\Delta \) in \(\Omega \) under Neumann boundary conditions. Then there exist \(k_1, k_2 >0\) which depend only on \(\Omega \) and have the following properties:
-
1.
if \(1 \le q\le \textrm{p}\le \infty \), then
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert e^{t \Delta } z\Vert _{L^{\textrm{p}}(\Omega )} \le k_1\bigl (1+t^{ - \frac{N}{2}(\frac{1}{q} - \frac{1}{{\textrm{p}}})}\bigr ) e^{-\mu _1 t} \Vert z\Vert _{L^q(\Omega )}, \ \ \forall \,t >0 \end{aligned}$$(2.1)holds for all \(z\in L^q(\Omega )\) satisfying \(\int _{\Omega } z =0\).
-
2.
If \(1< q \le \textrm{p} \le \infty \), then
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert e^{t \Delta } \nabla \cdot {\textbf {z}}\Vert _{L^{\textrm{p}}(\Omega )} \le k_2\big (1+ t^{-\frac{1}{2} - \frac{N}{2}(\frac{1}{q} - \frac{1}{{\textrm{p}}})}\big ) e^{-\mu _1 t} \Vert {\textbf {z}}\Vert _{L^q(\Omega )}, \ \ \forall \,t >0 \end{aligned}$$(2.2)is valid for any \({\textbf {z}} \in (L^{q}(\Omega ))^N\), where \(e^{t \Delta } \nabla \cdot {}\) is the extension of the operator \(e^{t \Delta } \nabla \cdot {}\) on \((C_0^\infty (\Omega ))^N\) to \((L^q(\Omega ))^N\).
We observe that since constants are invariant under \(e^{t \Delta }\) we can use (2.1) writing \({\bar{z}} = \frac{1}{|\Omega |}\int _{\Omega } z\,dx\) so that we have \(\int _{\Omega } (z - {\bar{z}})\,dx=0\) (see [19]).
We now derive an upper bound of the total mass functional \(\int _{\Omega } u(x,t) dx\) in short time intervals.
Lemma 2.3
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N, \ N\ge 1\), be a bounded and smooth domain, and \(\lambda >0\), \(\mu >0\), \(k>1\). Then for a solution (u, v) of (1.1) we have
with
Proof
From the first equation in (1.1) we obtain
From (2.5) we infer that \(z=\int _{\Omega } \; u dx\), with \(z(0)=z_0= \int _{\Omega } u_0(x) dx\), satisfies
From which we have
This clearly proves the lemma. \(\square \)
In Sect. 5 we will use the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality in the following form.
Lemma 2.4
Let \(\Omega \) be a bounded and smooth domain of \({\mathbb {R}}^N\) with \(N\ge 1\). Let \( {\textsf{r}}\ge 1\), \(1\le {\textsf{q}}< {\textsf{p}}\le \infty \), \( {\textsf{s}}>0\). Then there exists a constant \(C_{\textrm{GN}}>0\) such that
for all \(f\in L^{\textsf {q}}({\Omega })\) with \(\nabla f \in (L^{\textsf {r}}(\Omega ))^N\) and \(a:=\frac{\frac{1}{ {\textsf{q}}}-\frac{1}{ {\textsf{p}}}}{\frac{1}{ {\textsf{q}}}+\frac{1}{N}- \frac{1}{ {\textsf{r}}}} \in (0,1)\).
Proof
Following from the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality (see [18] for more details):
with some \(c_{\textrm{GN}}>0\), and then from the inequality
we arrive to (2.6) with \(C_\textrm{GN}= 2^{{\textsf{p}}} c_\textrm{GN}^{{\textsf{p}}}\). \(\square \)
Lemma 2.5
Let \(\beta >0\), \(\delta >0\), \(\gamma >0\) and suppose that for some \(T>0\), \(y\in C^0([0,T])\) is a nonnegative function satisfying
Then \(T\le \frac{1}{\gamma \delta \beta ^{\gamma }}.\)
For the proof see [20, Lemma 2.4].
3 Blow-up in \(L^{\infty }\)-norm
Transformation in nonlocal scalar parabolic equation:
Assume \(\Omega =B_R(0)\), \(R>0\) and \(u_0\in C^0(\bar{\Omega })\) is radially symmetric with respect to \(x=0\). If (u, v) is the corresponding radial solution in \(\Omega \times (0,T_{max})\) asserted by Lemma 2.1, we write \(u=u(r,t)\) and \(v=v(r,t)\) with \(r=|x|\in [0, R]\).
Following J\(\mathrm {\ddot{a}}\)ger–Luckhaus [10] we introduce the mass accumulation function
We have
From the second equation in (1.1) we deduce
and
Using (1.1) we obtain
and
with \(w_0(s)= \int _0^{s^{\frac{1}{N}}} \rho ^{N-1} u_0(\rho ) d \rho , \ \ s\in [0,R^N]\).
Our aim is to prove that the functional \(\int _0^{R^N} s^{-a} w^ b (s,t) \,ds\), for suitable \(a >0\) and \(b\in (0,1)\) blows up in finite time. To this end, we use the estimate \(w_s \le \frac{w}{s}\) proved by Fuest ( [8, Lemma 3.3]):
Lemma 3.1
Assume that \(u_0\) satisfies (1.5).
For all \(s\in [0, R^N]\) and \(t\in (0,T_{max})\),
holds.
Proof
By a similar way as in [2, Lemma 2.3] where \(\alpha = \frac{1}{2}\) and as in [7, Lemma 3.7], we can show that \(u_r \le 0\) in \((0,R)\times (0, T_{max})\) and following the steps in [8] we arrive to (3.3). \(\square \)
The next step is to prove that the functional \(\int _0^{R^N} s^{-a} w^ b (s,t) \,ds\) satisfies a differential inequality. First we obtain the following estimate.
Lemma 3.2
Assume Lemma 2.3 and \(\Omega = B_R(0)\subset {\mathbb {R}}^N\) with some \(R>0\) and \(N\ge 2\). Let \(u_0\in C^0(\bar{\Omega })\) be radial, and let (u, v) denote the solution of (1.1) in \(\Omega \times (0, T_{max})\). Then for all \(a>0\) and \(b\in (0,1)\), the function w defined in (3.1) satisfies
with
and \({{\bar{m}}}\) in (2.4).
Proof
Following the steps in [20, Lemma 2.1] we multiply the first equation in (3.2) by \((s+\epsilon )^{-a} w^{b-1}(s,\tau )\), \(\epsilon >0\), and integrate over \(s\in (0,R^N)\). We obtain
Integrating by part we have
where in the last step we used \(\frac{d}{ds} \big ( s^{2- \frac{2}{N} }(s+\epsilon )^{-a}\big ) =(2- \frac{2}{N} ) s^{1- \frac{2}{N}} (s+\epsilon )^{-a} - a s^{2- \frac{2}{N}}(s+\epsilon )^{-a-1} \le (2-\frac{2}{N}) s^{1-\frac{2}{N}}(s+\epsilon )^{-a}\).
In \({\mathcal {I}}_2\) we have
Taking into account that \(u\ge 0\) we have \(w_s \ge 0\) in \((0, R^N) \times (0,T_{max})\) and from the boundary condition at \(s=R^N\) we have \(w(s,t) \le \frac{m(t) R^N}{N}\) for all \(s\in [0, R^N]\) and \(t\in [0, T_{max})\).
By using \(w\le \frac{m(t) R^N}{N}\) and \(s\le R^N\), using (2.3) we arrive at
so that
where \({\bar{C}}\) is a constant defined in (3.5).
We now split \({\mathcal {I}}_{21}= \frac{{\mathcal {I}}_{21}}{2} + \frac{{\mathcal {I}}_{21}}{2}\). Computing
and integrating by parts we get
This leads to
Now, since \(\frac{1}{\big [1+ s^{\frac{2}{N} -2} ( \frac{m(t)}{N} s - w) ^2\big ]^{\alpha }} \le 1\), we obtain
where in the last inequality we used (2.3).
Replacing (3.7), (3.8) and (3.9) in (3.6) and integrating from 0 to \(t\in (0,T_{max})\) we arrive to
Now, from the monotone convergence theorem, taking \(\epsilon \searrow 0\) arrive at (3.4)
\(\square \)
Our aim is to construct an integral inequality for \(y(t)= \int _0^{R^N} s^{-a} w^b(s,t)\,ds,\) \(t\in (0,T_{max}) \) which ensure that y(t) blows up in finite time inducing the chemotactic collapse of the solution of (1.1).
To this end, we estimate each term in (3.4).
In (3.4) we assume
to obtain
Lemma 3.3
Let \(H_5\) and \(H_6\) defined as in (3.12). If
then
with \(c_4, \ c_6 >0\) and \(H_2, \, H_4\) defined in (3.12).
Proof
Using Young’s inequality we obtain
Since (3.13) holds we have \(\frac{2}{N} -a + \frac{N+2}{N} b >-1\), and for some \(c_4 >0\) we obtain
To estimate \(H_6\) we apply Young’s inequality:
with \(c_5, \ \bar{c}_5, \ c_6 >0\) and by (3.13): \(- \frac{2}{N} -a + \frac{N-2}{N} b >-1\). \(\square \)
In order to estimate the term \(H_7\) in (3.12) we prove the following lemma.
Lemma 3.4
Let \(N\ge 3\), \(R>0\) and \(H_7\) be as in (3.12).
\(\diamond \) If \(k=2\) and \(u_0\) satisfies (1.5), then there exists a constant \(\mu _0>0\) such that for all \(\mu \in (0,\mu _0]\) one can find \(a>1\) and \(b \in (0,1)\) fulfilling (3.13) and
\(\diamond \) If \(k\in \bigl (1,\, \min \bigl \{2,1+\frac{(N-2)^2}{4}\bigr \}\bigr )\), then for all \(\mu >0\) one can find \(a, b \in (0,1)\) fulfilling (3.13) and
Proof
By Fubini’s theorem we obtain
Since \(b\in (0,1)\) and \(w_s\ge 0\), then \(w^{b-1}(s)\) decreases in s, we can write
In the case \(k=2\), \(a>1\) we neglect the negative term \(-\frac{R^N}{a-1}\) and use (3.3) to obtain
Now, if \(0<\mu \le \mu _0\) with \(\mu _0 \le \frac{a-1}{4N} c_1\), and \(c_1\) defined in (3.11), we note that one can find \(a>1\) and \(b \in (0,1)\) fulfilling (3.13) such that (3.16) holds.
If \(k\in \bigl (1,\, \min \bigl \{2,1+\frac{(N-2)^2}{4}\bigr \}\bigr )\), \(a\in (0,1)\) we neglect the negative term \(- \frac{1}{1-a} \sigma ^{1-a}\) and arrive to
We now fix \(b=a \in \bigl (\sqrt{k-1},\, \min \bigl \{1,\frac{N-2}{2}\bigr \}\bigr )\) fulfilling (3.13). This is possible in view of the choice of k, because (3.13) with \(b=a\) is equivalent to \(a<\frac{N-2}{2}\). Thus we see that \((a-1) \frac{a+1}{2-k}>-1\), and then (3.3) and Young’s inequality lead to
with some \({\bar{c}}_2>0\). Thus we obtain (3.17) with \(b=a\). \(\square \)
Taking into account of Lemmata 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, we derive an integral inequality for the functional \(y(t)= \int _0^{R^N} s^{-a} w^b(s) ds\).
Lemma 3.5
Suppose Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.4 hold. Let \(N\ge 3\), \(R>0\), \(m_0>0,\) \(\mu >0\) and \(k\in (1,2]\). Then there exist \(a>0\), \(b\in (0,1)\), \(\delta >0\) and \(C>0\) such that if \(u_0(r)\) is nonnegative in \(B_R(0)\subset {{\mathbb {R}}}^N\) with \(\frac{1}{|\Omega |} \int _{\Omega } u_0 = m_0\), for the corresponding solution (u, v) of (1.1) in \(\Omega \times (0,T_{max})\) and w defined in (3.1), it holds
for all \(t\in (0,T_{max})\).
Proof
We analyse the following two cases separately.
Case (i) Assume \(k=2\), \(1<a< \frac{N-2}{N} (b+1)\), \(N\ge 5\), \(0<\mu \le \mu _0\). Thus \(b\in (\frac{2}{N-2},1)\).
Substituting (3.14), (3.15) and (3.16) in (3.12) and neglecting the positive term \(H_3\), we see that
Case (ii) Assume \(k\in \bigl (1,\,\min \bigl \{2,1+\frac{(N-2)^2}{4}\bigr \}\bigr )\), \(b=a \in \bigl (\sqrt{k-1},\, \min \bigl \{1,\frac{N-2}{2}\bigr \}\bigr )\), \(N\ge 3\), \(\mu >0\).
Substituting (3.14), (3.15) and (3.17) in (3.12) we obtain (with \(b=a\))
In both cases (i) and (ii) we arrive at the following type inequality:
Now, by the Hölder inequality, we observe that
from which we have
with \({\bar{c}}_4=\Big ( \frac{b+1 -a}{R^{N(b+1-a)}}\Big )^{\frac{1}{b}}\) and \(-a + b >-1\).
Replacing (3.20) into (3.19) we arrive at (3.18) with \(\delta = \frac{1}{4} bc_1 {\bar{c}}_4\). \(\square \)
Proof of theorem 1.1
By Lemma 3.5 with the aid of the Lemma 2.5 and following the steps in the proof of Theorem 0.1 in [20], we can conclude that \(y(t)=\int _0^{R^N} s^{-a} w^b(s,t) ds\) blows up in finite time \(T_{max} \le \frac{b}{\delta \beta ^{\frac{1}{b}}}\). \(\square \)
4 Blow-up in \(L^{p}\)-norm
The aim of this section is to prove Theorem 1.2. To this end, first we prove the following lemma.
Lemma 4.1
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^N,\ N\ge 3\) be a bounded and smooth domain. Let (u, v) be a classical solution of system (1.1). If \(\alpha \) satisfies (1.4) and if for some \(p>\frac{N}{2} \) there exists \(C>0\) such that
then, for some \({\hat{C}}>0\),
Proof
For any \(t\in (0,T_{max})\), we set \(t_0:= \max \{0, t-1\}\) and we consider the representation formula for u:
and
We have
with \(k_1>0\) introduced in (2.1) and \({\bar{m}}\) defined in (2.4). In fact, if \(t\le 1\), then \(t_0=0\) and hence the maximum principle yields \(u_1(\cdot , t) \le \Vert u_0\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\Omega )}\). If \(t>1\), then \(t-t_0=1\) and from (2.4) and (2.1) with \(\textrm{p}=\infty \) and \(q=1\), we deduce that \(\Vert u_1(\cdot ,t)\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\Omega )} \le k_1 [1+ (t-t_0)^{-\frac{N}{2}}] e^{-\mu _1(t-t_0)} \Vert u(\cdot ,t_0) \Vert _{L^1(\Omega )} =2 e^{-\lambda } {\bar{m}} k_1\).
We next use (2.2) with \(\textrm{p}=\infty \), which leads to
because \(\frac{|\nabla v|}{(1+|\nabla v|^2)^{\alpha }}\le |\nabla v|^{1-2\alpha }\).
Here, we may assume that \(\frac{N}{2}<p<N\), and then we can fix \(N< q < \frac{N p}{N-p}=p^*\). Since \(2 \alpha < 1\), by H\(\ddot{\textrm{o}}\)lder’s inequality, we can estimate the last term in (4.4) as
for some \(C_2>0\). The Sobolev embedding theorem and elliptic regularity theory for the second equation in (1.1) tell us that \(\Vert v(\cdot ,s)\Vert _{W^{1,p^*}(\Omega )} \le C_3\Vert v(\cdot ,s)\Vert _{W^{2,p}(\Omega )} \le C_4\) with some \(C_3, C_4>0\). Thus again by H\(\ddot{\textrm{o}}\)lder’s inequality, the definition of \({\bar{m}} \) and interpolation’s inequality, we obtain
with \(\theta := 1 - \frac{2\alpha }{q} \in (0,1)\), \(C_5:=C_2C_4\) and \(C_{6}:=C_5 {{\bar{m}}}^{1-\theta }\). Hence, combining this estimate and (4.4), we infer
Now fix any \(T \in (0, T_{max})\). Then, since \(t-t_0\le 1\), we have
where \(C_{7}:=C_{6}k_2\bigl (1+\mu _1^{\frac{N}{2q}-\frac{1}{2}}\int _0^\infty r^{-\frac{1}{2} - \frac{N}{2q}} e^{-r}\,dr\bigr )>0\) is finite, because \(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{N}{2q}<1\) (i.e., \(q>N\)).
Now we prove that there exists a constant \(c_8\ge 0\) such that \( u_3 (\cdot , t) \le c_8.\) In fact we observe that \(g(u)= \lambda u - \mu u^k \le g({\tilde{u}}):= c_8\), with \({\tilde{u}}= \big ( \frac{\lambda }{\mu } \big )^{\frac{1}{k-1}}\)
Plugging (4.3), (4.5) and (4.6) into (4.2), we see that
with \(C_1={\tilde{C}}_1 + c_8\).
The inequality (4.7) implies
From this inequality with \(\theta \in (0,1)\), we arrive at (4.1). \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 1.2
Since Theorem 1.1 holds, the unique local classical solution of (1.1) blows up at \(t=T_{max}\) in the sense of (1.6), that is,
We prove that it blows up also in \(L^p\)-norm by contradiction.
In fact, if one supposes that there exist \(p> \frac{N}{2} \) and \(C>0\) such that
then, from Lemma 4.1, it would exist \({\hat{C}}>0\) such that
which contradics (1.6). Thus, if u blows up in \(L^{\infty }\)-norm, then u blows up also in \(L^p\)-norm for all \(p>\frac{N}{2}\). \(\square \)
5 Lower bound of the blow-up time \(T_{max}\)
Throughout this section we assume that Theorem 1.2 holds.
We want to obtain a safe interval of existence of the solution of (1.1) [0, T], with T a lower bound of the blow-up time \(T_{max}\). To this end, first we construct a first order differential inequality for \(\Psi \) defined in (1.7) and by integration we get the lower bound.
Proof of Theorem 1.2
By differentiating (1.7) we have
with
In the second term of (5.1), integrating by parts and using the boundary conditions in (1.1), for all \(t\in [0,T_{max})\) we obtain
Using the second equation of (1.1) and taking into account that \(f(\xi )= k_f(1+\xi )^{-\alpha }\), \( f'(\xi )= -\alpha k_f(1+\xi )^{-\alpha -1}\) in (5.3), we have
where we dropped the negative term \(- k_f\frac{p-1}{p} \int _{\Omega } u^p \frac{m(t) }{(1+ |\nabla v|^2)^{\alpha }} dx\) and used the inequality \(\frac{1}{(1+ |\nabla v|^2)^{\alpha } }\le 1\) as \(\alpha >0\).
In order to estimate the second term of (5.4) we recall the radially symmetric setting to obtain (with \(\omega _N\) the surface area of the unit sphere in N dimension)
which together with \(v_{rr}= \frac{m(t)}{N} - u + \frac{N-1}{r^N} \int _0^r \rho ^{N-1} u \ d \rho \) implies
where we used (2.3), we dropped the negative term \(- 2N\omega _N \int _0^R u^{p+1} \frac{v^2_r}{(1+ v^2_r)^{\alpha +1}} r^{N-1}\, dr\) and finally we used the inequality \(\frac{v^2_r}{(1+ v^2_r)^{\alpha + 1} }\le 1.\)
In the second term of (5.5), H\(\ddot{\textrm{o}}\)lder’s inequality yelds that for all \(\epsilon >0\) there exists \(c= c(\epsilon , N, p)\) such that
Combining (5.6) and (5.5) with (5.4) we obtain
where, in the last term, we used Young’s inequality with \({\tilde{c}}_1 = 2 \alpha \frac{\bar{m}}{|\Omega |} k_f(p-1), \ \ {\tilde{c}}_2 = k_f\frac{p-1}{p}+ 2 \alpha N(N-1) c k_f\, \frac{p-1}{p(p+1)}, \ \ {\tilde{c}}_3= 2 \alpha N(N-1) c k_f\; \frac{p-1}{p+1} \).
Thanks to the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality (2.6), with \({\textsf{p}}= 2\frac{p+1}{p}, \ {\textsf{r}} = {\textsf{q}}= {\textsf{s}}=2, \ a= \theta _0:= \frac{N}{2(p+1)} \in (0,1)\) for all \(p> \frac{N}{2}\), we see that
Applying Young’s inequality at the first term of (5.8) we have
with \(\epsilon _1 >0\) to be choose later on, and also
with \({\textsf{p}}= 2\frac{p+1}{p},\ {\textsf{r}} = {\textsf{q}}= {\textsf{s}}=2, \ a= \theta _{\epsilon }:= \frac{N(1+ \epsilon )}{2(p+1+\epsilon )} \in (0,1)\) for all \(p> \frac{N}{2}\) and sufficiently small \(\epsilon >0\).
Now, in the first term of (5.10), we apply Young’s inequality to obtain
with
Note that we can fix \(\epsilon >0\) such that \(2p -N(1+\epsilon ) >0\).
Plugging (5.9) and (5.11) into (5.7) leads to
with \(C:= {\tilde{c}}_3\cdot {\tilde{c}}_4, \ \ {\hat{c}}_1:= C_{GN} \frac{2p-N}{2p \epsilon _1^{\frac{N}{2p-N}}} {\tilde{c}}_2, \ \epsilon _1>0.\)
Also we note that
Finally, combining (5.12) with (5.1) and (5.2), (5.13), neglecting the negative term \({\mathcal {J}}_4\) and choosing \(\epsilon _2\) such that the term containing \(\int _{\Omega } |\nabla u^{\frac{p}{2}}|^2 dx\) vanishes, we have
with \(B_2:= p^{\frac{1}{p}} [p C_{GN} + {\tilde{c}}_1]\), \( B_3:= {\hat{c}}_1 p^{\frac{2(p+1)-N}{2p-N}}\) and \(B_4:= {\tilde{c}}_5 p^{\gamma }\).
Integrating (5.14) from 0 to \(T_{max}\), we arrive at the desired lower bound (1.8) with \(\gamma _1:= \frac{p+1}{p}, \ \gamma _2:= \frac{2(p+1)-N}{2p-N}\). \(\square \)
Proof of Corollary 1.4
We reduce (5.14) so as to have an explicit expression of the lower bound T of \(T_{max}\). In fact, since \(\Psi (t)\) blows up at time \(T_{max}\), there exists a time \(t_1 \in (0, T_{max})\) such that \(\Psi (t) \ge \Psi _0\) for all \(t\in (t_1, T_{max})\). Thus, taking into account that
we have
From (5.14) and (5.15) we arrive at
with \({\mathcal {A}}:= B_1 \Psi _0^{1-\gamma } + B_2 \Psi _0^{ \gamma _1-\gamma } + B_3 \Psi _0^{\gamma _2 - \gamma } + B_4 \), and \(\Psi _0\) in (1.7).
Integrating (5.16) from \(t=0\) to \(t= T_{max}\), we obtain
We conclude, by (5.17), that the solution of (1.1) is bounded in [0, T] with \(T:= \frac{1}{ {\mathcal {A}} (\gamma -1) \Psi _0^{\gamma -1}}.\)\(\square \)
6 Global existence and boundedness
The aim of this section is to prove Theorem 1.5. The proof is divided into two cases.
6.1 Case 1. \(\alpha >\frac{N-2}{2(N-1)}\) and \(k>1\)
As in the proof of Lemma 4.1, for any \(t \in (0,T_{max})\), we set \(t_0:=\max \{0, t-1\}\). From the representation formula for u we can write
In view of (4.2) and (4.3) as well as (4.6) we have
Since the condition \(\alpha >\frac{N-2}{2(N-1)}\) implies that \((1-2\alpha )N<\frac{N}{N-1}\), we can take \(q \in \left[ 1,\frac{N}{N-1}\right) \) such that \(q>(1-2\alpha )N\), and hence we pick \(r>N\) satisfying \(q>(1-2\alpha )r\). Then we see from the second equation in (1.1) with mass estimate (2.3) that
Using (2.2) with \(\textrm{p}=\infty \) and \(q=r\) as in (4.4), we deduce from the Hölder inequality that
Putting \(a:=1-\frac{q-(1-2\alpha )r}{qr} \in (0,1)\) and recalling (2.3) again, we note that
and hence,
This together with (6.1) implies that for any \(T \in (0,T_{max})\),
and thereby we conclude that \(T_{max}=\infty \) and \(\Vert u(\cdot ,t)\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\Omega )} \le {{\textsf{c}}}_6\) for all \(t>0\).
\(\square \)
6.2 Case 2. \(\alpha >0\) and \(k>2\) in the radial setting
We will derive a uniform estimate for \(\Psi (t):=\frac{1}{p}\Vert u(\cdot ,t)\Vert _{L^p(\Omega )}^p\) defined in (1.7). As in the proof of Theorem 1.3 in Sect. 5, we have
In view of (5.2), (5.12) and (5.13) we see that
and the Hölder inequality yields
Choosing \(\varepsilon _2\) such that the term containing \(\int _\Omega |\nabla u^\frac{p}{2}|^2\,dx\) vanishes and noting that \(k>2\) implies \(\frac{p+1}{p} \in (1,\frac{p+k-1}{p})\) and
for sufficiently large p because \(\lim _{p \nearrow \infty }\frac{2(p+1)-N}{2p-N}\cdot \frac{p}{p+1}=1\) and \(\lim _{p \nearrow \infty } \gamma \cdot \frac{p}{p+1}=1\), we can derive from Young’s inequality that
and therefore ODI comparison yields uniform bound for \(\Psi (t)\) with sufficiently large \(p>\frac{N}{2}\). Consequently, Lemma 4.1 proves that \(T_{max}=\infty \) and \(\Vert u(\cdot ,t)\Vert _{L^{\infty }(\Omega )} \le {\bar{c}}_9\) for all \(t>0\). \(\square \)
References
Bellomo, N., Belloquid, A., Tao, Y., Winkler, M.: Toward a mathematical theory of Keller-Segel model of pattern formation in biological tissues. Math. Model Methods Appl. Sci. 25(9), 1663–1763 (2015)
Bellomo, N., Winkler, M.: A degenerate chemotaxis system with flux limitation: maximally extended solutions and absence of gradient blow-up. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 42(3), 436–473 (2017)
Bellomo, N., Winkler, M.: Finite-time blow-up in a degenerate chemotaxis system with flux limitation. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. Ser. B 4, 31–67 (2017)
Cao, X.: Global bounded solutions of the higher-dimensional Keller-Segel system under smallness conditions in optimal spaces. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Seri. A 35(5), 1891–1904 (2015)
Chiyoda, Y., Mizukami, M., Yokota, T.: Finite-time blow-up in a quasilinear degenerate chemotaxis system with flux limitation. Acta Appl. Math. 167, 231–259 (2020)
Chiyo, Y., Tanaka, Y., Marras, M., Yokota, T.: Blow-up phenomena in a parabolic-elliptic-elliptic attraction-repulsion chemotaxis system with superlinear logistic degradation. Nonlinear Anal. 212, 112550 (2021)
Fuest, M.: Finite-time blow-up in a two-dimensional Keller-Segel system with an environmental dependent logistic source. Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl. 52, 103022 (2020)
Fuest, M.: Approaching optimality in blow-up results for Keller-Segel systems with logistic-type dampening. NoDEA Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 28(16), 1–17 (2021)
Ishida, S., Yokota, T.: Boundedness in a quasilinear fully parabolic Keller-Segel system via maximal Sobolev regularity. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 13(2), 211–232 (2020)
Jger, W., Luckhaus, S.: On explosions of solutions to a system of partial differential equations modelling chemotaxis. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 329(2), 819–824 (1992)
Keller, E.F., Segel, L.A.: Initiation of slime mold aggregation viewed as an instability. J. Theoret. Biol. 26, 399–415 (1970)
Marras, M., Nishino, T., Viglialoro, G.: A refined criterion and lower bounds for the blow-up time in a parabolic-elliptic chemotaxis system with nonlinear diffusion. Nonlinear Anal. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2019.111725
Marras, M., Vernier-Piro, S.: Finite time collapse in chemotaxis systems with logistic-type superlinear source. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 43(17), 10027–10040 (2020)
Marras, M., Vernier-Piro, S., Yokota, T.: Blow-up phenomena for a chemotaxis system with flux limitation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 515, 126376 (2022)
Mizukami, M., Ono, T., Yokota, T.: Extensibility criterion ruling out gradient blow-up in a quasilinear degenerate chemotaxis system with flux limitation. J. Differ. Equ. 267(9), 5115–5164 (2019)
Nagai, T.: Blowup of nonradial solutions to parabolic-elliptic systems modeling chemotaxis in two-dimensional domains. J. Inequal. Appl. 6, 37–55 (2001)
Negreanu, M., Tello, J.I.: On a parabolic-elliptic system with gradient dependent chemotactic coefficient. J. Differ. Equ. 265, 733–751 (2018)
Nirenberg, L.: On elliptic partial differential equations. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa 3(13), 115–162 (1959)
Winkler, M.: Aggregation vs. global diffusive behavior in the higher-dimensional Keller–Segel model. J. Differ. Equ. 248(12), 2889–2905 (2010)
Winkler, M.: Blow-up in a higher-dimensional chemotaxis system despite logistic growth restriction. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 384, 261–272 (2011)
Winkler, M.: Finite-time blow-up in low-dimensional Keller-Segel systems with logistic-type superlinear degradation. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 69(40), 1–25 (2018)
Winkler, M.: A critical blow-up exponent for flux limitation in a Keller–Segel system. Preprint: arXiv:2010.01553
Acknowledgements
M. Marras and S. Vernier-Piro are members of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilit\(\grave{\textrm{a}}\) e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Cagliari within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. M. Marras is partially supported by the research project Analysis of PDEs in connection with real phenomena, CUP F73C22001130007, funded by Fondazione di Sardegna (2022), by the research project: Evolutive and stationary Partial Differential Equations with a focus on biomathematics, funded by Fondazione di Sardegna (2019); by the grant PRIN n. PRIN-2017AYM8XW: Non-linear Differential Problems via Variational, Topological and Set-valued Methods and by the grant INDAM-GNAMPA Project, CUP E55F22000270001. T. Yokota is partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP21K03278.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed equally in writing this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All the authors declare no conflict of interests.
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
Marras, M., Vernier-Piro, S. & Yokota, T. Behavior in time of solutions of a Keller–Segel system with flux limitation and source term. Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 30, 65 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00030-023-00874-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00030-023-00874-8