On bounds for steady waves with negative vorticity

We prove that no two-dimensional Stokes and solitary waves exist when the vorticity function is negative and the Bernoulli constant is greater than a certain critical value given explicitly. In particular, we obtain an upper bound F≤2+ϵ\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$F \le \sqrt{2} + \epsilon $$\end{document} for the Froude number of solitary waves with a negative constant vorticity, sufficiently large in absolute value.


Introduction
We consider the classical water wave problem for two-dimensional steady waves with vorticity on water of finite depth. We neglect effects of the surface tension and consider a fluid of constant (unit) density. Thus, in an appropriate coordinate system moving along with the wave, the stationary Euler equations are given by It is often assumed in the literature that the flow is irrotational, that is v x − u y is zero everywhere in the fluid domain. Under this assumption the components of the velocity field are harmonic functions, which allows to apply methods of complex analysis. Being a convenient simplification it forbids modeling of non-uniform currents, commonly occurring in nature. In the present paper we will consider rotational flows, where the vorticity function is defined by Throughout the paper we assume that the flow is unidirectional, that is everywhere in the fluid. This forbids the presence of stagnation points an gives an advantage of using the partial hodograph transform.
In the two-dimensional setup relation (1c) allows to reformulate the problem in terms of a stream function ψ, defined implicitly by the relations Here m > 0 is the mass flux, defined by m = η 0 (c − u)dy. In what follows we will use non-dimensional variables proposed by Keady & Norbury [9], where lengths and velocities are scaled by (m 2 /g) 1/3 and (mg) 1/3 respectively; in new units m = 1 and g = 1. For simplicity we keep the same notations for η and ψ.
Taking the curl of Euler equations (1a)-(1c) one checks that the vorticity function ω defined by (2) is constant along paths tangent everywhere to the relative velocity field (c − u, v); see [3] for more details. Having the same property by the definition, the stream function ψ is strictly monotone by (3) on every vertical interval inside the fluid region. These observations together show that ω depends only on values of the stream function, that is ω = ω(ψ). This property and Bernoulli's law allow to express the pressure P as where Ω(ψ) = ψ 0 ω(p) dp is a primitive of the vorticity function ω(ψ). Thus, we can eliminate the pressure from equations and obtain the following problem: Here r > 0 is referred to as Bernoulli's constant. As for the regularity we will assume that ω ∈ C γ ([0, 1]), ψ ∈ C 2,γ (D η ) and η ∈ C 2,γ (R) for some γ ∈ (0, 1) being fixed throughout the paper. Beside the Bernoulli constant r, the water wave problem (5) admits another spatial constant of motion known as the flow force, given by This constant is important in several ways; for instance, it plays the role of the Hamiltonian in spatial dynamics; see [1]. The flow force constant is also involved in a classification of steady motions; see [2]. In what follows we will consider Stokes waves, periodic solutions to (5) that are monotone between each neighbouring crest and trough and symmetric around every vertical line passing through crests and troughs; see [4,6] for related results on the symmetry of Stokes waves. Now it is convenient to define a solitary wave as a Stokes wave with the infinite period. More precisely, each solitary wave (ψ, η) has symmetric profile (around the vertical line passing through the single crest), monotone on sides, and is subject to the asymptotic relation where d is the depth of the limiting shear flow. Note that we do not require any decay properties for ψ x , such as uniformly in y. In fact, (8) follows from our regularity assumptions and relation (5e). A short argumentation is that if (8) is false one can find a family of shifts of the solution (in partial hodograph transform variables) converging over compact subsets to a solution with flat surface. The latter solution must be a stream by the maximum principle, which leads to a contradiction.

JMFM
On bounds for steady waves with negative vorticity Page 3 of 11 37 Every solitary wave is known to be symmetric and supercritical; see [7,13]. It is worth mentioning that the depth d in (7) is necessarily the same at both infinities, so that no monotone fronts exist for the problem (5); this fact follows from a recent study [13].
The asymptotic depth in (7) supports a stream solution U = U (y) solving (5) with the same Bernoulli constant r. It is essential that this stream and the solitary wave have the same flow force constant, which follows from (8) (by passing to the limit in (6)).

Stream solutions
Laminar flows or shear currents, for which the vertical component v of the velocity field is zero play an important role in the theory of steady waves. Let us recall some basic facts about stream solutions ψ = U (y) and η = d, describing shear currents. It is convenient to parameterize the latter solutions by the relative speed at the bottom. Thus, we put U y (0) = s and find that U = U (y; s) is subject to Our assumption (3) This formula shows that d(s) monotonically decreases to zero with respect to s and takes values between zero and The latter limit can be finite or not. For instance, when ω = 0 we have d(s) = 1/s and s 0 = 0, so that d 0 = +∞. On the other hand, when ω = −b for some positive constant b = 0, then s 0 = 0 but d 0 < +∞. We note that our main theorem is concerned with the case d 0 < +∞. Every stream solution U (y; s) determines the Bernoulli constant R(s), which can be found from the relation (5b). This constant can be computed explicitly as R(s) = 1 2 s 2 − Ω(1) + d(s). As a function of s it decreases from R 0 to R c when s changes from s 0 to s c and increases to infinity for s > s c . Here the critical value s c is determined by the relation The constants R 0 and R c are of special importance for the theory. For example, it is proved in [11] that r > R c for any steady motion other than a laminar flow. In the present paper we will consider the water wave problem (5) for r > R 0 , provided R 0 < +∞. The latter is true, for instance, for a negative constant vorticity.
For any r ∈ (R c , R 0 ] there are exactly two solutions s − (r) < s + (r) to the equation R(s) = r, while for r > R 0 one finds only one solution s = s + (r). The laminar flow corresponding to s − (r) is called subcritical and it's depth is denoted by d + (r) = d(s − (r)). The other flow, with s = s + (r) is called supercritical and it's depth is d − (r) = d(s + (r)). According to the definition, we have d − (r) < d + (r). The flow force constants corresponding to flows with d = d ± are denoted by S ± (r).
It was recently proved in [13] that all solitary waves are supported by supercritical depths d − (r) and the corresponding flow force constant equals to S − (r); here r is the Bernoulli constant of a solitary wave. Just as in [11] we split the set of all vorticity functions into three classes as follows: (i) max p∈[0,1] Ω(p) is attained either at an inner point of (0, 1) or at an end-point, where ω attains zero value; (ii) Ω(p) < 0 for all p ∈ (0, 1] and ω(0) = 0; (iii) Ω(p) < Ω(1) for all p ∈ [0, 1) (and so ω(1) = 0). The first class can be characterized by relations R 0 = +∞ and d 0 = +∞, while R 0 , d 0 < +∞ for all vorticity functions that belong to the second and third classes. Our main result states A part of the statement, when ω is subject to (iii) was proved in [11], where it was shown that no steady waves exist for r ≥ R 0 (under condition (iii)). We note that there is no analogues statement for irrotational waves. A typical example of a vorticity function satisfying condition (ii) (for which R 0 < +∞) is a negative constant vorticity ω(p) = −b, b > 0. It is known (see [16]) that vorticity distributions of this type give rise to Stokes waves over flows with internal stagnation points, that exist for all Bernoulli constants r > R 0 . Furthermore, a recent study [12] shows that there exist continuous families of such Stokes waves that approach a solitary wave in the long wavelength limit. The latter solitary wave has r > R 0 and rides a supercritical unidirectional flow (corresponding to one of stream solutions U (y; s) with s > s c ) but has a near-bottom stagnation point on a vertical line passing through the crest. Thus  It is well known that for irrotational solitary waves F < √ 2; see [14], [10]. Furthermore, the bound F < 2 for rotational waves with a negative vorticity was obtained in [17]. For small negative vorticity distributions inequality 1 < F (s) < 2 is stronger than R c < R(s) < R 0 . However, already for ω(p) = −1 the inequality R(s) < R 0 becomes stronger. For ω(p) = −b with a large b > 0 we find that inequality R c < R(s) < R 0 is equivalent to 1 < F (s) < F (s 0 ), where F (s 0 ) → √ 2 as b → +∞, which is significantly better than F < 2.

Reformulation of the problem
Under assumption (3) we can apply the partial hodograph transform introduced by Dubreil-Jacotin [5]. More precisely, we present new independent variables q = x, p = ψ(x, y), while new unknown function h(q, p) (height function) is defined from the identity h(q, p) = y.
Note that it is related to the stream function ψ through the formulas where h p > 0 throughout the fluid domain by (3). An advantage of using new variables is in that instead of two unknown functions η(x) and ψ(x, y) with an unknown domain of definition, we have one function h(q, p) defined in a fixed strip S = R × [0, 1]. An equivalent problem for h(q, p) is given by The wave profile η becomes the boundary value of h on p = 1: Using (10) and Bernoulli's law (4) we recalculate the flow force constant S defined in (6) as Laminar flows defined by stream functions U (y; s) correspond to height functions h = H(p; s) that are independent of horizontal variable q. The corresponding equations are

Solving equations for H(p; s) explicitly, we find
Given a height function h(q, p) and a stream solution H(p; s), we define This notation will be frequently used in what follows. In order to derive an equation for w (s) we first write (11a) in a non-divergence form as Now using our ansatz (13), we find Thus, w (s) solves a homogeneous elliptic equation in S and is subject to a maximum principle; see [15] for an elliptic maximum principle in unbounded domains. The boundary conditions for w (s) can be obtained directly from (11b) and (11c) by inserting (13) and using the corresponding equations for H. This gives Concerning the regularity, we will always assume that ω ∈ C γ ([0; 1]) and h ∈ C 2,γ (S), where C 2,γ (S) is the usual subspace of C 2 (S) (all partial derivatives up to the second order are bounded and continuous in S) of functions with Hölder continuous second-order derivatives with a finite Hölder norm, calculated over the whole strip S. The exponent γ ∈ (0; 1) will be fixed throughout the paper.
This expression coincides with the flow force constant for H(p; s), but with the Bernoulli constant R(s) replaced by r. We note that σ(s ∓ (r); r) = S ± (r). The key property of σ(s; r) is stated below.
Our function σ(s; r) and it's role is similar to the function σ(h) introduced by Keady and Norbury in [8]. The main purpose of the latter is to be used for a comparison with the flow force constant S.

Flow force flux functions
Our aim is to extract some information by comparing the flow force constant S (of a given solution with the Bernoulli constant r ≥ R 0 ) to σ(s; r) for different values of s > s 0 . For this purpose we first compute the difference and integrating first-order terms, we conclude that 2(S − σ(s; r)) = 2(r − R(s))w (s) (q, 1) − (w (s) (q, 1)) 2 Let us define the (relative) flow force flux function Φ (s) by setting An analog (partial case with s = s + (r)) of this function was recently introduced in [13]. The same computation as in [13] gives A surprising fact about Φ (s) is that it solves a homogeneous elliptic equation as stated in the next proposition.
Furthermore, Φ (s) satisfies the boundary conditions For the proof we refer to [13, Proposition 3.1], where a similar statement was proved for the special case s = s ± (r). More precisely, it is shown that the function Φ defined by (17) with s = s ± (r) solves a homogenous elliptic equation, which only requires the interior relation (11a) from the laminar stream H. Thus, if we replace H(p; s ± ) by an arbitrary stream solution H(p; s) (still solving the same equation (11a)) the corresponding statement of [13, Proposition 3.1] remains true. Thus, to prove (20a) it is enough to repeat the argument in [13, Proposition 3.1] but for H(p; s) instead of H(p; s ± ). On the other hand, the boundary relation (20a) is different from the one in [13, Proposition 3.1] and follows directly from the computation given above.