- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Infinitely many solutions for hemivariational inequalities involving the fractional Laplacian
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2019, Article number: 302 (2019)
Abstract
In the paper, we consider the following hemivariational inequality problem involving the fractional Laplacian:
where Ω is a bounded smooth domain in \(\mathbb{R} ^{N}\) with \(N\geq 3\), \((-\Delta )^{s}\) is the fractional Laplacian with \(s\in (0,1)\), \(\lambda >0\) is a parameter, \(\alpha (x): \varOmega \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \) is a measurable function, \(F(x, u):\varOmega \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \) is a nonsmooth potential, and \(\partial F(x,u)\) is the generalized gradient of \(F(x, \cdot )\) at \(u\in \mathbb{R} \). Under some appropriate assumptions, we obtain the existence of a nontrivial solution of this hemivariational inequality problem. Moreover, when F is autonomous, we obtain the existence of infinitely many solutions of this problem when the nonsmooth potentials F have suitable oscillating behavior in any neighborhood of the origin (respectively the infinity) and discuss the properties of the solutions.
1 Introduction
In the present paper, we are concerned with the following hemivariational inequality:
where Ω is a bounded smooth domain in \(\mathbb {R}^{N}\) with \(N\geq 3\), \(\lambda >0\) is a parameter, \(\alpha (x): \varOmega \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is a measurable function, \(F(x, u):\varOmega \times \mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is a nonsmooth potential, while \(\partial F(x,u)\) is the generalized gradient of \(F(x, \cdot )\) at \(u\in \mathbb {R}\), and \((-\Delta )^{s}\) with \(s\in (0,1)\) is the fractional Laplacian which may be defined as
for \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\).
In recent years, boundary value problems involving fractional operators and more general nonlocal operators have attracted more interest since these operators appear in concrete applications in many fields, such as anomalous diffusion [1], quantum mechanics [2], obstacle problems [3], phase transition [4], minimal surface [5], and so on. In the literature, various papers deal with the existence and multiplicity of nontrivial solutions for the fractional Laplacian equations with superlinear or subcritical, critical, asymptotically linear nonlinearities, and some elliptic boundary problems involving the nonlocal integrodifferential operator are also exploited, see for example [6,7,8,9,10] and the references therein.
We note that the existence of infinitely many solutions for elliptic boundary value problems without the symmetric functionals is an important topic in nonlinear analysis, hence there are a lot of papers focused on the existence of infinitely many solutions of elliptic boundary value problems involving the local Laplacian and the p-Laplacian, see for example [11, 12]. Also, this study for boundary value problems involving fractional Laplacian has received attention of some authors via variational methods recently. For instance, in [13], under some subcritical growth assumptions on the nonlinearity, Servadei established results on the existence of infinitely many solutions for the nonlocal fractional Laplace equations; in [14], with the help of the Ambrosetti–Rabinowitz type condition, Zhang et al. established some results on the existence of infinitely many solutions for fractional Laplace equations with subcritical growth nonlinearities and superlinear growth nonlinearities; in [15], under some local growth conditions on the nonlinearity, Li and Wei obtained the existence of infinitely many solutions for fractional Laplace equations; in [16], by using variational and topological methods, Ambrosio et al. obtained the existence of infinitely many solutions for fractional nonlocal p-Laplacian problem under some oscillating conditions near the origin or at infinity.
We point out that the above works on nonlocal boundary value problems can be formulated as “smooth” since the involving nonlinearities are continuous. So we wonder what happens if the nonlocal boundary value problems have nonsmooth nonlinearities (this kind of problems is called hemivariational inequality). In fact, the research on the existence and multiplicity of solutions for the hemivariational inequality problems involving a local Laplace or p-Laplace type operator has attracted the interest of many authors in the past thirty years, see for instance [17,18,19,20,21,22] and the references therein.
Therefore, motivated by the papers mentioned above, especially by[13,14,15,16,17,18, 22], we are interested in the existence of a nontrivial solution and infinitely solutions for the fractional hemivariational inequality problem \((P_{\lambda })\) in the present paper. By using the theory of nonsmooth critical point and the idea of constructing a special set in the working function space such that the minimum point of the energy functional on this set is actually a weak solution of problem \((P_{\lambda })\), we obtain an existence result (see Theorem 3.2 for more details). Moreover, under suitable oscillatory assumptions on the autonomous nonsmooth potential \(F:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) at zero or at infinity, we establish the existence of infinitely many solutions for problem \((P_{\lambda })\) (see Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 for more details). It is worth noting that, if F is a primitive of a continuous function f, problem \((P_{\lambda })\) will become a boundary value problem involving a fractional operator. The method to obtain the existence of infinitely many solutions for this boundary value problem is different from the ones used in [13,14,15,16].
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we give some notations and preliminaries. In Sect. 3, under appropriate assumptions, we present a result about the existence of a solution for problem \((P_{\lambda })\). In Sect. 4, we show the existence of infinitely many solutions whenever the autonomous nonlinearity F oscillates in any neighborhood of the origin (respectively infinity) and obtain some properties of the solutions.
2 Preliminaries
In the section, we gather some notions and results which will be useful in the proofs of our results.
Our method of proof uses the nonsmooth critical point theory, which in turn is based on the subdifferential theory for locally Lipschitz functional. In the following, firstly we briefly recall some basic definitions and results from these two theories. For details, we refer to Clarke [23] and Gasinński and Papageorgiou [24].
Let X be a Banach space and \(\mathbf{X}^{*}\) be its topological dual. By \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) we denote the duality pairing between \(\mathbf{X}^{*}\) and X. Given a locally Lipschitz function \(f:\mathbf{X}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\), the generalized directional derivative of f at a point \(u\in \mathbf{X}\) along the direction \(h\in \mathbf{X}\) is defined by
and the generalized gradient of f at a point \(u\in \mathbf{X}\) is defined by
It is clear that, by using the Hahn–Banach theorem, \(\partial f(u) \neq \emptyset \). If f is also convex, then the multifunction \(\mathbf{X}\ni u\rightarrow \partial f(u)\in 2^{X^{*}}\backslash \{\emptyset \}\) coincides with the Clarke subdifferential in the sense of convex analysis, defined by
Also the generalized gradient satisfies the mean value rule (so-called Lebourg’s mean value theorem). Namely, if \(f:\mathbf{X}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is Lipschitz on an open set containing the line segment \([u,v]\), we can find \(w=ut+(1-t)v\) with \(t\in (0,1)\) and \(w^{*} \in \partial f(w)\) such that
Let \(\varPhi :\mathbf{X}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be a locally Lipschitz function and \(\varPsi :\mathbf{X}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\cup \{+\infty \}\) be a proper, convex, and low semicontinuous functional. Then \(\varPhi +\varPsi \) is called a Motreanu–Panagiotopoulos-type functional (see [25]).
Definition 2.1
Let \(\varPhi +\varPsi \) be a Motreanu–Panagiotopoulos-type functional, \(u\in \mathbf{X}\). Then u is a critical point of \(\varPhi +\varPsi \) if, for every \(v\in \mathbf{X}\),
In the sequel, for the reader’s convenience, we briefly recall the definition of the fractional Sobolev space and give some notations and useful lemmas. For further details on the fractional Sobolev space, we refer to [8, 9] and to the references therein.
Given \(0< s<1\), we denote the sets \(\mathscr{X}\) and \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\) by
and
where \(Q=\mathbb {R}^{2N}\backslash \mathcal {O}\) and \(\mathcal {O}=(\mathbb {R}^{N}\backslash \varOmega )\times (\mathbb {R}^{N}\backslash \varOmega )\). Moreover, the spaces \(\mathscr{X}\) and \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\) are endowed with the norms respectively defined as
and
By Lemma 6 of [8], the norms \(\|\cdot \|_{\mathscr{X}}\) and \(\|\cdot \|_{\mathscr{X}_{0}}\) are equivalent. We define an inner product \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) on \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\) as follows:
then \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\) is a Hilbert space (see [8, Lemma 7]). Also note that in (2.2) and (2.3) the integral can be extended to all \(\mathbb {R}^{N}\times \mathbb {R}^{N}\) since \(u,v\in \mathscr{X}_{0}\). \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\) is called the fractional Sobolev space (also denote \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\) as \(H^{s}(\varOmega )\)).
Throughout this paper, we will always respectively denote \(\|u\|_{p}= \|u\|_{L^{p}(\varOmega )}\) (\(1\leq p\leq \infty \)). As usual, we denote by “→” and “⇀” the strong and weak convergence.
Now, we give a convergence property for bounded sequences in \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\) and a property for eigenvalues of \((-\Delta )^{s}\), which will be used in the following. These results are proved in [8, 9].
Lemma 2.1
([8, Lemma 8])
Let \(\{v_{n}\}\)be a bounded sequence in \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\). Then there exists \(v\in L^{p} (\mathbb {R}^{N})\)such that, up to a subsequence, \(v_{n}\rightarrow v\)in \(L^{p} (\mathbb {R}^{N})\)as \(n\rightarrow \infty \)for any \(p\in [1,2^{*})\).
Lemma 2.2
([9, Lemma 9])
For the fractional eigenvalue problem
there exists an eigenvalues sequence \(\{\lambda _{n}\}\) with
and
where
Let us introduce the Euler functional \(J_{\lambda }:\mathscr{X}_{0} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) corresponding to problem \((P_{\lambda })\) as follows:
We denote
then
3 Existence of a solution for problem \((P_{\lambda })\)
Let \(\alpha : \varOmega \to \mathbb {R}\), \(F: \varOmega \times \mathbb {R}\to \mathbb {R}\). In this section, we obtain the existence of a solution on problem \((P_{\lambda })\) under the following assumptions:
- \((\alpha )\):
\(\alpha \in L^{2} (\varOmega )\) is nonnegative, and there exists \(D\subset \varOmega \) with \(\operatorname{meas}(D)>0\) such that \(\alpha (x)>0\) for almost all \(x\in D\);
- \((f_{1})\):
\(F(\cdot ,u)\) is measurable for all \(u\in \mathbb {R}\), \(F(x,\cdot )\) is locally Lipschitz for almost all \(x\in \varOmega \), \(F(x,0)=0\).
- \((f_{2})\):
There exist \(q\in (1,2^{*})\) and \(C_{0}>0\) such that
$$ \bigl\vert u^{*} \bigr\vert \leq C_{0}\bigl(1+ \vert u \vert ^{q-1}\bigr) $$for almost all \(x\in \varOmega \), every \(u\in \mathbb {R}\), and \(u^{*}\in \partial F(x,u)\);
- \((f_{3})\):
There are constants a, b, c, d with \(d< c\leq 0< a< b\), such that \(u^{*}\leq 0\) for almost all \(x\in \varOmega \), every \(u\in [a,b] \), and \(u^{*}\in \partial F(x,u)\); \(u^{*}\geq 0\) for almost all \(x\in \varOmega \), every \(u\in [d,c] \), and \(u^{*}\in \partial F(x,u)\).
In order to prove the main result, we define the set
where constants b and d are given in condition \((f_{3})\).
Lemma 3.1
Assume that \(F(x,u)\)satisfies \((f_{1})\)and \((f_{2})\), \(\alpha (x)\)satisfies condition \((A)\). Then the functional \(J_{\lambda }(u)\)is sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous on \(\mathscr{U}\), where the set \(\mathscr{U}\)is defined by (3.1).
Proof
Firstly, we claim that the set \(\mathscr{U}\) is weakly closed. The set \(\mathscr{U}\) is clearly convex. Moreover, it is closed in \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\). In fact, let \(\{u_{n}\}\subset \mathscr{U}\) with
then \(\{u_{n}\}\) is bounded in \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\). By Lemma 2.1, up to a subsequence of \(\{u_{n}\}\) (which is still denoted as \(\{u_{n}\}\))
where \(1\leq p<2^{*}\). Thus
Since \(d\leq u_{n} (x)\leq b\), \(d\leq u(x)\leq b\) for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\). So \(u\in \mathscr{U}\). Then \(\mathscr{U}\) is weakly closed.
In the sequel, we prove that \(J_{\lambda }(u)\) is weakly lower semicontinuous. Note that \(\varPsi (u)\) and \(\varPhi _{1} (u)\) are weakly lower semicontinuous, where \(\varPsi (u)\) and \(\varPhi _{1} (u)\) are defined by (2.6) and (2.7), respectively. From (2.8), we only need to prove that \(\varPhi _{2} (u)\) is weakly continuous, where \(\varPhi _{2} (u)\) is defined by (2.7). Arguing by contradiction, we assume that \(\{u_{n}\}\subset \mathscr{U}\) is a sequence with \(u_{n}\rightharpoonup u\in \mathscr{X}_{0}\) but \(\varPhi _{2} (u_{n})\nrightarrow \varPhi _{2} (u)\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Then, up to a subsequence of \(\{u_{n}\}\), we can choose a constant \(\varepsilon _{0}\) such that
for large enough \(n\in \mathbb{N}\). According to Lemma 2.1 and \(\mathscr{U}\) is weakly closed, we see that
By Lebourg’s mean value theorem, for almost all \(x\in \varOmega \), there exist \(\theta _{n}\in (0,1)\) and \(w_{n}^{*} \in \partial F(x,w_{n})\) with \(w_{n}=u+\theta _{n}(u_{n}-u)\in \mathscr{U}\) such that
where the first inequality is due to condition \((f_{2})\) and the last inequality comes from (3.1), the definition of \(\mathscr{U}\), \(C_{1} \) is a positive constant. Therefore, it follows from (3.2), (3.3), (3.4), and Hölder’s inequality that
which is impossible. The proof is completed. □
Lemma 3.2
Let \(\lambda >0\). Assume that \(F(x,u)\)satisfies \((f_{1})\)and \((f_{3})\), \(\alpha (x)\)satisfies condition \((A)\). If there exists \(u_{0}\in \mathscr{U}\)such that
where \(J_{\lambda }\)is defined by (2.5) and the set \(\mathscr{U}\)is defined by (3.1), then \(u_{0}(x)\in [c,a]\)for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\), where constantsaandcare given in condition \((f_{3})\).
Proof
Since \(u_{0}\in \mathscr{U}\), \(u_{0}\in \mathscr{X} _{0}\) and \(d\leq u_{0}(x)\leq b \) for almost every \(x \in \mathbb {R}^{N}\).
Denote
Clearly, \(A_{1}\cup A_{2}=A\). Let us define
Firstly, we will prove that
From \(u_{0}\in \mathscr{U}\subset \mathscr{X}_{0}\) and (2.1), the definition of \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\), we have \(u_{0}(x)=0\) for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\backslash \varOmega \). Since \(d< c\leq 0< a< b\), \(u_{0}(x) \in [c,a]\) for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\backslash \varOmega \). From (3.5) and (3.6), we have \(v_{0} (x)=0\) for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\backslash \varOmega \). Therefore,
where \(Q=\mathbb {R}^{2n}\backslash \mathcal {O}\) and \(\mathcal {O}=(\mathbb {R}^{n}\backslash \varOmega )\times (\mathbb {R}^{n}\backslash \varOmega )\). According to the definitions of \(v_{0}\), \(A_{1}\) and \(A_{2}\), we get
which implies that \(\|v_{0}\|_{\mathscr{X}_{0}}^{2}\leq \|u_{0}\|_{ \mathscr{X}_{0}}^{2}\). That is, (3.7) holds. Clearly, \(v_{0} \in \mathscr{U}\).
Secondly, we claim that \(\operatorname{meas}(A)=0\). Indeed, by Lebourg’s mean value theorem, for almost all \(x\in \varOmega \), there exist \(\theta _{1}, \theta _{2}\in (0,1)\), \(w_{1}^{*} \in \partial F(x,w_{1})\) with \(w_{1}=c+\theta _{1}(u_{0}-c)\in \mathscr{U}\) and \(w_{2}^{*} \in \partial F(x,w_{2})\) with \(w_{2}=a+\theta _{2}(u_{0}-a)\in \mathscr{U}\), such that
Therefore, we have
where the first equality follows from the definitions of \(A_{1}\), \(A _{2}\), A and \(v_{0} (x)=u_{0} (x)=0\) for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\backslash \varOmega \), the second equality is due to (3.9) and (3.10), the last inequality comes from condition \((f_{3})\) and the definitions of \(A_{1}\), \(A_{2}\). On the other hand, we know that
By (3.7), (3.11), and (3.12), we deduce that
this, together with \(J_{\lambda }(u_{0})= \inf_{\substack{u\in \mathscr{U}}}J(u)\), yields that \(J_{\lambda }(v _{0})-J_{\lambda }(u_{0})=0\). Then in particular
which implies
Hence, \(c\leq u_{0} (x)\leq a\) for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\). The proof is complete. □
Let \(\theta \in \mathbb {R}\) and \(\varepsilon \in \mathbb {R}_{+}\). In the following, we define the function \(h(\theta )=\min \{b,\max \{d, \theta \}\}\), where b and d are given in condition \((f_{3})\), and let \(w(x)=h(u_{0}(x)+\varepsilon v(x))\) for any \(v\in \mathscr{X}_{0}\), where \(u_{0}\) is given in Lemma 3.2. Then, by the definition of \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\) and \(\mathscr{U}\), we have
and \(w\in \mathscr{U}\). We introduce the sets
Clearly, \(B_{1} (\varepsilon )\cup B_{2} (\varepsilon )\cup B _{3} (\varepsilon )=\mathbb {R}^{N}\) and \(B_{1} (\varepsilon )\subset \varOmega \), \(B_{3} (\varepsilon )\subset \varOmega \). Moreover, the following lemma holds.
Lemma 3.3
\(\operatorname{meas}(B_{1} (\varepsilon ))\rightarrow 0\)and \(\operatorname{meas}(B _{3} (\varepsilon ))\rightarrow 0\)as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0^{+}\), respectively.
Proof
Suppose the contrary, i.e., \(\operatorname{meas}(B_{1} ( \varepsilon ))\nrightarrow 0\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0^{+}\). Thus there exists a number \(\eta _{0} >0\), \(\forall n\in \mathbb {N}\), \(\exists n _{0} \in \mathbb {N}\), \(n_{0}>n\), such that
Let \(v\in \mathscr{X}_{0}\). Since, for any \(M>0\), we have
then
So there exists a positive constant \(M_{0}\) such that
On the other hand, taking into account \(u_{0}(x)\in [c,a]\subset (d,b)\). For each \(|v(x)|\leq M_{0}\), there exists large enough \(n_{0} \in \mathbb {N}\) which satisfies (3.15) such that
It follows from (3.14) and (3.17) that
Hence, combining with the above (3.15), (3.16), and (3.18), we obtain
which is a contradiction. Similarly, we can prove that \(\operatorname{meas}(B _{3} (\varepsilon ))\rightarrow 0\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0^{+}\). The proof is completed. □
Theorem 3.1
Let \(\lambda >0\). Assume that \(F(x,u)\)satisfies \((f_{1})\), \((f_{2})\), and \((f_{3})\), \(\alpha (x)\)satisfies condition \((A)\). Then there exists \(u_{0}\in \mathscr{U}\)such that the functional
where \(J_{\lambda }\)is defined by (2.5) and the set \(\mathscr{U}\)is defined by (3.1). Moreover, \(u_{0}(x) \in [c,a]\)for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\).
Proof
Let \(u\in \mathscr{U}\). By Lebourg’s mean value theorem, for almost all \(x\in \varOmega \), there exist \(\theta \in (0,1)\) and \(w^{*} \in \partial F(x,w)\) with \(w=\theta u\in \mathscr{U}\) such that
where the first equality is due to condition \((f_{1})\), the first inequality is due to condition \((f_{2})\), and the last inequality comes from the definition of \(\mathscr{U}\) and \(C_{2} \) is a positive constant. By the definition of \(J_{\lambda }(u)\) and (3.19), we know that
Then \(J_{\lambda }(u)\) is bounded from below on \(\mathscr{U}\).
Let \(\eta =\inf_{u\in \mathscr{U}}J_{\lambda }(u)\). There are \(\{u_{n}\}\subset \mathscr{U}\) such that
So by (2.5), combining the definition of \(J_{\lambda }(u)\) with (3.20) and (3.21), we obtain
Hence \(\{u_{n}\}\subset \mathscr{U}\) is bounded in \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\). Note that \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\) is a Hilbert space and \(\mathscr{U}\) is weakly closed, there exists a subsequence of \(\{u_{n}\}\) (which is still denoted as \(\{u_{n}\}\)) such that \(u_{n}\rightharpoonup u_{0}\) for some \(u_{0}\in \mathscr{U}\). Due to the weak lower semicontinuity of \(J_{\lambda }(u)\) (Lemma 3.1), we have
Hence
By Lemma 3.2, \(u_{0}(x)\in [c,a]\) for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\). □
Remark 3.1
Functions satisfying all the conditions in Theorem 3.1 exist. For instance, let \(\varOmega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}\), the function \(F(x,u):\varOmega \times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}\) be defined by
Obviously, \(F(x,u)\) satisfies \((f_{1})\) and \(|u^{*}|\leq 20(1+|u|^{2}) \) for every \(x\in \varOmega \), \(u\in \mathbb {R}\) and \(u^{*}\in \partial F(x,u)\), where \(2^{*}=6\), \(q=3<2^{*}\). That is, \(F(x,u)\) satisfies \((f_{2})\). Take \(a=\frac{3}{2}\), \(b=2\), \(c=-\frac{3}{2}\), \(d=-2 \), then \(F(x,u)\) satisfies \((f_{3})\). Let \(\alpha (x)=1\), \(\forall x=(x_{1}, x_{2},x_{3})\in \varOmega \). Then \(\alpha :\varOmega \to \mathbb{R}\), condition \((A)\).
Theorem 3.2
Let \(\lambda >0\). Assume that \(F(x,u)\)satisfies \((f_{1})\), \((f_{2})\), and \((f_{3})\), \(\alpha (x)\)satisfies condition \((A)\). Then problem \((P_{\lambda })\)has a solution.
Proof
By Theorem 3.1, there exists \(u_{0}\in \mathscr{X}_{0}\) with \(u_{0}\in [c,a]\) such that \(J_{\lambda }(u_{0})= \inf_{\substack{u\in \mathscr{U}}}J_{\lambda }(u)\). In the following, we only need to prove that \(u_{0}\) is a solution of problem \((P_{\lambda })\).
Let \(\varGamma _{\mathscr{U}}\) be the indicator function of the set \(\mathscr{U}\), i.e.,
Obviously, \(\varGamma _{\mathscr{U}}\) is convex, lower semicontinuous, and proper. Define the functional \(I_{\lambda }: \mathscr{X}_{0}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\cup \{+\infty \}\) by \(I_{\lambda }=J_{\lambda }+ \varGamma _{\mathscr{U}}\). Since \(J_{\lambda }\) is of class \(C^{1}\) on \(\mathscr{X}_{0}\), \(I_{\lambda }\) is the Szulkin-type functional. Note that \(u_{0}\) is a local minimum point of \(J_{\lambda }\) on \(\mathscr{U}\), thus a local minimum point of the functional \(I_{\lambda }\). Moreover, \(u_{0}\) is a critical point of \(I_{\lambda }\), that is,
In particular,
Note that
that is,
For each \(v\in \mathscr{X}_{0}\), we choose w defined as (3.13) and estimate every term of the right-hand side of (3.22). We shall complete the proof by the following steps.
Step 1: We estimate the second term of the right-hand side of (3.22).
Due to \(u_{0} =0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^{N}\backslash \varOmega \), we have
and
Similarly, arguing as above, we get
By (3.23), (3.24), and (3.25), we obtain
Step 2: We estimate the first term of the right-hand side of (3.22). Due to (3.14), we have
In the following, we estimate the fourth term of (3.27). Now take \(R>0\) with \(\varOmega \subset B_{R}=\{x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}:|x|\leq R\}\). Owing to \(u_{0} (x)=v(x)=0\) for \(x\in B_{R}^{c}\), then \(B_{2} (\varepsilon ) \cap B_{R}^{c}=B_{R}^{c}\). Therefore, we obtain
Since \(u_{0} (x)+\varepsilon v(x)< d\) for \(x\in B_{1} (\varepsilon )\) and \(c\leq u_{0} (x)\leq a\), we know \(v(x)<0\) for \(x\in B_{1} (\varepsilon )\). Consequently,
where \(C_{3}\), \(C_{4}\) are constants. By (3.28) and (3.29), we get
Similarly, we can estimate the sixth term of (3.27) and obtain
where \(C_{5}\) is a constant. Then we estimate the fifth term of (3.27). According to \(u_{0} (x)+\varepsilon v(x)< d\) for \(x\in B_{1} (\varepsilon )\) and \(u_{0} (y)+\varepsilon v(y)\geq b\) for \(y\in B_{3} (\varepsilon )\), a simple calculation shows that \(u_{0} (x)-u_{0} (y)\leq \varepsilon (v(y)-v(x))\). Hence,
Combining with the above (3.27), (3.30), (3.31), and (3.32), we obtain the estimation of the first term of the right-hand side of (3.22), i.e.,
Step 3: We estimate the third term of the right-hand side of (3.22).
For each \(w_{0}^{*} \in \partial F(x,u_{0})\), we have \(\langle w_{0} ^{*},h\rangle \le F^{\circ }(x,u_{0};h)\), \(\forall h\in \mathscr{X}_{0}\). By (3.13) and (3.14), we obtain
Furthermore, from condition \((f_{2})\) and the fact that \(u_{0}\in [d, b]\), we obtain
where \(C_{6}\), \(C_{7}\) are positive constants. Therefore, according to (3.34), (3.35), and (3.36), we obtain
Step 4: In the sequel, from the above inequalities (3.22), (3.26), (3.33), and (3.37), we deduce that
It follows from Lemma 3.3 that \(\operatorname{meas}(B_{1} (\varepsilon ))\rightarrow 0\) and \(\operatorname{meas}(B_{3} (\varepsilon ))\rightarrow 0\) as \(\varepsilon \to 0^{+}\). Therefore, take \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0^{+}\) in (3.38), we obtain
By the arbitrariness of \(v\in \mathscr{X}_{0}\), we have
Note that \(w_{0}^{*} \in \partial F(x,u_{0})\), so \(u_{0}\) is a solution of problem \((P_{\lambda })\). Then the conclusion of Theorem 3.2 is proved. □
4 Existence of infinitely many solutions for problem \((P_{\lambda })\)
In this section, we assume that F is autonomous, i.e., \(F(x,u)=F(u)\), \(F: \mathbb {R}\to \mathbb {R}\), and satisfies the following conditions:
- \((\bar{f_{1}})\):
\(F: \mathbb {R}\to \mathbb {R}\) is locally Lipschitz and \(F(0)=0\);
- \((\bar{f_{2}})\):
There exist \(q\in (1,2^{*})\) and \(C_{0}>0\) such that
$$ \bigl\vert u^{*} \bigr\vert \leq C_{0}\bigl(1+ \vert u \vert ^{q-1}\bigr) $$for every \(u\in \mathbb {R}\) and \(u^{*}\in \partial F(u)\).
Let \(\alpha : \varOmega \to \mathbb {R}\). We will obtain two results on infinitely many solutions for the problem
when the nonlinearity F satisfies the above conditions and has a suitable oscillation near the origin or at infinity (see hypotheses \((F_{1}^{0})\) and \((F_{2}^{0})\), or \((F_{1}^{\infty })\) and \((F_{2}^{\infty })\) in the following).
Lemma 4.1
Let \(F(u)\)satisfy \((\bar{f_{1}})\)and \(\hat{u}\in \mathbb {R}\). If \(\hat{u}^{*} <0\)for \(\hat{u}^{*} \in \partial F( \hat{u})\), then there exists \(\eta >0\)such that \({z}^{*} \le 0\)for \({z}^{*} \in \partial F( z)\), where \(z\in (\hat{u}-\eta , \hat{u}+\eta )\).
Proof
We prove it by contradiction. Suppose on the contrary that, for each \(k\in \mathbb {N}\), there exist \(z_{k}\in (\hat{u}- \frac{1}{k}, \hat{u}+\frac{1}{k})\) and \(z_{k}^{*} \in \partial F( z _{k})\) such that \(z_{k}^{*} > 0\). Let \(\hat{z}^{*} \) be a cluster point of \(\{z_{k}^{*} \}\), then \(\hat{z}^{*}\ge 0\). Note that \(\lim_{k\to \infty }z_{k}=\hat{u}\). By virtue of Proposition 2.1.5 of [23](P.29), we have \(\hat{z}^{*}\in \partial F( \hat{u})\), hence \(\hat{z}^{*}< 0\), which contradicts \(\hat{z}^{*}\ge 0\). This completes the proof. □
Theorem 4.1
Let \(\lambda >0\)and \(\alpha (x)\)satisfy condition \((A)\). Assume that \(F(u)\)satisfies \((\bar{f_{1}})\), \((\bar{f_{2}})\), and the following conditions:
- \((F_{1}^{0})\):
\(-\infty <\liminf_{s\to 0} \frac{F(s)}{s ^{2}}\leq \limsup_{s\to 0} \frac{F(s)}{s^{2}}=+\infty \);
- \((F_{2}^{0})\):
There exist two sequences \(\{\hat{u}_{k}\}\subset (0,+\infty )\)and \(\{\bar{u}_{k}\}\subset (-\infty ,0)\)with
$$ \lim_{k\to \infty }\hat{u}_{k} =\lim _{k\to \infty }\bar{u}_{k} =0 $$such that, for all \(k\in \mathbb {N}\),
$$ \hat{u}_{k}^{*} < 0 \quad \textit{and}\quad \bar{u}_{k}^{*} >0 $$for \(\hat{u}_{k}^{*} \in \partial F(\hat{u}_{k})\)and \(\bar{u}_{k}^{*} \in \partial F(\bar{u}_{k})\), respectively.
Then there exists a sequence \(\{u_{k}\}\)of distinct weak solutions of problem \((\bar{P}_{\lambda })\)such that
Proof
Let us define a function \(\mu : \mathbb {R}^{N}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) such that
where D is the set given in condition \((A)\). Then the function \(\mu \in \mathscr{X}_{0}\) exists thanks to the fact that \(C_{0}^{2}( \varOmega )\subseteq \mathscr{X}_{0}\) (see [9] Lemma 11).
Due to condition \((F_{2}^{0})\), without loss of generality, we can suppose that sequences \(\{\hat{u}_{k}\}\) and \(\{\bar{u}_{k}\}\) are respectively decreasing and increasing. By virtue of Lemma 4.1, we may choose the sequences \(\{a_{k}\},\{b_{k}\}\subset (0,+\infty )\) and \(\{c_{k}\},\{d_{k}\}\subset (-\infty ,0)\) such that, for all \(k\in \mathbb {N}\) and almost all \(x\in \varOmega \),
Take the set
By Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, there exists \(u_{k} \in \mathscr{U}_{k}\) such that the functional
Moreover, \(u_{k}(x)\in [c_{k},a_{k}]\) for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\) and \(u_{k}\) is a weak solution of problem \((\bar{P}_{\lambda })\).
Firstly, we claim that when k is large enough, \(J_{\lambda }(u_{k})<0\).
Indeed, by using the first inequality in condition \((F_{1}^{0})\), there exist two numbers \(l_{0}>0\) and \(\rho _{0}\in (0,b_{1})\) such that
Recall that \(\lambda _{1}\) is the first eigenvalue of \((-\Delta )^{s}\), from (2.4), the definition of \(\lambda _{1}\), we clearly know
where μ is defined by (4.1). Due to condition \((A)\) and \(\|\mu \|_{\mathscr{X}_{0}}<+\infty \), we can choose \(L_{0}>0\) large enough so that
Using the last equality in condition \((F_{1}^{0})\), for the above \(L_{0}\), there exist \(s_{k} \in (-\rho _{0},\rho _{0})\) with \(c_{k}\leq s_{k}\leq a_{k}\), \(s_{k}\neq 0\) and \(\lim_{k\to \infty } s _{k}=0\) such that
for large enough \(k\in \mathbb {N}\).
Define \(w_{k}=s_{k} \mu \). Combining \(c_{k}\leq s_{k}\leq a_{k}\), (4.1), and (4.2), we deduce that \(w_{k}\in \mathscr{U}_{k}\). Since \(\lim_{k\to \infty } s_{k}=0\), when k is large enough, we have
where the first inequality comes from (4.5), the second inequality follows from (4.4) and (4.7), and the last inequality follows from (4.6). Hence, by (4.3) and (4.8), we obtain
when k is large enough.
Secondly, we prove that \(\lim_{k\to \infty }J_{\lambda }(u _{k})=0\).
By using Lebourg’s mean value theorem and conditions \((\bar{f_{1}})\), \((\bar{f_{2}})\) again, there exist \(\theta _{k} \in (0,1)\) and \(v_{k}^{*}\in \partial F(v_{k})\) with \(v_{k} =\theta _{k} u_{k} \in \mathscr{U}_{k}\) such that
The above inequality, together with \(\lim_{k\to \infty }a_{k}= \lim_{k\to \infty }c_{k}=0\) and (4.9), yields that
as \(k\to \infty \), i.e., \(\lim_{k\to \infty }J_{\lambda }(u_{k})=0\).
At last, from the definition of \(J_{\lambda }\), we have
as \(k\to \infty \). Thus \(\lim_{k\to \infty }\|u_{k}\|_{ \mathscr{X}_{0}}=0\). The proof is complete. □
Remark 4.1
Functions satisfying all the conditions in Theorem 4.1 exist. For instance, let \(\varOmega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}\), the function \(F(u): \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}\) be defined by
Obviously, \(F( u)\) satisfies \((\bar{f}_{1})\), \((\bar{f}_{2})\), \(\liminf_{u\to 0} \frac{F(u)}{u^{2}}=0\), and \(\limsup_{u\to 0} \frac{F(u)}{u^{2}}=+\infty \). Take \(\hat{u}_{k}=\frac{1}{2k \pi }\), then \(\lim_{k\to \infty }\hat{u}_{k} =0\) and \(F'(\hat{u}_{k}) =1-2k\pi <0\). Take \(\bar{u}_{k}\in (-\infty ,0)\) and \(\lim_{k\to \infty }\bar{u}_{k} =0\), then \(F'(\bar{u}_{k})=3 \bar{u}_{k}^{2}>0\). That is, \(F( u)\) satisfies \((F_{1}^{0})\) and \((F_{2}^{0})\).
Theorem 4.2
Let \(\lambda >0\)and \(\alpha (x)\)satisfy condition \((A)\). Assume that \(F(u)\)satisfies \((\bar{f_{1}})\), \((\bar{f_{2}})\), and the following conditions:
- \((F_{1}^{\infty })\):
\(-\infty <\liminf_{s\to {+\infty }} \frac{F(s)}{s^{2}}\leq \limsup_{s\to {+\infty }} \frac{F(s)}{s ^{2}}=+\infty \);
- \((F_{2}^{\infty })\):
There exists a sequence \(\{\tilde{u}_{k}\} \subset (0,+\infty )\)with \(\lim_{k\to \infty }\tilde{u}_{k} =+\infty \)and \(u_{0}\in (-\infty ,0)\)such that
$$ \tilde{u}_{k}^{*} < 0 \quad \textit{for all } k\in \mathbb {N}\quad \textit{and}\quad u_{0}^{*} \geq 0, $$where \(\tilde{u}_{k}^{*} \in \partial F(\tilde{u}_{k})\), \(u_{0}^{*} \in \partial F(u_{0})\).
Then there exists a sequence \(\{u_{k}\}\)of distinct weak solutions of problem \((\bar{P}_{\lambda })\)such that
Proof
By virtue of the first inequality in condition \((F_{1}^{\infty })\), there exist \(l_{\infty }>0\) and \(\rho _{\infty } >0\) such that
Due to condition \((A)\), we can choose \(L_{\infty }>0\) large enough so that
where μ is defined by (4.1), \(\lambda _{1}\) is the first eigenvalue of \((-\Delta )^{s}\). The last equality of condition \((F_{1}^{\infty })\) ensures the existence of a sequence \(\{\hat{s} _{k}\}\subset (0,+\infty )\) with \(\lim_{k\to \infty }\hat{s}_{k}=+ \infty \) such that
for large enough \(k\in \mathbb {N}\). By condition \((F_{2}^{\infty })\), \(\lim_{k\to \infty } \tilde{u}_{k}=+\infty \). Let us take an increasing subsequence \(\{\tilde{u}_{m_{k}}\}\) of \(\{\tilde{u}_{k}\}\) such that
In addition, according to condition \((F_{2}^{\infty })\), we can choose two sequences \(\{a_{k}'\},\{b_{k}'\}\subset (0,+\infty )\) such that, for all \(k\in \mathbb {N}\),
and two numbers \(c'\) and \(d'\) with \(d'< c'\leq 0\) such that
Let
By Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.2, there exists a weak solution \(u_{k} \in \mathscr{U}_{k}'\) of problem \((\bar{P}_{\lambda })\) such that \(c'\leq u_{k}(x)\leq a_{k}'\) for almost every \(x\in \mathbb {R}^{N}\) and
Let \(w_{k}=\hat{s}_{k} \mu \). Then (4.1), (4.13), and \(\tilde{u}_{m_{k}}< b_{k}'\) show that \(w_{k}\in \mathscr{U}_{k}'\). Besides, by Lebourg’s mean value theorem and conditions \((\bar{f_{1}})\), \((\bar{f_{2}})\), for \(w_{k} <\rho _{\infty }\), there exist \(\theta _{k} \in (0,1)\) and \(v_{k}^{*}\in \partial F(v_{k})\) with \(v_{k} =\theta _{k} w_{k} \in \mathscr{U}_{k}'\) such that
where \(C_{8}\) and \(C_{9}\) are positive constants. Owing to (4.5), (4.10), (4.12), and the above inequality, we get
Thanks to \(\lim_{k\to \infty } {\hat{s}_{k}}^{2}=+\infty \) and(4.11), we obtain that
Therefore, \(\lim_{k\to \infty }J_{\lambda }(u_{k})=-\infty \). The proof is complete. □
Remark 4.2
Functions satisfying all the conditions in Theorem 4.2 exist. For instance, let \(\varOmega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}\), the function \(F(x,u):\varOmega \times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}\) be defined by
It is easy to check that \(F( u)\) satisfies \((\bar{f}_{1})\), \((\bar{f} _{2})\), \(\liminf_{u\to \infty } \frac{F(u)}{u^{2}}=0\), and \(\limsup_{u\to \infty } \frac{F(u)}{u^{2}}=+\infty \). Take \(\hat{u}_{k}= 2k \pi +\frac{\pi }{2}\), then \(\lim_{k\to \infty } \hat{u}_{k} =\infty \) and \(F'(\hat{u}_{k}) =3-2k\pi - \frac{\pi }{2} <0\). Take \(\bar{u}_{0}=-1\in (-\infty ,0)\), then \(F'(\bar{u}_{0})=1>0\). That is, \(F( u)\) satisfies \((F_{1}^{\infty })\) and \((F_{2}^{\infty })\).
Remark 4.3
In Theorem 4.1, we obtain the property of solutions on problem \((\bar{P}_{\lambda })\) which satisfy \(\lim_{k\to \infty }\|u_{k}\|_{\mathscr{X}_{0}}=0\). In Theorem 4.2, if we suppose that \(\alpha (x)\in L^{\infty }(\varOmega )\) instead of \(\alpha (x)\in L^{2}( \varOmega )\) in condition \((A)\), we can also obtain
Remark 4.4
(1) In [22], we obtained two multiplicity results of solutions for the following hemivariational inequality:
according to the choice of the positive parameters λ, μ and appropriate assumptions on the nonsmooth potentials \(F(x,u),G(x,u):\varOmega \times \mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\), where \(\mathcal {L}_{K}\) is the integrodifferential operator including the fractional Laplace operator \({-(-\Delta )^{s}}\) as its typical example. In fact, the first multiplicity result of [22, Theorem 3.1] was obtained by the coerciveness of the functional corresponding to problem \((P_{\lambda , \mu })\) and the nonsmooth mountain pass theorem, the second multiplicity result of [22, Theorem 3.2] was got by using an extended nonsmooth three-critical-points theorem due to Iannizzotto [26].
(2) In the present paper, we see that the functional \(J_{\lambda }\) corresponding to problem \((P_{\lambda })\) or \((\bar{P}_{\lambda })\) may not be coercive. Instead of using the nonsmooth mountain pass theorem and the nonsmooth three-critical-points theorem, we first construct a special set U (defined by (3.1)) in \(X_{0}\) and prove that \(J_{\lambda }\) achieves its minimum on U at some \(u_{0}\in U\) (see Theorem 3.1). In order to show that \(u_{0}\) is actually a weak solution of problem \((P_{\lambda })\), we construct several sets, such as A, \(A_{1}\), \(A_{2}\) (defined by (3.5)) and \(B_{1}(\varepsilon )\), \(B_{2}(\varepsilon )\), \(B_{3}(\varepsilon )\) (defined by (3.14)). By using the definitions of the fractional Laplace operator, \(\lambda _{1}\) (the first eigenvalue of \((-\Delta )^{s}\)), and these sets, we derive a lot of estimate equations and inequalities which are essential in the proof of our main results. We obtain the existence of a nontrivial solution of problem \((P_{\lambda })\) (see Theorem 3.2). Moreover, when F is autonomous, by employing the results obtained in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, we obtain the existence of infinitely many solutions of this problem when the nonsmooth potentials F have suitable oscillating behavior in any neighborhood of the origin (respectively the infinity) and discuss the properties of the solutions (see Theorems 4.1 and 4.2). The methods of the proofs of results in the present paper are different from the ones obtained in [13,14,15,16, 22].
References
Metzler, R., Klafter, J.: The random walks guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach. Phys. Rep. 339, 1–17 (2000)
Laskin, N.: Fractional quantum mechanics and Lévy path integrals. Phys. Lett. A 268, 298–305 (2000)
Silvestre, L.: Regularity of the obstacle problem for a fractional power of the Laplace operator. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 60, 67–112 (2007)
Sire, Y., Valdinoci, E.: Fractional Laplacian phase transitions and boundary reactions: a geometric inequality and a symmetry result. J. Funct. Anal. 256, 1842–1864 (2009)
Caffarelli, L., Valdinoci, E.: Uniform estimates and limiting arguments for nonlocal minimal surfaces. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 41, 203–240 (2011)
Capella, A.: Solutions of a pure critical exponent problem involving the half-Laplacian in annular shaped domains. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 10, 1645–1662 (2011)
Barrios, B., Colorado, E., De Pablo, A., Sanchez, U.: On some critical problems for the fractional Laplacian operator. J. Differ. Equ. 252, 6133–6162 (2012)
Servadei, R., Valdinoci, E.: Mountain pass solutions for non-local elliptic operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 389, 887–898 (2012)
Servadei, R., Valdinoci, E.: Lewy–Stampacchia type estimates for variational inequalities driven by (non)local operators. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 29(3), 1091–1126 (2013)
Bai, C.Z.: Existence results for non-local operators of elliptic type. Nonlinear Anal. 83, 82–90 (2013)
Marano, S., Motreanu, D.: Infinitely many critical points of non-differential functions and applications to a Neumann-type problem involving the p-Laplace. J. Differ. Equ. 182, 108–120 (2002)
Cammaroto, F., Chinni, A., Di Bella, B.: Infinitely many solutions for the Dirichlet problem involving the p-Laplacian. Nonlinear Anal. 61, 41–49 (2005)
Servadei, R.: Infinitely many solutions for fractional Laplace equations with subcritical nonlinearity. Contemp. Math. 595, 317–340 (2013)
Zhang, B.L., Molica Bisci, G., Servadei, R.: Superlinear nonlocal fractional problems with infinitely many solutions. Nonlinearity 28, 2247–2264 (2015)
Li, A.R., Wei, C.Q.: Infinitely many solutions for fractional Laplacian problems with local growth conditions. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2016, 1 (2016)
Ambrosio, V., D’Onofrio, L., Molica Bisci, G.: On nonlocal fractional Laplacian problems with oscillating potentials. Rocky Mt. J. Math. 48, 1399–1436 (2018)
Kristály, A.: Infinitely many radial and non-radial solutions for a class of hemivariational inequalities. Rocky Mt. J. Math. 35, 1173–1190 (2005)
Kristály, A.: Infinitely many solutions for a differential inclusion problem involving in \(\mathbb{R} ^{N}\). J. Differ. Equ. 220, 511–530 (2006)
Liu, Z.H., Motreanu, D.: A class of variational-hemivariational inequalities of elliptic type. Nonlinearity 23, 1741–1752 (2010)
Zhang, J.G., Zhou, Y.Y.: Existence of a nontrivial solution for a class of hemivariational inequality problems at double resonance. Nonlinear Anal. 74, 4319–4329 (2011)
Carl, S., Le, V.K.: Elliptic inequalities with multi-valued operators: existence, comparison and related variational-hemivariational type inequalities. Nonlinear Anal. 121, 130–152 (2015)
Xi, L.J., Huang, Y.S., Zhou, Y.Y.: The multiplicity of nontrivial solutions for hemivariational inequalities involving nonlocal elliptic operators. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 21, 87–98 (2015)
Clarke, F.H.: Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis. Wiley, New York (1983)
Gasiński, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Nonsmooth Critical Point Theory and Nonlinear Boundary Value Problems. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (2005)
Motreanu, D., Panagiotopoulos, P.D.: Minimax Theorems and Qualitative Properties of the Solutions of Hemivariational Inequalities. Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications, vol. 29. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1999)
Iannizzotto, A.: Three solutions for a partial differential inclusion via nonsmooth critical point theory. Set-Valued Anal. 19, 311–327 (2011)
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the referees for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions for improving the paper.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Authors’ information
Lijing Xi, Ph.D. Associate professor, Department of Mathematics and Physics, Suzhou University of Science and technology, Suzhou 215009, China. Yuying Zhou, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Mathematics, Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China.
Funding
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11771319 and 11971339).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing 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 distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Xi, L., Zhou, Y. Infinitely many solutions for hemivariational inequalities involving the fractional Laplacian. J Inequal Appl 2019, 302 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-019-2253-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-019-2253-x