- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Global strong solution to the 2D inhomogeneous incompressible magnetohydrodynamic fluids with density-dependent viscosity and vacuum
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2021, Article number: 173 (2021)
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate an initial boundary value problem for two-dimensional inhomogeneous incompressible MHD system with density-dependent viscosity. First, we establish a blow-up criterion for strong solutions with vacuum. Precisely, the strong solution exists globally if \(\|\nabla \mu (\rho )\|_{L^{\infty }(0, T; L^{p})}\) is bounded. Second, we prove the strong solution exists globally (in time) only if \(\|\nabla \mu (\rho _{0})\|_{L^{p}}\) is suitably small, even the presence of vacuum is permitted.
1 Introduction
In this paper, we consider the well-posedness of the following inhomogeneous incompressible magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) equations acting as a model on some bounded domain \(\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{2}\):
for \((t, x)\in (0, T]\times \Omega \), with the initial value conditions
and the boundary conditions
Here ρ, u, H, and P are density, velocity, magnetic field, and pressure, respectively. The viscosity \(\mu (\rho )\) is a function of ρ, which is assumed to satisfy
for some positive constant \(\underline{\mu }\). The constant \(\nu >0\) is the resistivity coefficient. For simplicity, we normalize \(\nu =1\) in the rest of the paper.
Before introducing our main result, let us review some of the results obtained before. The well-posedness on inhomogeneous incompressible flow was started by Kazhikov. Without the effect of magnetic field (i.e. \(H=0\)), MHD system turns to be an inhomogeneous incompressible Navier–Stokes system. If \(\mu (\rho )\) is a constant and the initial density \(\rho _{0}\) is bounded away from zero, Kazhikov [24] proved the global existence of weak solutions to the inhomogeneous incompressible Navier–Stokes system in two and three dimensions; see also [3]. After that Antontsev et al. [4] established the first result on local existence and uniqueness of strong solution. Furthermore, the uniqueness of local strong solution was proved to be global one in two dimensions; see also [23, 26, 36].
When the initial density allows vacuum in some subset and \(\mu (\rho )\equiv \) Const., Simon [37] established the global existence of weak solution. As for the strong solutions with the vacuum, which may degenerate near vacuum, Choe et al. [9] proposed a compatibility condition, which is similar to (6) below. With such a compatibility condition, they proved the existence and uniqueness of local strong solutions. At the same time, some global solutions in three dimensions with small critical norms have been constructed, we refer the readers to [1, 10, 11, 35] and the references therein. Also, Kim [25] built the blow-up criterion for strong solution with initial vacuum, and she also established a global existence of strong solutions in three dimensions; see also [41]. Very recently, Liang [27] proved the local strong solutions and established a blow-up criterion with vacuum. Soon after that, Lü et al. [33] improved the local solution obtained in [27] to a global one without any small assumption on the initial datum. Liu [29] established the global existence and large time behavior under the small assumption on the \(L^{\infty }\)-norm of the density. Recently, Alghamdi, et al. [2] established a new regularity criterion for the 3D density-dependent MHD equations.
If the viscosity \(\mu (\rho )\) depends on the density ρ, DePerna et al. established the global weak solution in their pioneer works [13] and [28]. Later, Desjardins [12] improved the regularity of the global weak solution for the two-dimensional case only if the viscosity function \(\mu (\rho )\) is a small perturbation of some positive constant in the \(L^{\infty }\)-norm. As for the global existence of strong solutions, it was proved by Huang et al. [21] with small assumption on the \(L^{p}\)-norm of \(\nabla \mu (\rho _{0})\), where they also established the blow-up criterion on \(L^{p}\)-norm of \(\nabla \mu (\rho )\). If the strong solution is away from vacuum, Gui et al. [18] established the global well-posedness with \(\rho _{0}\) is a small perturbation of a constant in \(H^{s}\), \(s\geq 2\). In order to deal with the possible presence of vacuum, Cho et al. [8] generalized the compatibility condition in [9] and constructed the local strong solution in three dimensions. Recently, He et al. [19] considered the global existence and large-time asymptotic behavior of strong solutions to the Cauchy problem of the 3D nonhomogeneous incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with density-dependent viscosity and vacuum, under small assumption on the initial velocity. For more related results, we refer the readers to [5, 7, 15, 31] and the references therein.
Let us come back to the art of inhomogeneous incompressible MHD. Recently, Huang et al. [20] first established the global strong solution to system (1) with \(\mu (\rho )\equiv \) Const. and initial vacuum in two dimensions; see also [14]. Recently, Lü et al. [32] established the local strong solutions and then improved the result to a global one in [34] for Cauchy problem on \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\). After that, Chen et al. [6] established the local well-posedness and blow-up criterion to the inhomogeneous incompressible MHD. Later, Gong et al. [16] proved the global existence and uniqueness of strong solutions to an initial-boundary value problem for incompressible MHD equations in three dimensions under some suitable smallness conditions. Soon after that, Gui [17] established global well-posedness of an inhomogeneous incompressible MHD system in the whole space \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\) with \(\mu (\rho )\) depending on the density ρ. Very recently and independently, Huang et al. [22] and Zhang [39] obtained the global strong solutions under some suitable small assumptions on the initial datum in three dimensions. And the first author with his co-authors [38] obtained the global strong solutions for initial value problems for (1)–(2) with far-fields density \(\tilde{\rho }>0\), where ρ̃ is some positive constant. In [30], Liu proved the 2D incompressible MHD equations with density-dependent viscosity under the small conditions on \(\|\rho \|_{L^{\infty }} +\|H_{0}\|_{L^{4}}\). Zhang [40] consider the 3D system under the small assumption on the initial velocity. And Zhong [42] established the global strong solution to the nonhomogeneous heat conducting MHD with large initial data and vacuum.
Before we state our main result, we first introduce the following result, which can be proved by the methods constructed in [8]. We only list it here without proof.
Theorem 1
Assume that the initial data \((\rho _{0}, u_{0}, H_{0})\) satisfies the regularity condition
and the compatibility condition
for some \((P_{0}, g)\in H^{1}\times L^{2}\). Then there exist a time \(T^{*}\) and a unique strong solution \((\rho , u, H, P)\) to the initial boundary value problem (1)–(3) such that
for any r with \(1\leq r< q\).
Motivated by [21], we first establish the following blow-up criterion.
Theorem 2
Assume that the initial data \((\rho _{0}, u_{0}, H_{0})\) satisfy the regularity condition (5) and the compatibility condition (6), as in Theorem (1), and \(0\leq \rho _{0}\leq \bar{\rho }\). Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution obtained in Theorem 1, and \(T^{*}\) is the maximal existence time for the solution; then
for some p with \(2< p\leq q\).
Based on the blow-up criterion (7), we can now prove the global strong solution to system (1) under the small assumption on \(L^{p}\)-norm \(\nabla \mu (\rho _{0})\).
Theorem 3
Assume that the initial data \((\rho _{0}, u_{0}, H_{0})\) satisfy (5) and (6), in addition
Then there exists some small positive constant \(\varepsilon _{0}\), depending only on Ω, q, \(\underline{\mu }\), μ̅, ρ̅ and K, such that if
then there is a unique global strong solution \((\rho , u, H, P)\) of the initial boundary value problem (1)–(3) with the following regularities:
for any r with \(1\leq r< q\).
Let us make some comments on this paper. First, the main difference of the a priori estimates between the classical incompressible Navier–Stokes equations and the inhomogeneous incompressible MHD with density-dependent viscosity and vacuum is the presence of the density and vacuum. It is well known that the vacuum leads to the degeneration and singularity, which cause many troubles in dealing with the a priori estimates. Second, without the effect of magnetic fields, i.e., \(H=0\), system (1) reduces to be the inhomogeneous incompressible Navier–Stokes equations, therefore, Theorems 2 and 3 are the same as those of Huang et al. [21]. Precisely, we generalize the results of [21] to the inhomogeneous incompressible MHD. Third, compared to Gui’s [17] global well-posedness result in \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\), with the initial data in critical Besov spaces, our results permit the presence of vacuum. Furthermore, the global well-posedness result obtained in Theorem 3 only if \(\|\nabla \mu (\rho _{0})\|_{L^{p}}\) is suitably small, which implies the global strong solution as \(\mu (\rho )\equiv \) Const. Recently, such a result was obtained by Huang et al. [20]. Finally, compared with the previous result for inhomogeneous incompressible Navier–Stokes equations in [21], our result is more complicated, and thus more delicate estimates are needed for the analysis of strong solutions.
Finally, we outline the organization for the rest of the paper. In Sect. 2, we present the notions used frequently in this paper and some basic results, while Sect. 3 is devoted to building the blow-up criterion stated in Theorem 2. In the last section, we complete the proof of Theorem 3 for the existence of global strong solution.
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we introduce the notions of this paper and state some auxiliary lemmas, which will be constantly used in the sequel. First, Ω is a smooth bounded domain in \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\). Denote
For \(1\leq r\leq \infty \) and \(k\in \mathbb{N}\), the Sobolev spaces are defined in the standard way,
In order to improve the a priori estimates on u, we need the following regularity results for the Stokes equations, which play an important role in the whole analysis.
Lemma 1
Assume that \(\rho \in W^{1, p}\), \(2< p<\infty \), \(0\leq \rho \leq \bar{\rho }\), and \(\underline{\mu }\leq \mu (\rho )\leq \bar{\mu }\) on \([0,\bar{\rho }]\). Let \((u, P)\in H_{0}^{1}\times L^{2}\) be the unique weak solution to the boundary value problem
and μ satisfies (6). Then we have the following regularity results:
-
If \(F\in L^{2}\), then \((u, P)\in H^{2}\times H^{1}\) and
$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} \Vert u \Vert _{H^{2}}\leq C \Vert F \Vert _{L^{2}} (1+ \Vert \nabla \mu (\rho ) \Vert _{L^{p}} ) ^{\frac{p}{p-2}}, \\ \Vert P \Vert _{H^{1}}\leq C \Vert F \Vert _{L^{2}} (1+ \Vert \nabla \mu (\rho ) \Vert _{L^{p}} ) ^{\frac{2p-2}{p-2}}. \end{cases} $$(11) -
If \(F\in L^{r}\) for some \(r\in (2, p)\), then \((u, P)\in W^{2, r}\times W^{1, r}\) and
$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} \Vert u \Vert _{W^{2, r}}\leq C \Vert F \Vert _{L^{r}} (1+ \Vert \nabla \mu (\rho ) \Vert _{L^{p}} ) ^{\frac{pr}{2(p-r)}}, \\ \Vert P \Vert _{W^{1, r}}\leq C \Vert F \Vert _{L^{r}} (1+ \Vert \nabla \mu (\rho ) \Vert _{L^{p}} ) ^{1+\frac{pr}{2(p-r)}}. \end{cases} $$(12)
Here, the constant C in (11) and (12) depends on Ω, ρ̅, \(\underline{\mu }\), μ̅.
The lemma was proved in [21], hence we omit the details here.
Next, we state the well-known Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality.
Lemma 2
If \(f\in H^{1}\), we have
and
The following important lemma was deduced by Desjardins [12].
Lemma 3
Suppose that \(0\leq \rho \leq \bar{\rho }\), \(u\in H_{0}^{1}\). Then we have
3 Proof of Theorem 2
In this section, we prove the blow-up criterion stated in Theorem 1.2. Let \(T^{*}\) be the maximum time for the existence of strong solution \((\rho , u, H, P)\) to system (1). Suppose that the opposite of (7) holds, that is,
with some p satisfying \(2< p\leq q\). In this section, C denotes some positive constant which may depend on Ω, \(\underline{\mu }\), μ̅, ρ̅, the initial data, \(T^{*}\) and M; and it may change line by line.
From now on, under assumption (16), we will derive the following estimates, which can guarantee the extension of local strong solution:
and
for \(1\leq p< q\).
First, due to the transport equation (1)1 and the incompressibility condition \(\operatorname{div} u=0\), one easily obtains the following lemma.
Lemma 4
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Next, it follows from the basic energy inequality that
Lemma 5
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
Multiplying (1)2 and (1)3 by u and H, respectively, and adding them together, and integrating the resultant equations over Ω with respect to x, then using integration by parts and (1)1 and (1)4, one easily obtains (20). □
The following estimate plays a key role for further analysis.
Lemma 6
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
Multiplying (1)3 by \(4|H|^{2}H\) and integrating the resultant equation over Ω, we obtain
By integration by parts, the second term on the left-hand side of (22) can be rewritten as
And similarly, the second term on the right-hand side of (22) can be rewritten as
where we have used the incompressibility condition \(\operatorname{div} u=0\).
As for the first term on the right-hand side of (22), we have
where we have used the following fact:
Then, substituting (23), (24), and (25) into (22) and integrating the resultant inequality over \((0, t)\), we finally obtain (20). Therefore, we complete the proof of Lemma 6. □
To proceed, we need the following lemma.
Lemma 7
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
It follows from (11) and (13) that
which shows (26) directly. Therefore, we finish the proof of Lemma 7. □
Lemma 8
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
We divide the proof into three steps.
Step 1. Multiplying (1)2 by \(u_{t}\) and integrating the resultant equation over Ω, and then using integration by parts, we thus obtain
Now we consider each term on the right-hand side of (28). First, the first term can be estimated as follows:
Then, following from the mass equation (1)1 and incompressibility condition \(\operatorname{div} u=0\), we have
Due to (30), we can compute the second term as
Next, by using (1)3, we rewrite the fourth term on the right-hand side of (28) as
Each term on the right-hand side of (32) can be estimated as follows:
Then, substituting the above inequalities into (32), we finally deduce that
Similarly, we can also estimate the fifth term on the right-hand side of (28) as follows:
Then, substituting (29), (31), (33), and (34) into (28), we finally obtain that
Step 2. Multiplying (1)3 by \(-\triangle H\), and integrating the resultant equation over Ω with respect to x, then using integration by parts, we obtain
Now, we estimate the terms on the right-hand side of (36). First, the first term can be estimated as follows:
Next, the second term can be estimated as follows:
Substituting (37) and (38) into (36), we deduce that
Step 3. Notice that
and (15) shows that
With the help of (40) and (41), combining (35) and (39) multiplied by \(C_{1}+1\), and choosing ε small enough, we finally obtain
which together with Gronwall’s inequality shows (27). Therefore, we finish the proof of Lemma 8. □
It follows from (27), one easily deduces the following result.
Lemma 9
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
It follows from (1)3 that
which together with (26) and (27) shows (43). Hence, we complete the proof of Lemma 9. □
From now on, we start to derive the higher order derivatives estimates of the density, velocity, and magnetohydrodynamic field.
Lemma 10
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
where we have used (13), (14), (26), and (27). Therefore, we complete the proof of Lemma 10. □
To proceed, we first improve the regularity estimates on magnetic field.
Lemma 11
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
Multiplying (1)3 by \(-\triangle H_{t}\) and integrating the resultant equation over Ω with respect to x, then using integration by parts, we have
Now, we estimate each term on the right-hand side of (47). For the first term, we have
Next, the second term can be estimated as follows:
Then inserting (48) and (49) into (47), together with (21), (27), (45), and Gronwall’s inequality, one easily obtains (46). Therefore, we finish the proof of Lemma 11. □
The next lemma is crucial to improving the regularity of the velocity.
Lemma 12
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
Differentiating (1)2 with respect to x, we obtain
Multiplying (51) by \(u_{t}\) and integrating the resultant equation over Ω with respect to x, then due to integration by parts, we obtain
Now we estimate the terms on the right-hand side of (52). First, by using mass equation (1)1, we have
Next, due to mass equation (1)1 and integration by parts, we deduce that
Now, we estimate each term on the right-hand side of (54). First, it follows from Sobolev’s inequality, (13), and (26) that
Similarly, we have
and
and
Then, inserting all the above estimates into (54), one easily obtains
Then it follows from (30) that
And, we can also have
and very similarly we have
Then, substituting (53), (55), (56), (57), and (58) into (52), we have
Therefore, following from (21), (27), (45), (46), and Gronwall’s inequality, we obtain the desired estimate (50). Hence, we complete the proof of Lemma 12. □
Now, we can obtain the estimate \(\|\nabla u\|_{H^{1}}\).
Lemma 13
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
It follows from (26) that
which together with (20), (27), (46), and (50) shows (60). Thus, we complete the proof of Lemma 13. □
Next, we have the following estimate.
Lemma 14
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
The proof of this lemma is directly from (44) together with estimates (46) and (60). □
To proceed, we need the following result.
Lemma 15
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
Choosing some r with \(2< r<\min \{p, 4\}\), we see that
which together with (27), (50), and (60) shows (62). Therefore, we finish the proof of Lemma 15. □
With the help of (61), we can derive the first order derivative estimates for the density.
Lemma 16
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
Differentiating mass equation (1)1 with respect to \(x_{i}\) (\(i=1, 2\)), we have
Then, multiplying the above equality by \(q|\partial _{i}\rho |^{q-2}\partial _{i}\rho \), then integrating the resultant equation and using integration by parts, one easily obtains
which together with (61) and Gronwall’s inequality shows the first part of (63).
Following mass equation (1)1 and the Sobolev embedding theorem, we have
from which together with (60) and the first part of (63), we deduce the second part of (63). Hence, we finish the proof of Lemma 16. □
Additionally, we have the following regularity.
Lemma 17
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is a strong solution to (1) on \([0, T^{*})\). Then, for any \(t\in [0, T^{*})\),
Proof
Due to (12), (16), (27), (46), (50), (60), and Sobolev’s embedding theorem, we deduce that
Next, following from the \(W^{2, p}\)-regularity of elliptic system, we have
where we have used (27), (46), (60), and Sobolev’s inequality. Combining the above two estimates, we complete the proof of (65). Thus, we finish the proof of Lemma 17. □
Indeed, following from the a priori estimates obtained in Lemmas 4–17, we complete all the desired estimates in (17), therefore we finish the proof of Theorem 2.
4 Proof of Theorem 3
In this section, we devote ourselves to the proof of Theorem 3. First, supposing that \(\|\nabla \mu (\rho )\|_{L^{p}}\leq 1\), and with the condition to deduce the desired a priori estimates, and then due to the condition \(\|\nabla \mu (\rho _{0})\|_{L^{p}}\) small enough to close the condition \(\|\nabla \mu (\rho )\|_{L^{p}}\leq 1\). Furthermore, based on the uniform estimates, we extend the local strong solution to be a global one.
First, it is the same as Lemma 4 that
Lemma 18
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\); with the initial data \((\rho _{0}, u_{0}, H_{0})\), we have
Next, the basic energy estimate gives the following result.
Lemma 19
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\); with the initial data \((\rho _{0}, u_{0}, H_{0})\), we have
Hence, we can also obtain
Proof
The proof of (67) is the same as that of (20). We only need to show the proof of (68). First, it follows from the energy equality that
Then, it follows from Poincaré’s inequality that
where we have used the fact \(\mu (\rho )\geq \underline{\mu }>0\). Hence, (69) and (70) show the following result:
Furthermore, multiplying (69) by t and then integrating the resultant equation over Ω with respect to x, we obtain
Integrating the above inequality over \((0, t)\), one easily deduces
where we have used (71) in the last inequality. Therefore, we complete the proof of Lemma 19. □
Next, we improve the regularity on H.
Lemma 20
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\); with the initial data \((\rho _{0}, u_{0}, H_{0})\), we have
and
Proof
The proof of (72) is the same as that of (21). It remains to show (73).
First, multiplying (1)3 by \(4|H|^{2}H\), then integrating the resultant equation over Ω, and using integration by parts, after simple calculations, we can obtain
where we have used (72) in the last inequality. Multiplying (74) by t, we have
Integrating the above inequality over \((0, t)\), we have
Therefore, it follows from (67) and (68) that we conclude (73). Hence, we complete the proof of (73) and we finish the proof of Lemma 20. □
The next result is really the same as (26), which we only write down here without a detailed proof.
Lemma 21
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\) and
Then we have
Next, we deduce some time-weighted estimates for \(L^{2}\)-norms of ∇u and ∇H.
Lemma 22
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\) and satisfies
Then we have
for every \(\alpha \in [0, 2]\).
Proof
To prove (76), we only need to verify (76) for \(\alpha =0\) and \(\alpha =2\).
If \(\alpha =0\), the proof is exactly the same as that of (27).
If \(\alpha =2\), multiplying (42) by \(t^{2}\), we have
where we have used (76) as \(\alpha =0\) and (14). Then the above inequality together with (67), (68), and Gronwall’s inequality shows (76) with \(\alpha =2\). Therefore, we complete the proof of Lemma 22. □
That the following result is the same as (43), we only write it down here without proof.
Lemma 23
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\) and satisfies
Then we have
To proceed, we need the following result.
Lemma 24
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\) and satisfies
Then we have
and also
Proof
It follows from (75) and Sobolev’s inequality that we have
which together with (67) and (76) with \(\alpha =0\) shows (78).
Next, we consider the first term on the left-hand side of (79). Due to (14), (75) and Poincaré’s inequality, we have
where we have used (68) and (76).
Similarly, we have
where we have used (68) and (76). This completes the proof of the second term on the left-hand side of (79).
Therefore, combining (80) and (81), one obtains (79). Hence, we finish the proof of Lemma 24. □
The following result is the same as (46). Here we only write it down.
Lemma 25
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\) and satisfies
Then we have
Next, we obtain some time-weighted estimates for \(\|\sqrt{\rho }u_{t}\|_{L^{2}}\).
Lemma 26
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\) and satisfies
Then we have
for every \(\beta \in [1, 2]\).
Proof
It is enough to verify (83) for \(\beta =1\) and \(\beta =2\).
If \(\beta =1\), multiplying (59) by t, then we have
which together with Gronwall’s inequality shows
due to (67), (68), (73), (76), (79), and (82).
Furthermore, if \(\beta =2\), multiplying (59) by \(t^{2}\) shows
With estimates (67), (68), (73), (76), (79), and (82) in hands, we can show the estimate (83) with \(\beta =2\) by Gronwall’s inequality. Hence, we finish the proof of Lemma 26. □
The next lemma is crucial to deducing the higher order estimates for the density.
Lemma 27
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\) and satisfies
Then we have
Proof
Select some r satisfying \(2< r<\min \{3, q\}\), due to (12),
Next, due to interpolation inequality and Poincaré’s inequality, we have
from which we have
If \(0\leq T\leq 1\), taking \(\beta =1\) or \(\beta =\frac{3}{2}\) in (83), we can deduce
As for \(T>1\), taking \(\beta =2\) in (83), one can also obtain
Therefore, no matter \(0\leq T\leq 1\) or \(T\geq 1\), combining the above two inequalities, we show that
and we emphasize that C is independent of T.
Then, utilizing (78) and Hölder’s inequality, we have
Finally, we have
where we have used Sobolev’s inequality and (76) with \(\alpha =0\).
Thus, inserting (87), (88), and (89) into (86), we complete the proof of (85). Hence, we finish the proof of Lemma 27. □
Now, we close the estimates for \(\nabla \mu (\rho )\).
Lemma 28
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\) and
There exists some positive number \(\varepsilon _{0}\) depending only on Ω, q, ρ̅, \(\underline{\mu }\), μ̅, \(\mathrm{ \|u_{0} \|_{H^{1}}}\) and \(\|H_{0}\|_{H^{1}}\) such that if
then we have
where \(\varepsilon _{0}\) is independent of the time T.
Proof
Taking the operator \(\partial _{x_{i}}\) (\(i=1, 2\)) to the renormalized mass equation (30), we have
Then, multiplying the above equality by \(|\partial _{i}\mu (\rho )|^{q-2}\partial _{i}\mu (\rho )\), then integrating the resultant equation, and using integration by parts, we can obtain
from which together with Gronwall’s inequality and (85), we have
where \(C_{2}\) is independent of T.
Therefore, let \(\varepsilon _{0}={1}/{C_{2}}\), then we conclude (90). Hence we complete the proof of Lemma 28. □
At last, we have the following higher order estimates, which can be obtained similarly as those in Sect. 3. Hence, we only write them down here without details.
Lemma 29
Suppose that \((\rho , u, H, P)\) is the unique local strong solution to (1) on \([0, T]\) and
Then we have
and
Here we emphasize that C̅ may depend on T, μ and the initial data.
Proof of Theorem 3
With the above estimates obtained in hand, we can complete the proof of Theorem 3. Due to Theorem 1, there exists a positive time \(T^{*}>0\) such that the inhomogeneous incompressible MHD system (1) has a unique local strong solution \((\rho , u, H, P)\) on \([0, T^{*}]\), and \(T^{*}\) depends on \(\|\rho _{0}\|_{W^{1, q}}\), \(\|\nabla u_{0}\|_{H^{1}}\), \(\|\nabla H_{0}\|_{H^{1}}\), \(\|g\|_{L^{2}}\), and μ, where g is the function showed in (6). Our aim is to extend the local strong solution to be a global one.
Because of \(\|\nabla \mu (\rho _{0})\|_{L^{q}}\leq \varepsilon _{0}\leq 1/2\) and the continuity of \(\nabla \mu (\rho )\) in \(L^{q}\), there is \(T_{1}\in (0, T^{*})\) such that
Set
and
Then \(T_{1}^{*}\geq T_{1}>0\). Noticing the result obtained in Lemma 28, one can easily confirm that
Next, we claim that
Otherwise, if \(T^{*}<\infty \), then by (83) and (91) we have \(\sqrt{\rho }u_{t}+\sqrt{\rho }u\cdot \nabla u\in L^{2}\). Thus, Theorem 1 implies that there is some \(T^{**}>T^{*}\) such that the solution \((\rho , u, H, P)\) exists on \([0, T^{**}]\), which contradicts (92). Therefore, (93) holds. Hence, we complete the proof of Theorem 3. □
5 Conclusion
In this paper, we mainly prove the global existence of nonhomogeneous incompressible MHD in two dimensions with the density-dependent viscosity in the bounded domain. Meanwhile, similar results could also be obtained by the same method to the periodic domain and Cauchy problem with the positive constant density at far-field behavior. The Cauchy problem with vacuum at far-field behavior will be a little more complicated due to the lack of \(\|u\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{2})}\), for more details one can refer to [32–34], where the viscosity is positive constant. It should be pointed out that we borrow some ideas from [21] on the nonhomogeneous incompressible Navier–Stokes equation to obtain our results. However, compared with the previous results [21], the presence of H introduced in this paper causes many troubles. Here we only mention two of them. First, in order to control \(H^{2}\)-norm of u by using (11), we need to require that the term \(H\cdot \nabla H\) appears on the right-hand side and should be bounded in \(L^{2}(0, T; L^{2})\). These requirements bring us many troubles. To meet the requirements, we multiply (1)3 by \(4|H|^{2}H\), perform integration by parts, then it leads to (21) after delicate estimates. Second, to complete the proof of (27), the terms \(H_{t}\cdot \nabla u\cdot H\) and \(H\cdot \nabla u\cdot H_{t}\) need to be bounded due to the lack of any \(L^{p}\) bound of \(H_{t}\). The requirements mentioned above also bring us troubles. To overcome the difficulties, we use (1)3 and finally get desired a priori estimates.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
References
Abidi, H., Gui, G.L., Zhang, P.: On the decay and stability to global solutions of the 3-D inhomogeneous Navier–Stokes equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 64(6), 832–881 (2011)
Alghamdi, A.M., Gala, S., Ragusa, M.A., et al.: A regularity criterion for the 3D density-dependent MHD equations. Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. 52, 241–251 (2021)
Antontesv, S.A., Kazhikov, A.V.: Mathematical Study of Flows of Non-homogeneous Fluids. Lecture Notes. Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk (1973) (in Russian)
Antontesv, S.A., Kazhikov, A.V., Monakhov, V.N.: Boundary Value Problems in Mechanics of Nonhomogeneous Fluids. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1990)
Chen, M.T., Liu, S.Q.: Blow-up criterion for 3D viscous-resistive compressible magnetohydrodynamic equations. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 36, 1145–1156 (2013)
Chen, M.T., Su, W.H., Zang, A.B.: Local well-posedness for the Cauchy problem of 2D nonhomogeneous incompressible and non-resistive MHD equations with vacuum, (Chinese). Acta Math. Sci. Ser. A (Chin. Ed.) 41(1), 100–125 (2021)
Chen, M.T., Zang, A.B.: On classical solutions to the Cauchy problem of the 2D compressible non-resistive MHD equations with vacuum states. Nonlinearity 30, 3637–3675 (2017)
Cho, Y., Kim, H.: Unique solvability for the density-dependent Navier–Stokes equations. Nonlinear Anal. 59(4), 465–489 (2004)
Choe, H.J., Kim, H.: Strong solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations for nonhomogeneous incompressible fluids. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 28, 1183–1201 (2003)
Craig, W., Huang, H.X., Wang, Y.: Global wellposedness for the 3D inhomogeneous incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. J. Math. Fluid Mech. 15(4), 747–758 (2013)
Danchin, R.: Local and global well-posedness results for flows of inhomogeneous viscous fluids. Adv. Differ. Equ. 9(3), 353–386 (2004)
Desjardins, B.: Regularity results for two-dimensional flows of multiphase viscous fluids. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 137(2), 135–158 (1997)
DiPerna, R.J., Lions, P.L.: Equations différentielles ordinaires et équations de transport avec des coefficients irréguliers. In: Séminaire EDP 1988–1989, pp. 1–9. Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau (1989)
Fan, J.S., Li, F.C., Gen, N.: Global strong solution to the two-dimensional density-dependent magnetohydrodynamic equations with vacuum. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 13(4), 1481–1490 (2014)
Fang, Z.B., Wang, Y.X.: Blow-up analysis for a semilinear parabolic equation with time-dependent coefficients under nonlinear boundary flux. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 66, 2525–2541 (2015)
Gong, H.J., Li, J.K.: Global existence of strong solutions to incompressible MHD. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 13(4), 1553–1561 (2014)
Gui, G.L.: Global well-posedness of the two-dimensional incompressible magnet-ohydrodynamics system with variable density and electrical conductivity. J. Funct. Anal. 267(5), 1488–1539 (2014)
Gui, G.L., Zhang, P.: Global smooth solutions to the 2-D inhomogeneous Navier–Stokes equations with variable viscosity. Chin. Ann. Math., Ser. B 30(5), 607–630 (2009)
He, C., Li, J., Lü, B.Q.: Global well-posedness and exponential stability of 3D Navier–Stokes equations with density-dependent viscosity and vacuum in unbounded domains. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 239(3), 1809–1835 (2021)
Huang, X.D., Wang, Y.: Global strong solution to the 2D nonhomogeneous incompressible MHD system. J. Differ. Equ. 254(2), 511–527 (2013)
Huang, X.D., Wang, Y.: Global strong solution with vacuum to the two dimensional density-dependent Navier–Stokes system. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 46(3), 1771–1788 (2014)
Huang, X.D., Wang, Y.: Global strong solution of 3D inhomogeneous Navier–Stokes equations with density-dependent viscosity. J. Differ. Equ. 259(4), 1606–1627 (2015)
Itoh, S., Tani, A.: Solvability of nonstationary problems for nonhomogeneous incompressible fluids and the convergence with vanishing viscosity. Tokyo J. Math. 22, 17–42 (1999)
Kazhikov, A.V.: Resolution of boundary value problems for nonhomogeneous viscous fluids. Dokl. Akad. Nauk 216, 1008–1010 (1974)
Kim, H.: A blow-up criterion for the nonhomogeneous incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 37(5), 1417–1434 (2006)
Ladyzhenskaya, O., Solonnikov, V.A.: Unique solvability of an initial and boundary value problem for viscous incompressible nonhomogeneous fluids. J. Sov. Math. 9(5), 697–749 (1978)
Liang, Z.L.: Local strong solution and blow-up criterion for the 2D nonhomogeneous incompressible fluids. J. Differ. Equ. 258(7), 2633–2654 (2015)
Lions, P.L.: Mathematical Topics in Fluid Mechanics, Vol. I: Incompressible Models. Oxford Lecture Ser. Math. Appl., vol. 3. Oxford University Press, New York (1996)
Liu, Y.: Global well-posedness of the 2D incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with density-dependent viscosity coefficient. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 56, 103156 (2020)
Liu, Y.: Global regularity of the 2D density-dependent MHD with vacuum. Acta Appl. Math. 171(13), 13 (2021)
Liu, Z.Q., Fang, Z.B.: Blow-up phenomena for a nonlocal quasilinear parabolic equation with time-dependent coefficients under nonlinear boundary flux. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Ser. B 21, 3619–3635 (2016)
Lü, B.Q.: Strong solutions to the 2D Cauchy problem of nonhomogeneous magnetohydrodynamic equations with vacuum. J. Math. Phys. 61(10), 101501 (2020)
Lü, B.Q., Shi, X.D., Zhong, X.: Global existence and large time asymptotic behavior of strong solutions to the Cauchy problem of 2D density-dependent Navier–Stokes equations with vacuum. Nonlinearity 31(6), 2617–2632 (2018)
Lü, B.Q., Xu, Z.H., Zhong, X.: Global existence and large time asymptotic behavior of strong solutions to the Cauchy problem of 2D density-dependent magnetohydrodynamic equations with vacuum. J. Math. Pures Appl. 108(1), 41–62 (2017)
Paicu, M., Zhang, P.: Global solutions to the 3-D incompressible inhomogeneous Navier–Stokes system. J. Funct. Anal. 262(8), 3556–3584 (2012)
Salvi, R.: The equations of viscous incompressible non-homogeneous fluids: on the existence and regularity. J. Aust. Math. Soc. Ser. B 33(1), 94–110 (1991)
Simon, J.: Nonhomogeneous viscous incompressible fluids: existence of velocity, density, and pressure. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 21(5), 1093–1117 (2006)
Su, M., Qian, X., Wang, J.: Global existence of 2D nonhomogeneous incompressible magnetohydrodynamics with vacuum. Bound. Value Probl. 2014, 94 (2014)
Zhang, J.W.: Global well-posedness for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with density-dependent viscosity coefficient. J. Differ. Equ. 259(5), 1722–1742 (2015)
Zhang, M.Y.: On the Cauchy problem of 3D nonhomogeneous magnetohydrodynamic equations with density-dependent viscosity and vacuum. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 71(4), 106 (2020)
Zhang, P.X., Zhao, C., Zhang, J.W.: Global regularity of the three-dimensional equations for nonhomogeneous incompressible fluids. Nonlinear Anal. 110(3), 61–76 (2014)
Zhong, X.: Global well-posedness to the 2D Cauchy problem of nonhomogeneous heat conducting magnetohydrodynamic equations with large initial data and vacuum. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 60(2), 64 (2021)
Acknowledgements
The author is indebted to the editor for their kind help and to the anonymous reviewers for invaluable suggestions which improved the manuscript greatly.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 11671188).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The main idea of this paper was proposed by MLS. MLS prepared the manuscript initially and performed all the steps of the proofs in this research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
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
Su, M. Global strong solution to the 2D inhomogeneous incompressible magnetohydrodynamic fluids with density-dependent viscosity and vacuum. J Inequal Appl 2021, 173 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-021-02707-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-021-02707-7