 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Pullback attractors for threedimensional NavierStokesVoigt equations with delays
Boundary Value Problems volume 2013, Article number: 191 (2013)
Abstract
Our aim in this paper is to study the existence of pullback attractors for the 3D NavierStokesVoigt equations with delays. The forcing term g(t,u(t\rho (t))) containing the delay is sublinear and continuous with respect to u. Since the solution of the model is not unique, which is caused by the continuity assumption, we establish the existence of pullback attractors for our problem by using the theory of multivalued dynamical system.
1 Introduction
Let \mathrm{\Omega}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{3} be an open, bounded and connected set. We consider the following problem for threedimensional NavierStokesVoigt (NSV) equations with delays in continuous and sublinear operators:
Here u=({u}_{1}(t,x),{u}_{2}(t,x),{u}_{3}(t,x)) is the velocity vector field, ν is a positive constant, α is a characterizing parameter of the elasticity of the fluid, p is the pressure, g is the external force term which contains memory effects during a fixed interval of time of length h>0, \rho (t) is an adequate given delay function, {u}_{0} is the initial velocity field at the initial time \tau \in \mathbb{R}, φ is the initial datum on the interval (h,0).
Equation (1.1) with \alpha =0 becomes the classical threedimensional NavierStokes (NS) equation. In the past decades, many authors [1–6] investigated intensively the classical threedimensional incompressible NS equation. For the sake of direct numerical simulations for NS equations, the NSV model of viscoelastic incompressible fluid has been proposed as a regularization of NS equations.
Equation (1.1) governs the motion of a KleinVoigt viscoelastic incompressible fluid. Oskolkov [7] was the first to introduce the system which gives an approximate description of the KelvinVoigt fluid (see, e.g., [8, 9]). In 2010, Levant et al. [10] investigated numerically the statistical properties of the NavierStokesVoigt model. Kalantarov and Titi [11] studied a global attractor of a semigroup generated by equation (1.1) for the autonomous case. Recently, Luengo et al. [12] obtained asymptotic compactness by using the energy method, and they further got the existence of pullback attractors for threedimensional nonautonomous NSV equations.
Let us recall some related results in the literature. Yue and Zhong [13] studied the long time behavior of the threedimensional NSV model of viscoelastic incompressible fluid for system (1.1) by using a useful decomposition method. The authors in [12, 14] deduced the existence of pullback attractors for 3D nonautonomous NSV equations using the energy method. As we know from [15], delay terms appear naturally. In recent years, Caraballo and Real [16–18] developed a fruitful theory of existence, uniqueness, stability of solutions and global attractors for NavierStokes models including some hereditary characteristics such as constant, variable delay, distributed delay, etc. However, our present problem has no uniqueness of solutions. To overcome the difficulty, we may cite the results by Ball [19] and by MarínRubio and Real [20]. Gal and Medjo [21] proved the existence of uniform global attractors for a NavierStokesVoigt model with memory. As commented before, in comparison with threedimensional NavierStokes equations, there is no regularizing effect. Our result of this paper is to establish the existence of pullback attractors for threedimensional NSV equations in {H}_{0}^{1} when the external forcing term g(t,u)\in H and the function g(t,u) is continuous with respect to u. Another difficulty is to obtain that the multivalued processes are asymptotically compact. In 2007, Kapustyan and Valero [22] presented a method suitable for verifying the asymptotic compactness. The authors [20] applied this method to 2D NavierStokes equations with delays in continuous and sublinear operators. We shall apply the energy method to prove that our multivalued processes are asymptotically compact by making some minor modifications caused by the term {\alpha}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta}{u}_{t} in (1.1).
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall briefly some results on the abstract theory of pullback attractors. In Section 3, we introduce some abstract spaces necessary for the variational statement of the problem and give the proof of the global existence of solutions. In Section 4, we consider the asymptotic behavior of problem (1.1).
2 Basic theory of pullback attractors
By using the framework of evolution processes, thanks to [20, 23, 24], we now briefly recall some theories of pullback attractors and the related results. On the one hand, we have to overcome some difficulties caused by multivalued processes. On the other hand, since our model is nonautonomous, we should use the related results for classical multivalued processes in [23, 24], but which are not completely adapted to our model.
Let (X,d) be a metric space, and let \mathcal{P}(X) be the class of nonempty subsets of X. As usual, we denote by {dist}_{X}({B}_{1},{B}_{2}) the Hausdorff semidistance in X between {B}_{1}\subset X and {B}_{2}\subset X, i.e.,
where {d}_{X}(x,y) denotes the distance between two points x and y in X.
We now formulate an abstract result in order to establish the existence of pullback attractors for the multivalued dynamical system associated with (1.1).
Definition 2.1 A multivalued process U is a family of mappings U(t,\tau ):X\to \mathcal{P}(X) for any pair \tau \le t of real numbers such that
If the above relation is not only an inclusion but also an equality, we say that the multivalued process is strict. For example, the relation generalized by 3D nonautonomous NSV equation (see, e.g., [12]) is an equality, while the relation generalized by 3D NS equations (see, e.g., [22]) is strict.
Definition 2.2 Suppose that {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}={\{{D}_{0}(t)\}}_{t\in \mathbb{R}}\subset \mathcal{P}(X) is a family of sets. A multivalued process U is said to be {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}asymptotically compact if for any t\in \mathbb{R}, any sequences {\{{\tau}_{n}\}}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}} with {\tau}_{n}\to \mathrm{\infty}, {x}_{n}\in {D}_{0}({\tau}_{n}), and {\xi}_{n}\in U(t,{\tau}_{n}){x}_{n}, the sequence \{{\xi}_{n}\} is relatively compact in X.
Lemma 2.1 If a multivalued process U is {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}asymptotically compact, then the sets \mathrm{\Lambda}({\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0},t) are nonempty compact subsets of X, where
Furthermore, \mathrm{\Lambda}({\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0},t) attracts in a pullback sense to {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0} at time t, i.e.,
Indeed, it is the minimal closed set with this property.
Definition 2.3 The family of subsets {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}={\{{D}_{0}(t)\}}_{t\in \mathbb{R}} is said to be pullbackabsorbing with respect to a multivalued process U if for every t\in \mathbb{R} and all bounded subset B of X, there exists a time \tau (t,B)\le t such that
Lemma 2.2 Let the family of sets {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}={\{{D}_{0}(t)\}}_{t\in \mathbb{R}} be pullbackabsorbing for the multivalued process U, and let U be {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}asymptotically compact. Then, for any bounded sets B of X, it holds that
Definition 2.4 Suppose that U is a multivalued process. A family \mathcal{A}={\{\mathcal{A}(t)\}}_{t\in \mathbb{R}}\subset \mathcal{P}(X) is said to be a pullback attractor for a multivalued process U if the set \mathcal{A}(t) is compact for any t\in \mathbb{R} and attracts at time t to any bounded set B\subset X in a pullback sense, i.e.,
We can see obviously that a pullback attractor does not need to be unique. However, it can be considered unique in the sense of minimal, that is, the minimal closed family with such a property. In this sense, we obtain the following property and the existence of pullback attractors.
Lemma 2.3 [25]
Assume that U is a multivalued process, and U is {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}asymptotically compact and a family {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0} is pullbackabsorbing for U. Then, for any t\in \mathbb{R} and any bounded subset B of X, the set
is a nonempty compact subset contained in \mathrm{\Lambda}({\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0},t), which attracts to B in a pullback sense. In fact, \mathrm{\Lambda}({\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0},t) defined above is the minimal closed set with this property.
Furthermore, for any bounded set B, the set \mathcal{A}(t)={\overline{{\bigcup}_{B}\mathrm{\Lambda}(B,t)}}^{X} is a pullback attractor. From Definitions 2.3 and 2.4, it is easy to see that \mathcal{A}(t)\subset \mathrm{\Lambda}({\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0},t).
If there exists a time T\in \mathbb{R} such that {\bigcup}_{t\le T}{D}_{0}(t) is bounded, for bounded B, then
As we know, for the singlevalued processes, the continuity of processes provides invariance; while in the multivalued processes, the upper semicontinuity (defined below) provides negatively invariance of the omega limit sets \mathrm{\Lambda}(B,t) and the attractor. The following is the definition of the upper semicontinuity of the multivalued processes (see in [22]).
Definition 2.5 Let U be a multivalued process on X. It is said to be upper semicontinuous if for all t\ge \tau, the mapping U(t,\tau ) is upper semicontinuous from X into , that is to say, given a converging sequence {x}_{n}\to x, for some sequence \{{y}_{n}\} such that {y}_{n}\in U(t,\tau ){x}_{n} for all n, there exists a subsequence of \{{y}_{n}\} converging in X to an element of U(t,\tau )x.
Lemma 2.4 [22]
Assume that a multivalued process U and a family {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}. If, in addition, U(t,\tau ) is {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}asymptotically compact and upper semicontinuous, then the family {\{\mathrm{\Lambda}({\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0},t)\}}_{t\in \mathbb{R}} is negatively invariant, i.e.,
where B is a bounded set B of X. The family {\{\mathrm{\Lambda}(B,t)\}}_{t\in \mathbb{R}} is also negatively invariant and the family \mathcal{A}(t) defined in Lemma 2.3 is also negatively invariant.
Lemma 2.5 [22]
Given a universe , if a multivalued process U is asymptotically compact, then, for any t\in \mathbb{R} and for any \stackrel{\u02c6}{D}\in D, the omega limit set \mathrm{\Lambda}(\stackrel{\u02c6}{D},t) is a nonempty compact set of X that attracts to \stackrel{\u02c6}{D} at time t in a pullback sense. Indeed, it is the minimal closed set with this property. If, in addition, the multivalued process U is upper semicontinuous, then {\{\mathrm{\Lambda}(\stackrel{\u02c6}{D},t)\}}_{t\in \mathbb{R}} is negatively invariant.
From the above lemmas, we obtain the following results which are rather similar to Theorem 3 in [20]. We only sketch it here.
Lemma 2.6 Suppose that is a universe and {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0} is pullback absorbing for a multivalued process U, which is also {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}asymptotically compact. Then the results in Lemma 2.5 hold. Furthermore, the family {\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}}={\{{\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}}(t)\}}_{t\in \mathbb{R}}, where {\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}}(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda}({\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0},t), and the following results hold:

(1)
For each t\in \mathbb{R}, the set {\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}}(t) defined above is compact.

(2)
{\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}} attracts pullback to any \stackrel{\u02c6}{D}\in \mathcal{D}.

(3)
Suppose U is upper semicontinuous, then {\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}} is negatively invariant.

(4)
{\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}}(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda}({\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0},t)=\overline{{\bigcup}_{\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}\in \mathcal{D}}\mathrm{\Lambda}(\stackrel{\u02c6}{D},t)}.

(5)
Assume {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}\in \mathcal{D}, the minimal family of closed sets {\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}} attracts pullback to elements of .

(6)
Assume {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}\in \mathcal{D}, each {D}_{0}(t) is closed and the universe is inclusionclosed, then {\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}}\in \mathcal{D} and it is the only family of which satisfies the above properties (1), (2) and (3).

(7)
If contains the families of fixed bounded sets, then \mathcal{A}={\{\mathcal{A}(t)\}}_{t\in \mathbb{R}} defined in Lemma 2.3 is the minimal pullback attractor of bounded sets, and \mathcal{A}(t)\subset {\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}(t)} for each t\in \mathbb{R}. In addition, if there exists some T\in \mathbb{R} such that {\bigcup}_{t\le T}{D}_{0}(t) is bounded, then \mathcal{A}(t)={\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{D}}(t) for all t\le T.
3 Introduction to some abstract spaces and the existence of solutions
We first recall some notations about the function spaces which will be used later to discuss the regularity of pullback attracting sets. Let us consider the following abstract space:
The symbols H, V denote the closures of in {L}^{2}{(\mathrm{\Omega})}^{3}, {H}_{0}^{1}{(\mathrm{\Omega})}^{3}, respectively. In other words, H= the closure of in {({L}^{2}(\mathrm{\Omega}))}^{3} with the norm \cdot  and the inner product (\cdot ,\cdot ), where for u,v\in {({L}^{2}(\mathrm{\Omega}))}^{3},
V= the closure of in {({H}_{0}^{1}(\mathrm{\Omega}))}^{3} with the norm associated to the inner product ((\cdot ,\cdot )), where for u,v\in {({H}_{0}^{1}(\mathrm{\Omega}))}^{3},
We shall use {\parallel v\parallel}_{{V}^{\prime}} to denote the norm of {V}^{\prime}. The value of a functional from {V}^{\prime} on an element from V is denoted by brackets \u3008\cdot ,\cdot \u3009. It follows that V\subset H\equiv H\subset {V}^{\prime}, and the injections are dense and compact.
Define \mathit{Au}=P\mathrm{\u25b3}u for all u\in D(A), where P is the orthoprojector from {({L}^{2}(\mathrm{\Omega}))}^{3} onto H. Considering the properties of the operator A, we have A:V\to {V}^{\prime} as
We define
for every function u, v, w:\mathrm{\Omega}\to {\mathbb{R}}^{3}, and the operator B:V\times V\to {V}^{\prime} as
Obviously, b(u,v,w) is a continuous trilinear form such that
which yields
Moreover, b and B satisfy the following:
Now, we make some assumptions. The given delay function ρ satisfies \rho \in {C}^{1}([0,+\mathrm{\infty});[0,h]), and there is a constant {\rho}_{0} independent of t satisfying
where {\rho}^{\prime}=\frac{d\rho}{dt}.
Moreover, we assume that g:[\tau ,+\mathrm{\infty})\times H\to H satisfies the following assumptions:
(H1) g(\cdot ,u):[\tau ,+\mathrm{\infty})\to H is measurable for all u\in V.
(H2) For all t\ge \tau, g(t,\cdot ):H\to H is continuous.
(H3) There exist two functions \gamma ,\beta :[\tau ,+\mathrm{\infty})\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}). The above \gamma \in {L}^{p}(\tau ,T) and \beta \in {L}^{1}(\tau ,T) for all T>\tau, for 1\le p\le +\mathrm{\infty}, such that {\parallel g(t,u)\parallel}_{{V}^{\prime}}^{2}\le \gamma (t){\parallel u\parallel}^{2}+\beta (t), \mathrm{\forall}t\ge \tau, \mathrm{\forall}u\in V.
As to the initial datum, we assume
(H4) {u}_{0}\in V, and \phi \in {L}^{2q}(h,0;V), where \frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1.
Next, we shall consider the solution of (1.1).
Definition 3.1 It is said that u is a weak solution to (1.1) if u belongs to u\in {L}^{2q}(\tau h,T;V)\cap {L}^{\mathrm{\infty}}(\tau ,T;V) for all t\ge \tau such that u(\tau +t) coincides with \phi (t) in (h,0) and satisfies equation (3.2) in {V}^{\prime} for all t\ge \tau.
If u is a solution of (3.2), then it is easy to get u(t)+{\alpha}^{2}\mathit{Au}(t)\in {L}^{2}(\tau ,T;{V}^{\prime}), and \frac{d}{dt}(u(t)+{\alpha}^{2}\mathit{Au}(t))\in {L}^{1}(\tau ,T;{V}^{\prime}) for all T>\tau. From the property of the operator A, we have u(t)+{\alpha}^{2}\mathit{Au}(t)\in C(\tau ,+\mathrm{\infty};{V}^{\prime}). On the other hand, reasoning as in [12], we have u\in C([\tau ,+\mathrm{\infty});V).
Now, we define a functional \tilde{\gamma}(t)=\gamma \circ {\zeta}^{1}(t), where \zeta :[\tau ,+\mathrm{\infty})\to [\rho (\tau ),+\mathrm{\infty}) is a differentiable and nonnegative strictly increasing function given by \zeta (s)=s\rho (s). We have
From the above analysis, taking into account \tilde{\gamma}(t)\in {L}^{P}(\rho (\tau ),T) for all T>\tau, we obtain that g(t,u(t\rho (t)))\in {L}^{2}(\tau ,T;{V}^{\prime}). Hence, it is clear that u is a weak solution to (1.1) if u\in C([\tau ,+\mathrm{\infty});V), {u}^{\prime}\in {L}^{2}(\tau ,T;V) for all T>\tau, and satisfies the energy equality
in the distributional sense on (\tau ,+\mathrm{\infty}).
Theorem 3.1 Suppose that (H1)(H4) hold. Then there exists a global solution u to (3.2).
Proof We shall prove the result by the FaedoGalerkin scheme and compactness method. For convenience and without loss of generality, we set the initial time \tau =0. As to different value τ, we only proceed by translation.
Consider the Hilbert basis of H formed by the eigenfunctions \{{v}_{k}\} of the above operator A, i.e., A{v}_{k}={\lambda}_{k}{v}_{k}. In fact, these elements allow to define the operator {P}_{m}v={\sum}_{k=1}^{m}({v}_{k},v){v}_{k}, which is the orthogonal projection of H and V in {V}_{m}:=span[{v}_{1},\dots ,{v}_{m}] with their respective norms.
Denote {u}^{m}(t)={\sum}_{k=1}^{m}{\eta}_{mk}(t){v}_{k}, where {\eta}_{mk}(t)=({u}^{m}(t),{v}_{k}), k=1,2,\dots ,m, are unknown real functions satisfying the finitedimensional problem
with {\phi}^{m}(t)={P}_{m}\phi (t). From [12], we can obtain the local wellposedness of this finitedimensional delay problem. The following provides estimates which imply that the solutions are well defined in the whole [0,+\mathrm{\infty}).
By (3.4), we obtain
Multiplying (3.5) by ({u}^{m}(t),{v}_{k}), summing from k=1 to k=m, and using the properties of the operator b, we easily get
Observing (H3) and using the Young inequality, we have
Considering the above inequality in (3.6) and observing that
we easily get
From the above inequality and the Gronwall inequality, one has that \{{u}^{m}\} is bounded in {L}^{2}(0,T;V), also in {L}^{\mathrm{\infty}}(0,T;V), for any T>0. Observing (3.5), we know that the sequence {\{\frac{d{u}^{m}}{dt}\}}_{m\ge 1} is bounded in {L}^{2}(0,T;{V}^{\prime}) for all T>0. The reason is the same as in [12].
By the compactness of the injection of V into H, using the above estimates and the AscoliArzelà theorem, we deduce that there exist a subsequence {\{{u}^{m}\}}_{m\ge 1} (we relabel the same) and u\in {W}^{1,2}(0,T;V)\cap {L}^{2q}(h,T;V) for any T>0 with u=\phi in (h,0). Recalling (3.9) and the above analysis, we have
{u}^{m}\to u strongly in C(0,T;H) for all T>0, and
By the properties of operator A and (3.10), we deduce that {\mathit{Au}}^{m}\rightharpoonup \mathit{Au} weakly in {L}^{2}(0,T;{V}^{\prime}). Reasoning as in [26] on page 76, we deduce that B({u}^{m})\rightharpoonup B(u) weakly in {L}^{2}(0,T;{V}^{\prime}) for any T>0.
On the other hand, observing that by (3.11), (H2) and the hypothesis on ρ in (3.1), for any time t, we conclude for any T>0
and as \{{u}^{m}\} is bounded in the space {L}^{\mathrm{\infty}}(0,T;{V}^{\prime}) obtained from (3.9), by (H3), we deduce
where C={sup}_{m\ge 1}{\parallel {u}^{m}\parallel}_{{L}^{\mathrm{\infty}}(0,T;V)}. Thus we can easily derive from (3.12) and (3.13)
From the above discussion, passing to the limit, we prove that u is a global solution of (3.2) in the sense of Definition 3.1. □
Remark 3.1 We can obtain the uniqueness if there are additional assumptions on the forcing term g. For example, if we suppose that g satisfies (H1), (H3), for an arbitrary T>\tau and {C}_{T}={C}_{1}{max}_{t\in [\tau ,T]}(\parallel u(t)\parallel ,\parallel v(t)\parallel )>0, then for the solutions u, v,
then we obtain the uniqueness of solutions.
4 Existence of pullback attractors
In this section, we discuss the existence of pullback attractors for the 3D NavierStokesVoight equations with delays in continuous and sublinear operators. At first, we propose the assumptions for g given in Section 3:
(H1^{′}) For all u\in V, g(\cdot ,u):\mathbb{R}\to H is measurable.
(H2^{′}) For all t\in \mathbb{R}, g(t,\cdot ):H\to H is continuous.
(H3^{′}) There are two nonnegative functions \gamma (t),\beta (t):\mathbb{R}\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) with \gamma (t)\in {L}_{loc}^{p}(\mathbb{R}) for some 1\le p\le +\mathrm{\infty} and \beta (t)\in {L}_{loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R}) such that for any u\in V,
To construct a multivalued process, we introduce symbols {C}_{V}=C([h,0];V) and {S}_{V}^{2q}=V\times {L}^{2q}(h,0;V), where \frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1 as two phase spaces. Let D(\tau ,{u}_{0},\phi ) denote the set of global solutions of (1.1) in [\tau ,+\mathrm{\infty}) and the initial datum ({u}_{0},\phi )\in {S}_{V}^{2q}.
By Theorem 3.1, we know there exists a solution to problem (3.2) although we have no discussion on the uniqueness of solutions to problem (3.2). We may define two strict processes, ({C}_{V},\{U(\cdot ,\cdot )\}) as
and ({S}_{V}^{2q},\{U(\cdot ,\cdot )\}) as
Considering the regularity of the problem, the asymptotic behavior of the two processes shall be the same, as we shall see in what follows.
In order to simplify the calculation form, we introduce a function {\kappa}_{\sigma}. For any \sigma >0, we set
From (4.1), we can find that
and for any σ: 0<\sigma <{\alpha}^{2}dd, then
where d=\nu min\{{\lambda}_{1},\frac{1}{{\alpha}^{2}}\}.
Lemma 4.1 Suppose that (H1′)(H3′) hold, for any initial datum ({u}_{0},\phi )\in {S}_{V}^{2q} and any u\in D(\tau ,{u}_{0},\phi ), it holds
where {C}_{\tau}=d{\int}_{h}^{0}{e}^{dr}{\parallel \phi (r)\parallel}^{2}\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}dr+{{u}_{0}}^{2}+{\alpha}^{2}{\parallel {u}_{0}\parallel}^{2}.
Proof Let u be a solution of (3.2), so u\in D(\tau ,{u}_{0},\phi ). Multiplying (1.1) by u(t) and using the energy equality and the Poincaré inequality, we have
where d=\nu min\{{\lambda}_{1},\frac{1}{{\alpha}^{2}}\}. Thus
where we have denoted
Considering
and integrating (4.5) from τ to t, we deduce
where we set
Observing the above estimates, we easily deduce
Applying the Poincaré inequality and the Gronwall inequality to (4.8), we deduce that (4.4) holds. This finishes the proof of this lemma. □
Next, we shall prove that the processes ({C}_{V},\{U(\cdot ,\cdot )\}) and ({S}_{V}^{2q},\{U(\cdot ,\cdot )\}) defined above are pullbackabsorbing. To obtain this, we propose the assumptions (H4′)
and the relation among constants \sigma >0, d defined above, and α in (1.1) satisfies(H5′)
and \beta (t) satisfies
(H6^{′})
where the function {\kappa}_{\sigma}(t,s) is given by (4.1).
Before proving that the two multivalued processes possess pullbackabsorbing sets, we introduce the definition of the two natural tempered universes which shall play the key role for our main purpose.
Definition 4.1 Suppose that {\mathcal{R}}_{\sigma}(t) is the collection of the sets of all functions r:\mathbb{R}\to [0,+\mathrm{\infty}) such that
Let {\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}} be the class of all families \stackrel{\u02c6}{D}=\{D(t):t\in \mathbb{R}\}\subset \mathcal{P}({S}_{V}^{2q}) such that D(t)\subset {\overline{B}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}(0,{r}_{\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}(t)) for some {r}_{\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}\in {\mathcal{R}}_{\sigma}. In the same way, let {\mathcal{D}}_{{C}_{V}}^{\sigma} denote the class of all families \stackrel{\u02c6}{D}=\{D(t):t\in \mathbb{R}\}\subset \mathcal{P}({C}_{V}) satisfying D(t)\subset {\overline{B}}_{{C}_{V}}(0,{r}_{\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}(t)) for some {r}_{\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}\in {\mathcal{R}}_{\sigma}.
Let {B}_{0} be any fixed bounded subset of {S}_{V}^{2q}. Observing that {\mathcal{D}}_{{C}_{V}}^{\sigma}\subset {\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}, which is inclusionclosed, by (H4^{′}) and (H5^{′}), we deduce that the family \stackrel{\u02c6}{B}=\{B(t)\equiv {B}_{0},t\in \mathbb{R}\} is contained in {\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}^{\sigma}. With regard to {\mathcal{D}}_{{C}_{V}}, we use the same method and obtain a similar conclusion if {B}_{0} is included in {C}_{V}.
The following lemma provides that there exist pullbackabsorbing sets for the two processes mentioned above.
Lemma 4.2 Suppose that (H1^{′})(H6^{′}) hold and the constants α, d, {C}_{0}, \overline{\gamma} satisfy d\frac{\sigma +d}{{\alpha}^{2}}\frac{{C}_{0}}{{\alpha}^{2}}\overline{\gamma}>0 and \overline{\gamma}<1.

(1)
Then, for any t\in \mathbb{R} and any family \stackrel{\u02c6}{B}=\{B(t):t\in \mathbb{R}\}, there exits \tau (\stackrel{\u02c6}{B},t)\le t such that any initial datum ({u}_{0},\phi )\in {S}_{V}^{2q} and any u\in D(\tau ,{u}_{0},\phi ) for any \tau \le \tau (\stackrel{\u02c6}{B},t) satisfy that \parallel u(t)\parallel \le {R}_{V}(t), where the positive continuous function {R}_{V}(\cdot ) is given by
{R}_{V}^{2}(t)=1+\frac{1}{{\alpha}^{2}}{\sigma}^{1}{\int}_{\tau}^{t}{e}^{{\kappa}_{\sigma}(t,s)}\beta (s)\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}ds,\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}t\in \mathbb{R}. 
(2)
Let {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}=\{{D}_{0}(t):t\in \mathbb{R}\} be included \mathcal{P}({C}_{V}) which is given by
{D}_{0}(t)={\overline{B}}_{{C}_{V}}(0,{\tilde{R}}_{V}(t))\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathit{\text{and}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{\tilde{R}}_{V}(t)=\underset{th\le r\le t}{max}{R}_{V}(r),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}t\in \mathbb{R}.
Then the set {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}\in {\mathcal{D}}_{{C}_{V}}^{\sigma} and is {\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}^{\sigma}pullback absorbing for the process ({S}_{V}^{2q},U). Therefore, {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0} is {\mathcal{D}}_{{C}_{V}}^{\sigma}pullback absorbing for the process ({C}_{V},U).
Proof Since the proof is a consequence of the definition of {\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}, we only sketch it here. From Lemma 4.1, (H5^{′}) and (H6^{′}) , we have
We complete the proof of (1). Estimate (2) is a consequence of (1). □
For the two processes ({S}_{V}^{2q},U) and ({C}_{V},U), they possess pullbackabsorbing sets. In order to apply Lemma 2.3 to obtain the existence of pullback attractors, it is necessary to prove that the two multivalued processes are asymptotically compact. This will be done in the following lemma.
Lemma 4.3 Suppose that the assumptions in Lemma 4.2 hold. The two processes ({C}_{V},U) and ({S}_{V}^{2q},U) are {\stackrel{\u02c6}{D}}_{0}asymptotically compact.
Proof For any {t}_{0}\in \mathbb{R} , a sequence \{{\tau}_{n}\}\subset (\mathrm{\infty},{t}_{0}2h] with {\tau}_{n}\to \mathrm{\infty} and a sequence \{{u}^{n}\} with {u}^{n}\in D({\tau}_{n},{\phi}_{n}(0),{\phi}_{n}) with {\phi}_{n}\in {D}_{0}({\tau}_{n}), we shall prove that the sequence \{{u}_{{t}_{0}}^{n}\} is relatively compact in {C}_{V}. By the properties concerning operator b mentioned in Section 3, we deduce that
It is easy to get the above estimate which is independent of n. The sequences of \{{u}^{n}\} and \{{({u}^{n})}^{\prime}\} possess their subsequence, relabeled the same in suitable spaces such that there exist u\in {L}^{\mathrm{\infty}}({t}_{0}2h;V) and {u}^{\prime}\in {L}^{2}({t}_{0}h,{t}_{0};{V}^{\prime}) satisfying
According to the assumptions on a function g and analogously as in Theorem 3.1, we deduce that g(r,{u}^{n}(r\rho (r)))\to g(r,u(r\rho (r))) strongly in V a.e. r\in ({t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}).
By the Lebesgue theorem and the uniform estimate of {u}^{n} in {L}^{\mathrm{\infty}}({t}_{0}2h,{t}_{0};V), we deduce that the function g(r,{u}^{n}(r\rho (r))) converges to the function g(r,u(r\rho (r))) strongly. Therefore, for any t\in [{t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}], we have u\in C([{t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}];V) and
The uniform estimate of \{{({u}^{n})}^{\prime}\} in {L}^{2}({t}_{0}h,{t}_{0};{V}^{\prime}) implies that the sequence \{{u}^{n}\} is equicontinuous in {V}^{\prime} for any {t}_{0}h\le t\le {t}_{0}. In addition, the sequence \{{u}^{n}\} is bounded, which is independent of n in C([{t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}];V). Using the AscoliArzelà theorem, we can obtain
From the uniform boundedness of the sequence \{{u}^{n}\} in C([{t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}];V), for any r\in [{t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}], we can also obtain {u}^{n}(r)\rightharpoonup u(r), weakly in V.
By the analogous argument, for any compact sequence \{{r}_{n}\}\subset [{t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}] and \{{r}_{n}\}\to r\in [{t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}], we obtain that the sequence \{{u}^{n}({r}_{n})\} is convergent to u(r) weakly in V. To achieve our result in Lemma 4.3, we only need to prove
The proof is slightly different from Proposition 6 in [20] or in [22]. We only sketch it here. We use a contradiction argument. Suppose that it is not true, then there would exist a value ε, a sequence (relabeled the same) \{{r}_{n}\}\subset [{r}_{n}h,{t}_{0}], and {r}^{\prime}\in [{t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}] with {r}_{n}\to {r}^{\prime} satisfying \parallel {u}^{n}({r}_{n})u({r}^{\prime})\parallel \ge \epsilon for all n\ge 1. We shall see {u}^{n}({r}_{n})\to u({r}^{\prime}) in V. In order to achieve the last claim, because the sequence \{{u}^{n}({r}_{n})\} is weakly convergent to u(r) in V, we only need the convergence of the norms above. In other words, \parallel {u}^{n}({r}_{n})\parallel \to \parallel u({r}^{\prime})\parallel as n\to \mathrm{\infty}.
From the weak convergence of {u}^{n}({r}_{n}) in V, we get
Therefore we have to check that
From the energy equality, for any {t}_{0}h\le r\le t\le {t}_{0}, we obtain
where z=u or z={u}^{n}. For any t\in [{t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}], define the continuous functions J(t) and {J}_{n}(t) as
By (4.14), it is clear that J and {J}_{n} are nonincreasing functions. By the convergence (4.10), for any t\in ({t}_{0}h,{t}_{0}), we have that {J}_{n}(t)\to J(t). Using the same analysis method as in [22], we can deduce that for n\ge n({\kappa}_{\epsilon}), {J}_{n}({r}_{n})J({r}^{\prime})\le \epsilon, which gives (4.13) as desired. □
We can apply the technical method for any family in {\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}^{\sigma} in Lemma 4.3. Suppose that the assumptions in Lemma 4.3 hold. We can deduce that the processes ({C}_{V},U) and ({S}_{V}^{2q},U) are {\mathcal{D}}_{{C}_{V}}^{\sigma}asymptotically compact and {\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}^{\sigma}asymptotically compact.
Lemma 4.4 Suppose that (H1′)(H6′) hold. The two processes ({C}_{V},U) and ({S}_{V}^{2q},U) are semicontinuous and that U(t,\tau ):{S}_{V}^{2q}\to \mathcal{P}({S}_{V}^{2q}) and U(t,\tau ):{C}_{V}\to \mathcal{P}({C}_{V}) have compact values in their respective topologies.
Proof In fact, the upper semicontinuity of the process ({S}_{V}^{2q},U) can be obtained by similar arguments to those used for the Galerkin sequence in Theorem 3.1.
As to the process ({C}_{V},U), applying the same energyprocedure in Lemma 4.3, we shall obtain that in [\tau ,t] any set of solutions possesses a converging subsequence in this process, whence the assertion in Lemma 4.4 follows. □
According to the results in Section 2, the following two theorems shall be obtained, which are our result in this paper. Observing Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4, and applying Lemma 2.6, we obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 4.1 Suppose that (H1′)(H6′) hold. For any t\in \mathbb{R}, then there exist global pullback attractors {\mathcal{A}}_{{C}_{V}}=\{{\mathcal{A}}_{{C}_{V}}(t)\} and {\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{{C}_{V}}^{\sigma}}=\{{\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{{C}_{V}}^{\sigma}}(t)\} for the process ({C}_{V},U) in the universe of fixed bounded sets and in {\mathcal{D}}_{{C}_{V}}^{\sigma}, respectively. Moreover, they are unique in the sense of Lemma 2.5 and negatively and strictly invariant for U respectively, and the following holds:
The above theorem proves that there exist pullback attractors in the {C}_{V} framework, while we shall prove that there exist pullback attractors in the {S}_{V}^{2q} framework in the following theorem.
Theorem 4.2 Suppose that the assumptions in Theorem 4.1 hold. For any t\in \mathbb{R}, there exist global pullback attractors {\mathcal{A}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}=\{{\mathcal{A}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}(t)\} and {\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}^{\sigma}}=\{{\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}^{\sigma}}(t)\} for the process ({S}_{V}^{2q},U) in the universes of fixed bounded sets and in {\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}^{\sigma}. They are unique in the sense of Lemma 2.5 and negatively and strictly invariant for U, respectively, and we have {\mathcal{A}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}(t)\subset {\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathcal{D}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}^{\sigma}}(t). Moreover, the relationship between the attractors for ({S}_{V}^{2q},U) and for ({C}_{V},U) is as follows:
where f:{C}_{V}\to {S}_{V}^{2q} is the continuous mapping defined by f(\phi )=(\phi (0),\phi ).
Proof The proof is rather similar to that of Theorem 5 in [20]. Since the regularity is different from [20], we only sketch the proof of (4.15) here.
By Theorem 3.1, we can conclude that U(t,\tau ) maps {S}_{V}^{2q} into bounded sets in {C}_{V} if t\ge \tau +h, and also maps bounded sets from {S}_{V}^{2q} into bounded sets of {C}_{V}.
Noting that {\mathcal{A}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}(t) is the minimal closed set, and using Lemma 2.5 and the above arguments, we deduce that f({\mathcal{A}}_{{C}_{V}}(t)) also attracts bounded sets in {S}_{V}^{2q} in a pullback sense. Therefore the inclusion {\mathcal{A}}_{{S}_{V}^{2q}}(t)\subset f({\mathcal{A}}_{{C}_{V}}(t)) holds.
As to the opposite inclusion of the first identification in (4.15), for any bounded set B, it follows from the continuous injection f({C}_{V})\subset {S}_{V}^{2q} and the attractor {\mathcal{A}}_{{C}_{V}}(t)={\overline{{\bigcup}_{B}{\mathrm{\Lambda}}_{{C}_{V}}(B,t)}}^{{C}_{V}}. Thus f({\mathcal{A}}_{{C}_{V}}(t))={\overline{{\bigcup}_{B}f({\mathrm{\Lambda}}_{{C}_{V}}(B,t))}}^{{C}_{V}}, whence the opposite inclusion of the first identification in (4.15) holds.
Analogously, it is obvious that the second relation in (4.15) holds. □
References
 1.
Caraballo T, Real J, Kloeden P: Unique strong solutions and Vattractors of a three dimensional system of globally modified NavierStokes equations. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 2006, 6: 411436.
 2.
Kloeden P, Langa J, Real J: Pullback V attractors of the 3dimensional globally modified NavierStokes equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 2007, 6: 937955.
 3.
Kloeden P, Valero J: The weak connectedness of the attainability set of weak solutions of the threedimensional NavierStokes equations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. A, Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2007, 463: 14911508. 10.1098/rspa.2007.1831
 4.
Ma T, Wang S World Scientific Series on Nonlinear Science, Series A 53. Bifurcation Theory and Applications 2005.
 5.
Ma T, Wang S AMS Monograph and Mathematical Survey Series 119. Geometric Theory of Incompressible Flows with Applications to Fluid, Dynamics 2005.
 6.
Ma T, Wang S: Stability and Bifurcation of Nonlinear Evolutions Equations. Science Press, Beijing; 2007.
 7.
Oskolkov A: The uniqueness and solvability in the large of boundary value problems for the equations of motion of aqueous solutions of polymers. Zap. Nauč. Semin. POMI 1973, 38: 98116.
 8.
Ladyzhenskaya O: In memory of A. P. Olskolkov. J. Math. Sci. 2000, 99: 799801. 10.1007/BF02673588
 9.
Oskolkov A: Theory of nonstationary flows of KelvinVoigt fluids. J. Math. Sci. 1985, 28: 751785. 10.1007/BF02112340
 10.
Levant B, Ramos F, Titi ES: On the statistical properties of the 3D incompressible NavierStokesVoigt model. Commun. Math. Sci. 2010, 8: 277293. 10.4310/CMS.2010.v8.n1.a14
 11.
Kalantarov V, Titi E: Global attractors and determining modes for the 3D NavierStokesVoigt equations. Chin. Ann. Math., Ser. B 2009, 30: 697714. 10.1007/s1140100902053
 12.
GarcíaLuengo J, MarínRubio P, Real J: Pullback attractors for threedimensional nonautonomous NavierStokesVoigt equations. Nonlinearity 2012, 25: 905930. 10.1088/09517715/25/4/905
 13.
Yue G, Zhong C: Attractors for autonomous and nonautonomous 3D NavierStokesVoigt equations. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Ser. B 2011, B16(3):9851002.
 14.
Qin, Y, Yang, X: Pullback attractors for a 3D nonautonomous NavierStokesVoigt equations. Acta Math. Appl. Sin. (to appear)
 15.
Manitius AZ: Feedback controllers for a wind tunnel model involving a delay: analytical design and numerical simulation. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1984, 29: 10581068. 10.1109/TAC.1984.1103436
 16.
Caraballo T, Real J: NavierStokes equations with delays. R. Soc. Lond. Proc., Ser. A, Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2001, 457: 24412453. 10.1098/rspa.2001.0807
 17.
Caraballo T, Real J: Asymptotic behavior for twodimensional NavierStokes equations with delays. R. Soc. Lond. Proc., Ser. A, Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2003, 459: 31813194. 10.1098/rspa.2003.1166
 18.
Caraballo T, Real J: Attractors for 2D NavierStokes equations with delays. J. Differ. Equ. 2004, 205: 271297. 10.1016/j.jde.2004.04.012
 19.
Ball JM: Continuity properties and global attractors of generalized semiflow and the NavierStokes equations. J. Nonlinear Sci. 1997, 7: 475502. 10.1007/s003329900037
 20.
MarínRubio P, Real J: Pullback attractors for 2DNavierStokes equations with delays in continuous and sublinear operators. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 2010, 26: 9891006.
 21.
Gal CG, Medjo TT: A NavierStokesVoigt model with memory. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 2013. 10.1002/mma.2771
 22.
Kapustyan AV, Valero J: Weak and strong attractors for the 3D NavierStokes system. J. Differ. Equ. 2007, 240: 249278. 10.1016/j.jde.2007.06.008
 23.
Caraballo T, Łukaszewicz G, Real J: Pullback attractors for asymptotically compact nonautonomous dynamical systems. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 2006, 64: 484498. 10.1016/j.na.2005.03.111
 24.
MarínRubio P, Real J: On the relation between two different concepts of pullback attractors for nonautonomous dynamical systems. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 2009, 71: 39563963. 10.1016/j.na.2009.02.065
 25.
GarcíaLuengo J, MarínRubio P, Real J: Pullback attractors in V for nonautonomous 2DNavierStokes equations and their tempered behaviour. J. Differ. Equ. 2012, 252: 43334356. 10.1016/j.jde.2012.01.010
 26.
Lions JL: Quelques Méthodes de Résolution des Problìms aux Limites Non Liníaires. Dunod, Paris; 1969.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the NNSF of China (No. 11271066, No. 11031003), by the grant of Shanghai Education Commission (No. 13ZZ048), by Chinese Universities Scientific Fund (No. CUSFDHD2013068).
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
Haiyan carried out the main part of this manuscript. Yuming participated in the discussion and corrected the main theorems. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, H., Qin, Y. Pullback attractors for threedimensional NavierStokesVoigt equations with delays. Bound Value Probl 2013, 191 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/168727702013191
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/168727702013191
Keywords
 3D NavierStokesVoigt equations
 pullback attractors
 delay terms
 multivalued process