Skip to main content

Blow-up solution and stability to an inverse problem for a pseudo-parabolic equation

Abstract

We consider a two-fold problem for an inverse problem of pseudo-parabolic equations with a nonlinear term. Sufficient conditions for a blow-up solution are derived and a stability result is established.

1 Introduction

Let us consider the following inverse problem for a pseudo-parabolic equation:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

where Ω R n is a bounded domain with a sufficiently smooth boundary Ω, p and a are positive constants, g(x) and b i (x) are given functions satisfying

ω H 2 (Ω) H 0 1 (Ω) L p + 2 (Ω), Ω ω(ωΔω)dx=1,
(A1)

with weight function g(x)=ωaΔω, and a constant

B 0 = max x Ω ( i = 1 n b i 2 ( x ) ) 1 / 2 ,xΩ, b i C( Ω ¯ ).
(A2)

The inverse problem consists of finding a pair of functions (u(x,t),f(t)) satisfying (1)-(4) when

u 0 H 0 1 (Ω) L p + 2 (Ω)and Ω u 0 (ωΔω)dx=1.
(A3)

Additional information about the solution to the inverse problem is given in the form of the integral overdetermination condition (4). From the physical point of view, this condition may be interpreted as measurements of the temperature u(x,t) by a device averaging over the domain Ω [1].

This type of equations arises from a variety of mathematical models in engineering and physical sciences; for example, inverse scattering problems in quantum physics, an inverse problem of interest in geophysics [2].

Existence and uniqueness of solutions to an inverse problem for parabolic and pseudo-parabolic equations are studied in [36]. Stability of solutions is investigated by several authors [1, 7]; but less is known about blow-up solutions. Eden and Kalantarov [8] studied the same problem without a strong damping term Δ u t . Meyvaci [9] established a blow-up result for the pseudo-parabolic equation u t Δ u t Δu+ u x 1 u p = | u | 2 m u, where p1 is a given integer and m1 is a number.

Here, we used the following notations:

u= u L 2 ( Ω ) ,(u,v)= Ω uvdx, u p = u L p ( Ω )

are the arithmetic-geometric inequality and Young’s inequality for a,b>0 respectively;

ab ε 2 a 2 + 1 2 ε b 2 ,abβ a p +C(p,β) b q ,
(5)

with 1/p+1/q=1, C(p,β)= 1 q ( β p ) q / p and the Poincare-Friedrich inequality

λ 1 u 2 u 2 ,
(6)

where λ 1 is the first eigenvalue of the eigenvalue problem

Δu=λu,xΩ;u=0,xΩ.

Multiplying both sides of (1) by ω and integrating the resulting equation over Ω lead to the following relation:

f(t)=(u,Δω)+ ( ω , i = 1 n b i u x i ) ( ω , | u | p u ) ,
(7)

where conditions (2), (3) and (A1) are used. Substituting (7) into (1), problem (1)-(3) yields a direct problem given by [4].

2 Blow-up result

Firstly, let us note the following lemma known as ‘generalized concavity lemma’ or ‘Ladyzhenskaya-Kalantarov lemma’. It is an important tool to obtain the blow-up solutions to parabolic- and hyperbolic-type equations.

Lemma 1 Let α>0, C 1 , C 2 0 and C 1 + C 2 >0. Suppose that a positive, twice differentiable function F(t) satisfies the inequality

F(t) F (t)(1+α) ( F ( t ) ) 2 2 C 1 F(t) F (t) C 2 F 2 (t),t0.
(8)

If

F(0)>0and F (0)+ γ 2 α 1 F(0)>0,
(9)

then F(t) goes to infinity as

t t 1 t 2 = 1 2 C 1 2 + C 2 ln γ 1 F ( 0 ) + α F ( 0 ) γ 2 F ( 0 ) + α F ( 0 ) .
(10)

Here, γ 1 = C 1 + C 1 2 + α C 2 and γ 2 = C 1 C 1 2 + α C 2 .

Proof See [10]. □

Theorem 1 Assume that (A1)-(A3) are satisfied and suppose that the initial condition u 0 satisfies the following condition:

2 ( 2 p + 3 ) p + 2 u 0 p + 2 p + 2 > 2 4 a 2 + 2 ( p + 1 ) 2 a p 2 ( 2 B 0 2 + K 0 2 ) ( u 0 2 + a u 0 2 ) ( 1 + B 0 2 ) u 0 2 D 1 ,
(A4)

where K 0 >0 and D 1 = Δ ω 2 + B 0 2 ω 2 + 2 p + 2 ω p + 2 p + 2 . Then the solution of the problem (1)-(4) with the weight function g(x)=(ωaΔω)(x) blows up in a finite time.

Proof Multiplying (1) by u and integrating over Ω give

1 2 d d t ( u 2 + a u 2 ) + u 2 + ( u , i = 1 n b i u x i ) u p + 2 p + 2 =f(t).
(11)

Also, multiplying (1) by u t and integrating over Ω, we obtain

u t 2 +a u t 2 = 1 2 d d t u 2 ( u t , i = 1 n b i u x i ) + 1 p + 2 d d t u p + 2 p + 2 .
(12)

Now, let us consider the following function:

F(t)= u 2 +a u 2 + D 0 ,
(13)

where D 0 is a nonnegative parameter to be chosen later. It is clear that

F (t)=2(u, u t )+2a(u, u t ).
(14)

Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have

( F ( t ) ) 2 4F(t) ( u t 2 + a u t 2 ) .
(15)

Substituting (11) into (12), we obtain

u t 2 + a u t 2 = 1 2 ( p + 2 ) F ( t ) p 2 ( p + 2 ) d d t u 2 ( u t , i = 1 n b i u x i ) + 1 p + 2 d d t ( u , i = 1 n b i u x i ) 1 p + 2 d d t f ( t ) .
(16)

We take the derivative of (7) with respect to t

d d t f(t)=( u t ,Δω)+ ( ω , i = 1 n b i u t x i ) (p+1) ( ω , u p u t ) .
(17)

Rewrite (16) in view of (17)

u t 2 + a u t 2 = 1 2 ( p + 2 ) F ( t ) p 2 ( p + 2 ) d d t u 2 p + 1 p + 2 ( u t , i = 1 n b i u x i ) + 1 p + 2 ( u , i = 1 n b i u t x i ) + 1 p + 2 ( u t , Δ ω ) 1 p + 2 ( ω , i = 1 n b i u t x i ) + p + 1 p + 2 ( ω , | u | p u t ) .
(18)

After applying the arithmetic-geometric inequality to estimate the terms on the right-hand side of (18), we obtain

(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)

For q= 2 n n 2 , n3, the following inequality is satisfied for some K 1 >0:

( Ω | u | q d x ) 1 / q K 1 ( Ω | u | 2 d x ) 1 / 2 .
(24)

We apply the Hölder inequality, with q 1 =n, q 2 =2, q 3 = 2 n n 2 , to the last term in (18),

| Ω ω | u | p u t d x | ( Ω | ω | n d x ) 1 / n ( Ω | u t | 2 d x ) 1 / 2 ( Ω | u | 2 n n 2 d x ) n 2 2 n .
(25)

It follows from (24) and (25) with ω n K 2

K 0 u t u p 4 ( p + 1 ) u t 2 + p + 1 p K 0 2 u 2 ,
(26)

where K 0 = K 1 K 2 . Substituting the estimates (19)-(23) and (26) into (18), we write

p + 4 2 ( p + 2 ) ( u t 2 + a u t 2 ) 1 2 ( p + 2 ) F ( t ) + 2 B 0 2 a p ( p + 2 ) u 2 + 2 p a 1 + p 1 ( p + 1 ) 2 ( 2 B 0 2 + K 0 2 ) a ( p + 2 ) a u 2 + 1 p ( p + 2 ) ( 2 Δ ω 2 + B 0 2 a ω 2 ) .
(27)

Since coefficients of the term a u 2 are greater than those of u 2 on the right-hand side of (27), multiplying both sides of (27) by 2(p+2), we get

(28)

where D 2 = 4 p Δ ω 2 + 2 B 0 2 a p ω 2 . From (15) and (28), we have

( 1 + p 4 ) F 1 (t) ( F ( t ) ) 2 F (t)+βF(t)+( D 2 β D 0 ),
(29)

where β= 4 p a 2 + 2 ( p + 1 ) 2 a p (2 B 0 2 + K 0 2 ). We choose D 0 = β 1 D 2 in the last inequality and multiply both sides of (29) by F(t), which gives

F(t) F (t) ( 1 + p 4 ) ( F ( t ) ) 2 β ( F ( t ) ) 2 .
(30)

So, inequality (8) is satisfied with α= p 4 >0, C 1 =0, C 2 =β>0. Thus, the desired result is obtained by applying Lemma 1. □

3 Stability of problem

In this part, we consider the following inverse source problem:

(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)

where Ω R n is a bounded domain with a sufficiently smooth boundary Ω and ω, u 0 and φ(t) are given functions, p>0. Assume that ω satisfies the conditions

Ω ω 2 dx=1,ω H 0 1 (Ω) L p + 2 (Ω)
(A5)

and u 0 satisfies

u 0 H 0 1 (Ω) L p + 2 (Ω)and Ω u 0 (x)ω(x)dx=φ(0).
(A6)

Theorem 2 Suppose that the conditions (A5) and (A6) are satisfied and assume that φ and φ are continuous functions defined on [0,) which tend to zero as t. Then

lim t ( u 2 + u p + 2 p + 2 ) =0

with a constant B 0 < 2 ( 1 + λ 1 1 ) λ 1 , where λ 1 is constant in (6).

Proof We multiply (31) by ω, integrate over Ω and use (34) to obtain

f(t)= φ (t)+(ω, u t )+(ω,u) ( ω , i = 1 n b i u x i ) + ( ω , | u | p u ) .
(35)

Inserting (35) into (31), we obtain

(36)

Now, let us multiply (36) by u+ u t and integrate over Ω:

(37)

Using Cauchy, Poincare and Young inequalities on the right-hand side of (37), we have

(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)

Rewriting (37) with estimates (38)-(43), we obtain the following inequality:

(44)

where

D ( t ) = ( | φ | 2 + | φ | 2 ) ( 1 2 ω 2 + 1 ε ω 2 + B 0 2 ε ω 2 ) + ( φ ( t ) ) 2 + | φ ( t ) φ ( t ) | + C ( ε , p ) ω p + 2 p + 2 ( | φ | p + 2 + | φ | p + 2 ) .

We choose ε 0 >0 such that ε 0 ε<1 B 0 ( 4 + B 0 λ 1 ) 4 λ 1 and take

K 3 =min { 2 3 ( 1 ε 0 B 0 ( 4 + B 0 λ 1 ) 4 λ 1 ) , 1 ε 0 } .

So, (44) follows

d d t [ 1 2 u 2 + u 2 + 1 p + 2 u p + 2 p + 2 ] + K 3 ( 3 2 u 2 + u p + 2 p + 2 ) D(t).
(45)

The last term on the left-hand side of (45) can be written

3 2 u 2 + u p + 2 p + 2 λ 1 2 u 2 + u 2 + u p + 2 p + 2 K 4 ( 1 2 u 2 + u 2 + 1 p + 2 u p + 2 p + 2 ) ,
(46)

where K 4 =min( λ 1 ,1). It follows from (45) and (46)

d d t η(t)+ K 5 η(t)D(t).
(47)

Here, K 5 = K 3 K 4 and η(t)= 1 2 u 2 + u 2 + 1 p + 2 u p + 2 p + 2 . After solving first-order differential inequality (47), it follows that

u 2 + u p + 2 p + 2 0as t.

 □

References

  1. Vasin V, Kamynin L: On the asymptotic behaviour of solutions to inverse problems for parabolic equations. Sib. Math. J. 1997, 38: 647–662. 10.1007/BF02674572

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Ramm AG: Inverse Problems, Mathematical and Analytical Techniques with Applications to Engineering. Springer, New York; 2005.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Kamynin VL, Franchini E: An inverse problem for a higher order parabolic equation. Math. Notes 1998, 64(5):590–599. 10.1007/BF02316283

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Prilepko AI, Orlowskii DG, Vasin IA: Methods for Solving Inverse Problems in Mathematical Physics. Dekker, New York; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Riganti R, Savateev E: Solution of an inverse problem for the nonlinear heat equation. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 1994, 19: 1611–1628. 10.1080/03605309408821066

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Tkachenko DS: On an inverse problem for a parabolic equation. Math. Notes 2004, 75(5):729–743.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Guvenilir AF, Kalantarov VK: The asymptotic behaviour of solutions to an inverse problem for differential operator equations. Math. Comput. Model. 2003, 37: 907–914. 10.1016/S0895-7177(03)00106-7

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Eden A, Kalantarov VK: On global behaviour of solutions to an inverse problem for nonlinear parabolic equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2005, 307: 120–133. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.01.007

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Meyvaci M: Blow-up of solutions of pseudo-parabolic equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2009, 352: 629–633. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.11.016

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Kalantarov VK, Ladyzhenskaya OA: Formation of collapses in quasilinear equations of parabolic and hyperbolic types. Zap. Nauč. Semin. LOMI 1977, 69: 77–102.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M Yaman.

Additional information

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yaman, M. Blow-up solution and stability to an inverse problem for a pseudo-parabolic equation. J Inequal Appl 2012, 274 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2012-274

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2012-274

Keywords

  • blow-up
  • inverse problem
  • pseudo-parabolic equation
  • stability