Skip to main content
Log in

Local null controllability of the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes system with a distributed control having two vanishing components

  • Published:
Inventiones mathematicae Aims and scope

Abstract

In this paper, we prove a local null controllability result for the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes equations on a (smooth) bounded domain of \({\mathbb R}^3\) with null Dirichlet boundary conditions. The control is distributed in an arbitrarily small nonempty open subset and has two vanishing components. Lions and Zuazua proved that the linearized system is not necessarily null controllable even if the control is distributed on the entire domain, hence the standard linearization method fails. We use the return method together with a new algebraic method inspired by the works of Gromov and previous results by Gueye.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alabau-Boussouira, F., Léautaud, M.: Indirect controllability of locally coupled wave-type systems and applications. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 99(5), 544–576 (2013)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Alekseev, V.M., Tikhomirov, V.M., Fomin, S.V.: Optimal control. Contemporary Soviet Mathematics. Consultants Bureau, New York (1987) (translated from the Russian by V. M. Volosov)

  3. Ammar-Khodja, F., Benabdallah, A., Dupaix, C., González-Burgos, M.: A generalization of the Kalman rank condition for time-dependent coupled linear parabolic systems. Differ. Equ. Appl. 1(3), 427–457 (2009)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Ammar-Khodja, F., Benabdallah, A., González-Burgos, M., de Teresa, L.: The Kalman condition for the boundary controllability of coupled parabolic systems. Bounds on biorthogonal families to complex matrix exponentials. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 96(6), 555–590 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ammar-Khodja, F., Benabdallah, A., González-Burgos, M., de Teresa, L.: Recent results on the controllability of linear coupled parabolic problems: a survey. Math. Control Relat. Fields 1(3), 267–306 (2011)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Carreño, N., Guerrero, S.: Local null controllability of the \(N\)-dimensional Navier–Stokes system with \(N-1\) scalar controls in an arbitrary control domain. J. Math. Fluid Mech. 15(1), 139–153 (2013)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Coron, J.-M.: Global asymptotic stabilization for controllable systems without drift. Math. Control Signals Syst. 5(3), 295–312 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Coron, J.-M.: Contrôlabilité exacte frontière de l’équation d’Euler des fluides parfaits incompressibles bidimensionnels. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 317(3), 271–276 (1993)

  9. Coron, J.-M.: On the controllability of the \(2\)-D incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with the Navier slip boundary conditions. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 1, 35–75 (1995/1996) (electronic)

  10. Coron, J.-M.: Control and nonlinearity, volume 136 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2007)

  11. Coron, J.-M., Fursikov, A.V.: Global exact controllability of the \(2\)D Navier–Stokes equations on a manifold without boundary. Russ. J. Math. Phys. 4(4), 429–448 (1996)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Coron, J.-M., Guerrero, S.: Local null controllability of the two-dimensional Navier–Stokes system in the torus with a control force having a vanishing component. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 92(5), 528–545 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Coron, J.-M., Guerrero, S.: Null controllability of the \(N\)-dimensional Stokes system with \(N-1\) scalar controls. J. Differ. Equ. 246(7), 2908–2921 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Dulmage, A.L., Mendelsohn, N.S.: Coverings of bipartite graphs. Can. J. Math. 10, 517–534 (1958)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Fernández-Cara, E., Guerrero, S., Imanuvilov, O.Y., Puel, J.-P.: Local exact controllability of the Navier–Stokes system. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 83(12), 1501–1542 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Fernández-Cara, E., Guerrero, S., Imanuvilov, O.Y., Puel, J.-P.: Some controllability results for the \(N\)-dimensional Navier–Stokes and Boussinesq systems with \(N-1\) scalar controls. SIAM J. Control Optim. 45(1), 146–173 (2006) (electronic)

  17. Fursikov, A.V., Imanuvilov, O.Y.: Controllability of evolution equations. Lecture Notes Series, vol. 34. Seoul National University Research Institute of Mathematics Global Analysis Research Center, Seoul (1996)

  18. Fursikov, A.V., Imanuvilov, O.Y.: Exact controllability of the Navier–Stokes and Boussinesq equations. Russ. Math. Surveys 54, 565–618 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Gromov, M.: Partial differential relations, volume 9 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3). Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3). Springer, Berlin (1986)

  20. Guerrero, S.: Controllability of systems of Stokes equations with one control force: existence of insensitizing controls. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 24(6), 1029–1054 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gueye, M.: Insensitizing controls for the Navier–Stokes equations. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 30(5), 825–844 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Imanuvilov, O.Y.: On exact controllability for the Navier–Stokes equations. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 3, 97–131 (1998) (electronic)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Imanuvilov, O.Y.: Remarks on exact controllability for the Navier–Stokes equations. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 6, 39–72 (2001) (electronic)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lions, J.-L., Magenes, E.: Problèmes aux limites non homogènes et applications, vol. 1. Travaux et Recherches Mathématiques, No. 17. Dunod, Paris (1968)

  25. Lions, J.-L., Zuazua, E.: A generic uniqueness result for the Stokes system and its control theoretical consequences. In Partial differential equations and applications, volume 177 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, pp. 221–235. Dekker, New York (1996)

  26. Mauffrey, K.: On the null controllability of a \(3\times 3\) parabolic system with non-constant coefficients by one or two control forces. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 99(2), 187–210 (2013)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Pothen, A., Fan, C.-J.: Computing the block triangular form of a sparse matrix. ACM Trans. Math. Software 16(4), 303–324 (1990)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Temam, R.: Navier–Stokes equations, volume 2 of Studies in Mathematics and its Applications. Theory and Numerical Analysis. revised edition, with an appendix by F. Thomasset. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1979)

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sergio Guerrero for fruitful discussions concerning Proposition 4.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Lissy.

Additional information

Work supported by the ERC advanced grant 266907 (CPDENL) of the 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7).

Appendix A: Creation of the matrix \({L_0}\)

Appendix A: Creation of the matrix \({L_0}\)

In this appendix, we explain how the matrix \({L_0}\) at point \(\xi ^0\) (which represents all the differentiated equations of System (3.27) up to the order \(19\)) was created. The program is written in \(C^{++}\), using the library uBLAS which is well-adapted to the manipulation of sparse matrices. It is a parallel openMP algorithm, using 8 cores. We are not going to give all the technical details but just explain rapidly the spirit of the algorithm. To simplify, we will assume that the following “black boxes” (that had to be created) are at our disposal:

  1. 1.

    An evaluation function ep which evaluates a polynomial (represented by a vector) at \(\xi ^0\). This evaluation function can be created so that it can verify that \(\xi ^0\) is not a root of the polynomial \(P(0,.,.)\). (one just has to see if the evaluation is equal to 0 whereas the polynomial has nonzero coefficients).

  2. 2.

    A derivation function deqex which differentiates an equation of level \(m\) with respect to \(x_1,x_2 ,x_3\) or \(t\).

A partial differential equation which is a derivative of order \(m\) of some of the equations of (3.27) will be represented in a matricial form in the following way: We know that there are at most \(F(m+3)\) derivatives appearing, and we observe that the coefficients are polynomials in \((x_1,x_2,x_3)\) of an order less than 4 (it is a vector space of dimension \(35\)). Hence an equation of order \(m\) is represented by a matrix with \(F(m+3)\) lines and \(35\) columns, where on each line one can find the coefficient of the partial derivatives of \(z^1\) (or \(z^2\) appearing) corresponding to the number of this line, thanks to the natural bijection between \({\mathbb N}^4\) and \({\mathbb N}\). Since we have three equations in (3.27) and two unknowns (\(z^1\) and \(z^2\)), one can write the matrix \(M\) in the following way:

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{pmatrix} A_1&{}\quad \! B_1\\ A_2&{}\quad \! B_2\\ A_3&{}\quad \! B_3 \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$
(4.8)

For \(i=1,2,3, A_i\) represents the derivatives of \(z^1\) appearing in the derivatives of the \(i\)-th equation of (3.27) and \(B_i\) those of \(z^2\). Hence, we can compute these \(A_i\) and \(B_i\) separately and then gather them to obtain \({L_0^0}\).

The algorithm is the following. We explain it for the first equation of (3.27) and for the unknown \(z^1\) (i.e. for \(A_1\), but it is the same for the other matrices).

  1. 1.

    We create a matrix \(e\) that represents the equation. We use ep to fill the line of \({L_0^0}\) corresponding to the equation in a .txt file under the form \(i\) \(j\) \(A_1(i,j)\). We create a matrix \(h\) which is empty for the moment. In fact in \(e\) we will keep the equations of level \(m-1\) and in \(h\) we will fill the equations of level \(m\).

  2. 2.

    We create a “for” loop on \(m\) which will represent the level of equations we are creating. The integer \(m\) goes from 1 to \(19\) since we differentiate \(19\) times at most.

  3. 3.

    We create a second “for” loop in the interior of the first loop on a number \(n\) which represents one of the equations of level \(m\). Thanks to the definition of the function \(F\) given in Sect. 3.2.2, we have \(F(m-1)+1\leqslant n\leqslant F(m)\). If \(m=1\), then \(n\) goes from \(F(0)+1=2\) to \(F(1)=5\) (\(n\) represents \(\partial _1\), \(\partial _2\), \(\partial _3\) or \(\partial _t\)). If \(m=2\), then \(n\) goes from \(F(1)+1=6\) to \(F(2)=15\) (\(n\) represents \(\partial ^2_{11},\partial ^2_{12},\partial ^2_{13},\partial ^2_{1t},\partial ^2_{22},\partial ^2_{23},\partial ^2_{2t},\partial ^2_{33},\partial ^2_{3t}\) or \(\partial ^2_{tt}\)), etc. This loop is parallelized on our 8 cores. In this loop, we want to create the \(n\)-th equation denoted \(E_n\), which is of level \(m\). Hence we take a suitable equation of level \(m-1\) denoted \(E_r\) which is so that if we differentiate \(E_r\) with respect to \(1,2,3\) or \(t\), we obtain \(E_n\). For example, if we consider \(m=2\) and if we want to obtain the first equation of (3.27) differentiated two times with respect to 1, then we consider the equation \(E_r\) to be the first equation of (3.27) differentiated one time with respect to 1 and differentiated with respect to 1 to obtain \(E_n\).

  4. 4.

    Once the loop on \(n\) is ended, we have in our matrix \(e\) all the equations of level \(m-1\) and in \(h\) we have just created all the equations of level \(m\). Now we just have to use our evaluation function ep on \(h\) to obtain the coefficients of the lines of \(A_1\) corresponding to the equations that are of level \(m\), i.e. the equations numbered from \(F(m-1)+1\) to \(F(m)\). We write these coefficients in our .txt file under the form \(i\) \(j\) \(A_1(i,j)\).

  5. 5.

    We update now \(e\), take \(e=h\), we empty \(h\) and we can go to the following loop \(m+1\).

At the end we have created a file containing the coefficients of a sparse matrix \(A_1\) of size \((8855,14950)\). Using the same program with \(z^2\) and the two others equation we obtain five other files representing five matrices that we gather as in (4.8) to obtain the matrix \({L_0}(\xi ^0)={L_0^0}\). Our matrix \({L_0^0}\), which represents all the equations, is of size \((30360,29900)\) and has 651128 nonzero coefficients. Only 0.07 % of the coefficients are different from 0, with an average of 21.44 nonzero coefficients on each row, which is logical since we are working with coefficients that are polynomials of small degree, so we do not create many terms on each line when we differentiate the equations. In the above figure, one can observe how the nonzero coefficients of \({L_0^0}\) are distributed (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Distribution of the nonzero coefficients of \({L_0^0}\)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coron, JM., Lissy, P. Local null controllability of the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes system with a distributed control having two vanishing components. Invent. math. 198, 833–880 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00222-014-0512-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00222-014-0512-5

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

Navigation