- Research
- Open Access
- Published:
A class of compressible non-Newtonian fluids with external force and vacuum under no compatibility conditions
Boundary Value Problems volume 2016, Article number: 201 (2016)
Abstract
We are concerned with the Cauchy problem for a class of compressible non-Newtonian fluids on the whole one-dimensional space with external force and vacuum. It is proved that the Cauchy problem for a class of compressible non-Newtonian fluids with external force and vacuum admits a unique local strong solution under no compatibility conditions.
1 Introduction and main results
We consider the one-dimensional equations of compressible non-Newtonian fluids which read as follows:
where \(t\geq0\), \(x\in\mathbb{R}\), \(\mu_{0}>0\), the unknown functions \(\rho =\rho(x,t)\), \(u=u(x,t)\) and \(\pi(\rho)=A\rho^{\gamma}\) (\(A>0\), \(\gamma>1\)) denote the density, the velocity and the pressure, separately. Without loss of generality, we set \(A=1\). We consider the Cauchy problem with \((\rho,u)\) vanishing at infinity. For given initial functions, we require that
The motion of the fluid is driven by an external force \(f(t,x,u)\). In this paper, for any \((t,x,u)\in(0,T_{0}]\times(-\infty,+\infty)\times (-\infty,+\infty)\), we assume \(f(t,x,u)\) to satisfy
and to satisfy the structural conditions
where B is a positive constant.
In recent years, there has been an increasing recognition of the importance of non-Newtonian fluids. Non-Newtonian fluids arise in a large number of problems such as in the field of biomechanics, chemistry, hemorheology, glaciology, and geology. For the study of the non-Newtonian fluids, sparking the increasing interest, see [1–3].
When the initial vacuum is allowed, Lions [4] obtained the global weak solutions for the isentropic fluids for large initial data. Li and Xin [5] obtained that the Cauchy problem of the Navier-Stokes equations for viscous compressible barotropic flows in two or three spatial dimensions with vacuum as far field density admits global well-posedness and large time asymptotic behavior of strong and classical solutions. Huang and Li [6] establish the global existence and uniqueness of strong and classical solutions to the Cauchy problem for the barotropic compressible Navier-Stokes equations in two spatial dimensions with smooth initial data with vacuum. Liang and Lu [7] obtained the global-in-time existence of a unique classical solution with large initial data for the Cauchy problem for a compressible viscous fluid in one-dimensional space. Recently, Li and Liang [8] found that the two-dimensional Cauchy problem of the compressible Navier-Stokes equations admits a unique local classical solution provided the initial density decays not too slow at infinity.
Up to now, the results about non-Newtonian fluids are quite few. Recently, Yuan and Xu [9] obtained an existence result on local solutions. They obtained local existence and uniqueness of solution by using a classical energy method. For related results we refer the reader to [9–16] and the references therein.
For the Cauchy problem (1.1)-(1.2), it is still open even for the local existence of strong solutions under no compatibility conditions when the far field density is vacuum. Moreover, the system (1.1) is with strong nonlinearity, so we are facing another difficulty. In fact, this is the aim of this paper. Reference [8] motivated our study. Compared with [9, 15], the advantage of this paper is there is no need for compatibility conditions, and compared with [8], our problem is nonlinear. In this paper, we will obtain a unique strong solutions for (1.1) under \(4< p<+\infty\).
The authors in [8] bounded the \(L^{p} (\mathbb{R}^{2})\)-norm of u just in the terms of \(\|\rho^{1/2} u\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{2})}\) and \(\| u_{x}\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb {R}^{2})}\) by Hardy type and Poincaré type inequalities. In a similar way, we bounded the \(L^{k} (\mathbb{R})\ (k>p)\)-norm of u just in the terms of \(\|\rho^{1/2} u\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R})}\) and \(\| u_{x}\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R})}\). However, the application of a Sobolev embedding inequality in \(\mathbb {R}\) is very different from \(\mathbb{R}^{2}\). For this, we use truncation techniques which are needed to obtain the local existence of strong solutions.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Firstly, we shall give some elementary facts and inequalities which will be needed in later analysis in Section 2. Sections 3 is devoted to the a priori estimates which are needed to obtain the local existence and uniqueness of strong solution. Finally, Theorem 1.2 is proved in Section 4.
Definition 1.1
If all derivatives involved in (1.1) for \((\rho,u)\) are regular distributions, and equations. (1.1) hold almost everywhere in \(\mathbb{R}\times(0,T)\), then \((\rho,u)\) is called a strong solution to (1.1).
Theorem 1.2
For constant \(4< p<+\infty\), assume that the initial data \((\rho_{0},u_{0})\) satisfies
where \((t,x,u)\in(0,T_{0}]\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\). Further, for constant \(p\leq q<+\infty\), assume that \(\rho_{0}\) also satisfies
where
and \(\zeta_{0}\) is a positive constant.
Then there exists a positive time \(T_{0}\) such that the problem (1.1)-(1.2) has a unique strong solution \((\rho,u)\) on \(\mathbb{R}\times(0,T_{0}]\) satisfying
Moreover,
2 Preliminaries
We have the following results concerning local existence theory on bounded intervals whose existence can be found in [11, 17–19].
Lemma 2.1
For \(R>0\) and \(\Omega_{R}\triangleq \{x\in\mathbb{R} | |x|< R \}\), assume that \((\rho_{0},u_{0})\) satisfies
Let f as in (1.3) and (1.4). Then there exist a small time \(T_{R} > 0\) and a unique classical solution \((\rho,u)\) to the following initial-boundary value problem:
on \(\Omega_{R}\times(0,T_{R}]\) such that
Remark 2.2
Assume \(v\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega_{R})\cap H^{2}(\Omega_{R})\), then \(v\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega_{R})\) with \(p>4\).
Lemma 2.3
For either \(s=2\) or \(s=p\), \(m\in[s,\infty)\) and \(\vartheta\in (m+1/2,\infty)\), there exists a positive constant C such that, for either \(\Omega=\mathbb{R}\) or \(\Omega=\Omega_{R}\) with \(R\geq1\) and for any \(v\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,s}(\Omega)\),
A consequence of Lemma 2.3 will play a crucial role in our analysis.
Proof
First, we begin with the case \(v\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,2}(\Omega)\). For all \(R\geq1\), since
we observe there exists \(R_{0}\in[\frac{1}{2},1]\) such that
By calculation, we get
By virtue of
we have
By some directly calculations, we get
and
We denote
and rewrite (2.10) as
Multiplying (2.12) by R, we obtain
The Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality implies that, for all \(m_{1}\in (2,+\infty)\),
Consequently, we obtain after using (2.11), (2.13), and (2.14)
Next, we discuss the case \(v\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,p}(\Omega)\). Since
we observe there exists \(R_{0}\in[\frac{1}{2},1]\) such that
By some direct calculations, we get
By virtue of
we have
For all \(R\geq1\), we get
We denote
Combining (2.17)-(2.20), we get
Multiplying (2.21) by R, we obtain
The Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality implies that, for all \(m_{2}\in (p,+\infty)\),
By a simple integration by parts, (2.13), (2.15), (2.22), and (2.23), we obtain for all \(R\geq1\), either \(s=2\) or \(s=p\), \(m\in[s,\infty)\), and, for any \(v\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,s}(\Omega)\),
if \(\vartheta>m+\frac{1}{2}\). □
Lemma 2.4
Let Φ and \(\zeta_{0}\) be as in (1.5) and Ω as in Lemma 2.3. For \(\gamma> 1\), assume that \(\rho\in L^{1}(\Omega)\cap L^{\gamma}(\Omega)\) is a non-negative function such that
for positive constants \(Q_{1}\), \(Q_{2}\), and \(N_{1}\geq1\) with \(\Omega_{N_{1}}\subset\Omega\). Then there is a positive constant C depending only on \(Q_{1}\), \(Q_{2}\), \(N_{1}\), γ, and \(\zeta_{0}\) such that
for every \(v\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,2}(\Omega)\cap W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,p}(\Omega)\). Moreover, for \(\varepsilon>0\) and \(\zeta>0\) there is a positive constant C depending only on ε, ζ, \(Q_{1}\), \(Q_{2}\), \(N_{1}\), γ, and \(\zeta_{0}\) such that
with \(\tilde{\zeta}=\min\{1,\zeta\}\).
Proof
It follows from (2.24) and similar arguments to Lemma 3.2 of [20] that there exists a positive constant C depending only on \(Q_{1}\), \(Q_{2}\), \(N_{1}\), and γ, such that
There exists a positive constant \(\zeta_{0}\) such that
which together with (2.4) and (2.27) gives (2.25) and (2.26). The proof of Lemma 2.4 is finished. □
3 A priori estimates
For \(R>4R_{0}\geq4\), assume that the smooth \((\rho_{0},u_{0})\) satisfies, in addition to (2.1),
Lemma 2.1 thus shows that there exists some \(T_{R}>0\) such that the initial-boundary value problem (2.2) has a unique classical solution \((\rho,u)\) on \(\Omega_{R}\times[0,T_{R}]\) satisfying (2.3).
For Φ, \(\zeta_{0}\), and q as in Theorem 1.2, the main aim of this section is to derive the key a priori estimate on ψ defined by
Proposition 3.1
Assume that \((\rho_{0},u_{0})\) satisfies (2.1) and (3.1). Let \((\rho,u)\) be the solution to the initial-boundary value problem (2.2) on \(\Omega_{R}\times(0,T _{R} ]\) obtained by Lemma 2.1. Then there exist positive constants \(T_{0}\) and M both depending only on γ, q, \(\mu_{0}\), \(\zeta _{0}\), \(N_{0}\), and \(K_{0}\) such that
where
The proof of Proposition 3.1 will be postponed to the end of this section; we begin with the following standard energy estimate for \((\rho,u)\).
Lemma 3.2
Let \((\rho,u)\) be a smooth solution to the initial-boundary value problem (2.2). Then there exist a \(T^{*}=T^{*}(R _{0},K _{0})>0\) and a positive constant \(\beta=\beta(\gamma,q)>1\) such that, for all \(t\in(0,T^{*}]\),
where (as in the following) C denotes a generic positive constant depending only on γ, q, \(\zeta_{0}\), \(\mu_{0}\), \(R_{0}\) and \(K_{0}\), under the conditions of Proposition 3.1.
Proof
First, applying standard energy estimate to (2.2) gives
Next, for \(R> 1\) and \(\tilde{\xi}_{R}\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\Omega_{R})\) such that
it follows from (3.5) and (3.1) that
where in the last inequality we have used
due to (2.2)1 and (2.2)5. Integrating (3.7) gives
where \(T^{*}\triangleq\min\{1,(4\tilde{B})^{-1}\}\).
From now on, we will always assume that \(t\leq T^{*}\). The combination of (3.8), (3.5), and (2.26) shows, for \(\varepsilon >0\), \(\zeta>0\), \(\forall v \in W_{0}^{1,2}(\Omega_{R})\cap W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega_{R})\) satisfies
with \(\tilde{\zeta}=\min\{1,\zeta\}\). In particular, we have
Multiplying (2.2)2 by \(u _{t}\), and integrating it over \((-R,R)\) on x and integrating over \((0,t)\) on the time variable
We first compute the second term of (3.11), and we get
and
Substituting (3.12), and (3.13) into (3.11), and by using (1.3), we obtain
Using Young’s inequality, we obtain
First, the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality implies that, for all \(k\in (p,+\infty)\),
where \(\theta=\frac{2k-2p}{2k+kp}\).
Next, we estimate each term on the right-hand side of (3.14) as follows: We deduce from (3.10), (3.2), and Hölder’s inequality that
where (as in the following) we use \(\beta= \beta(\gamma,q) > 1\) to denote a generic constant depending only on γ and q, which may be different from line to line.
By (3.9),we have
Using (2.2)2, we get
By virtue of
we have
Taking the above inequality by \(L _{2}\) norm and \(L _{p}\) norm, we obtain
where \(0<\varepsilon_{0}<\min\{1,pq-2p-2q\}\), and
By (3.15), we have
where \(\theta=\frac{4}{p^{2}+2p}\). We use (3.10) to get
By virtue of
and the arguments as in [8], we have
Putting (3.16), (3.17), (3.20), (3.21), and (3.23) into (3.14) and choosing ε suitably small yield
The proof of Lemma 3.2 is finished. □
Lemma 3.3
Let \((\rho,u)\) and \(T^{*}\) be as in Lemma 3.2. Then, for all \(t \in (0,T^{*} ]\),
Proof
We differentiate equation (2.2)2 with respect to t, and multiply it by \(u_{t}\), by using (1.3), and integrating it over \((-R,R)\) with respect to x we obtain
We estimate each term \(I_{j}\). We deduce from the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality and (3.10) that
and that
where \(\theta=\frac{2q^{2}-2qp+4p}{q^{2}(2+p)}\).
Using the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality and (3.9), we have
and
where \(\theta=\frac{1}{p+2}\). By (3.9) and (3.10), we get
Young’s inequality together with (3.9), (3.10) yields
where \(0<\varepsilon_{0}<\min\{1,pq-2p-2q\}\), and
Substituting (3.26)-(3.32) into (3.25) and choosing ε suitably small lead to
where in the last inequality we have used (3.18). Multiplying (3.33) by t, we obtain (3.24) after using Gronwall’s inequality and (3.4). The proof of Lemma 3.3 is completed. □
Lemma 3.4
Let \((\rho,u)\) and \(T^{*}\) be as in Lemma 3.2. Then, for all \(t \in (0,T^{*} ]\),
Proof
First, multiplying (2.2)1 by Φ and integrating the resulting equality over \(\Omega_{R}\), we obtain after integration by parts and using (3.10)
which gives
Next, it follows from the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality and (3.10) that, for \(0<\delta<1\),
where \(\theta=\frac{1}{k}\).
One derives from (1.1)1 that \(g\triangleq\rho\Phi\) satisfies
which together with (3.36) gives
and
where in the last inequality we have used (3.35).
Next, we claim that
which together with (3.35), (3.37), (3.38), and the Gronwall inequality yields
Finally, it only remains to prove (3.39). In fact, on the one hand, it follows from (3.18), (3.4), and (3.24) that
On the other hand, we denote
By (3.19) and the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, we have
where \(\theta=\frac{q-2}{2q}\).
By (3.9), (3.10), and (3.15), the last term on the right-hand side of (3.41) can be estimated as follows:
This combined with (3.40), (3.24), and (3.4) yields
and that
One thus obtains (3.39) from (3.40)-(3.44) and finishes the proof of Lemma 3.4. □
Proof of Proposition 3.1
It follows from (3.5), (3.4), and (3.33) that, for all \(\forall t\in(0,T^{*}]\),
Standard arguments thus yield, for \(\tilde{K}\triangleq e^{Ce}\) and \(T_{0}\triangleq\min \{T^{*},(CM^{\beta})^{-1} \}\),
which together with (3.18), (3.39), and (3.4) gives (3.3). The proof of Proposition 3.1 is thus completed. □
4 Proof of Theorem 1.2
Let \((\rho_{0},u_{0})\) be as in Theorem 1.2. Without loss of generality, assume that
which implies that there exists a positive constant \(N_{0}\) such that
We construct \(\rho_{0}^{R}=j_{\frac{1}{R}}*\rho_{0}+R^{-1}e^{-x^{2}}\) where \(j_{\frac{1}{R}}*\rho_{0}\) satisfies
and
as \(R\rightarrow\infty\), since \(u_{0}\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R})\) and \(u_{0x}\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R})\), choosing \(v^{R}\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\Omega_{R})\) such that
we consider a smooth solution \(u_{0}^{R}\) of the following elliptic problem (see [21]):
where \(d^{R}=(\sqrt{\rho_{0}}u_{0})\ast j_{1/R}\), with \(j_{\delta}\) being the standard mollifying kernel of width δ. Extending \(u_{0}^{R}\) to \(\mathbb{R}\) by defining 0 outside \(\Omega_{R}\) and denoting \(w_{0}^{R}\triangleq u_{0}^{R}\tilde{\xi}_{R}\) with \(\tilde{\xi}_{R}\) as in (3.6), we claim that
In fact, multiplying (4.5) by \(u_{0}^{R}\) and integrating the resulting equation over \(\Omega_{R}\) lead to
which implies
for some C independent of R.
By the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality and (4.3), we obtain
Combining (4.4), (4.8), and (4.9), we get
We deduce from (4.8) and (4.13) that there exist a subsequence \(R_{j}\rightarrow\infty\) and a function \(w_{0}\in \{w_{0}\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}) | \sqrt{\rho_{0}}w_{0}\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}) \} \) such that
It follows from (4.5), (4.6), and (4.8) that \(w_{0}^{R}\) satisfies
with \(\int_{\mathbb{R}}(F_{R})^{2}\,\mathrm{d}x\leq C\).
Thus, one can deduce from (4.21)-(4.24), for any \(\psi \in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})\),
which yields
We get from (4.12)
which combined with (4.11) implies
and
This, along with (4.13) and (4.8), gives (4.7).
Then, in terms of Lemma 2.1, the initial-boundary value problem (2.2) with the initial data \((\rho_{0}^{R},w_{0}^{R})\) has a classical solution \((\rho^{R},u^{R})\) on \(\Omega_{R}\times[0,T_{R}]\). Moreover, Proposition 3.1 shows that there exists a \(T_{0}\) independent of R such that (3.2) holds for \((\rho^{R},u^{R})\). We first deduce from (3.3) that
and
By using (3.3), we have
where \(\theta=\frac{2}{p+2}\).
With all these estimates (4.14)-(4.16), (3.3), (3.4), (3.24), and (3.34) at hand, we find that the sequence \((\rho^{R},u^{R})\) converges, up to the extraction of subsequences, to some limit \((\rho^{R},u^{R})\) in the obvious weak sense, that is, as \(R\rightarrow\infty\), we have
Next, for \(1< L< R\) and \(\xi_{L}\in C^{1}(\Omega_{R})\) such that
multiplying (1.1) by \(\xi_{L}\), and integrating over \(\Omega_{R}\), it follows that
By virtue of \(\xi_{L}\), we have
Integrating the above inequality with respect to the time variable over \((0, t)\), we get
Multiplying (2.2)1 by \(\xi_{L}^{2}\rho_{0}^{R}\), and integrating over \(\Omega_{R}\), it follows that
where \(\theta=\frac{2}{3}\).
Integrating the above inequality with respect to the time variable over \((0, t)\), we get
where \(\theta=\frac{2}{3}\).
Next, by the fixed \(\kappa\in(L, R)\) and by using (4.34), we have
where \(\theta=\frac{2}{3}\).
Taking the limit on κ for inequality (4.35) we obtain, as \(\kappa\rightarrow+\infty\),
where \(\theta=\frac{2}{3}\).
Thus, we deduce that
where \(\theta=\frac{2}{3}\). In the same way, we can also handle \(\int _{-R}^{-L}\rho^{2}\,\mathrm{d}x\).
By the Sobolev embedding theorem, we have
By virtue of
and by using (4.34), (4.37), and (4.38), letting \(R\rightarrow\infty\), and then letting \(L\rightarrow\infty\), we have
By using (4.22) and (4.25), we have
where \(\theta=\frac{2}{P+2}\). Multiplying (2.2)2 by \(\xi_{L}u^{R}\), and integrating over \(\Omega_{R}\), it follows that
Integrating the above inequality with respect to the time variable over \((0, t)\), we get
It is easy to see that the following inequality is established:
By virtue of
and by using (4.42) and by a similar approach to (4.40), letting \(R\rightarrow\infty\), and then letting \(L\rightarrow\infty\), we have
Subtracting both sides of the inequality (2.2)2 from \([(u_{x}^{2}+\mu_{0} )^{\frac{p-2}{2}}u_{x}]_{x}\), multiplying by \(\xi _{L}(u_{x}^{R}-u_{x})\), and integrating over \(\Omega_{R}\), it follows that
where in the second inequality we have used (4.44).
By virtue of
and by (4.47) and by the lower semi-continuity of various norms, letting \(R\rightarrow\infty\), and then letting \(L\rightarrow \infty\), we have
By virtue of the nonlinear term, we have
First, we begin with the case \(u^{R}u\geq0\) for fixed \((t,x)\), we get
Next, we discuss the case \(u^{R}u< 0\) for fixed \((t,x)\), we have
Consequently, we obtain after using (4.50) and (4.51)
and
Next, for any function \(\Psi\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times[0,T_{0}))\), we take Ψ as a test function in the initial-boundary value problem (2.2) with the initial data \((\rho_{0}^{R},w_{0}^{R})\). By standard arguments, letting \(R\rightarrow\infty\), it follows from (4.17)-(4.28), (4.40), (4.46), (4.49), and (4.53) that \((\rho,u)\) is a strong solution of (1.1)-(1.2) on \(\mathbb{R}\times(0,T_{0}]\) satisfying (1.6) and (1.7). We only give a proof of the nonlinear term as follows:
The proof of the existence part of Theorem 1.2 is finished.
Finally, to finish the proof of the main theorem, we only need to prove the uniqueness of the solution of the problem (1.1). Let \((\rho,u)\) and \((\bar{\rho},\bar{u})\) be two solutions that satisfy the same initial condition. Denote
Subtracting the momentum equations satisfied by \((\rho,u)\) and \((\bar {\rho},\bar{u})\) yields
By virtue of f, we have
By (1.4), we know
By virtue of
multiplying (4.55) by U, by using (1.4) and integrating by parts, leads to
Then subtracting the mass equation for \((\rho,u)\) and \((\bar{\rho},\bar{u})\) gives
Multiplying (4.59) by \(2H\Phi\) and integrating by parts lead to
where in the second inequality we have used Sobolev’s inequality, (1.7), (2.26), and (1.8). This combined with Gronwall’s inequality yields, for all \(t \in(0,T^{*}]\),
As observed by Germain [21], putting (4.53) into (4.55) leads to
Next, we will estimate \(A_{2}\). In fact, one deduces from (2.2)1 that
which gives
which together with Gronwall’s inequality gives
which shows
Denoting
putting (4.61) and (4.63) into (4.58) and choosing ε suitably small lead to
which together with Gronwall’s inequality and (1.8) yields \(H(t) = 0\). Hence, \(U(x,t) = 0\) for almost everywhere \((x,t)\in\mathbb {R}\times(0,T_{0})\). Then (4.60) implies that \(Z(x,t) = 0\) for almost everywhere \((x,t)\in\mathbb{R}\times(0,T_{0})\). The proof of Theorem 1.2 is completed.
References
Böhme, G: Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics. Appl. Math. Mech. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1970)
Huilgol, RR: Continuum Mechanics of Viscoelastic Liquids. Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi (1975)
Schwalter, WR: Mechanics of Non-Newtonian Fluid. Pergamon, New York (1978)
Lions, PL: Mathematical Topics in Fluid Mechanics. Volume 2: Compressible Models. Oxford University Press, New York (1998)
Li, J, Xin, Z: Global well-posedness and large time asymptotic behavior of classical solutions to the compressible Navier-Stokes equations with vacuum. arXiv:1310.1673v1
Huang, X, Li, J: Global well-posedness of classical solutions to the Cauchy problem of two-dimensional baratropic compressible Navier-Stokes system with vacuum and large initial data. arXiv:1207.3746v1
Liang, Z, Lu, Y: Classical large solution for the viscous compressible fluids with initial vacuum in 1D. Bound. Value Probl. 2015, 100 (2015)
Li, J, Liang, Z: On local classical solutions to the Cauchy problem of the two-dimensional barotropic compressible Navier-Stokes equations with vacuum. J. Math. Pures Appl. 102, 640-671 (2014)
Yuan, H, Xu, X: Existence and uniqueness of solutions for a class of non-Newtonian fluids with singularity and vacuum. J. Differ. Equ. 245, 2871-2916 (2008)
Bloom, F, Hao, W: Regularization of a non-Newtonian system in an unbounded channel: existence of a maximal compact attractor. Nonlinear Anal. 43, 743-766 (2001)
Xu, X, Yuan, H: Existence of the unique strong solution for a class of non-Newtonian fluids with vacuum. Q. Appl. Math. 66, 249-279 (2008)
Wang, C, Yuan, H: Global strong solutions for a class of heat-conducting non-Newtonian fluids with vacuum. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 11, 3680-3703 (2010)
Wang, C, Yuan, H: Global strong solutions for a class of compressible non-Newtonian fluids with vacuum. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 34, 397-417 (2011)
Yin, L, Xu, X, Yuan, H: Global existence and uniqueness of solution of the initial boundary value problem for a class of non-Newtonian fluids with vacuum. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 59, 457-474 (2008)
Yuan, H, Li, H: Existence and uniqueness of solutions for a class of non-Newtonian fluids with vacuum and damping. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 391, 223-239 (2012)
Yuan, H, Wang, C: Unique solvability for a class of full non-Newtonian fluids of one dimension with vacuum. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 60, 868-898 (2009)
Cho, Y, Choe, HJ, Kim, H: Unique solvability of the initial boundary value problems for compressible viscous fluids. J. Math. Pures Appl. 83, 243-275 (2004)
Choe, HJ: Strong solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for isentropic compressible fluids. J. Differ. Equ. 190, 504-523 (2003)
Cho, Y, Kim, H: On classical solutions of the compressible Navier-Stokes equations with nonnegative initial densities. Manuscr. Math. 120, 91-129 (2006)
Feireisl, E, Novotny, A: Dynamics of Viscous Compressible Fluids. Oxford University Press, London (2004)
Germain, P: Weak-strong uniqueness for the isentropic compressible Navier-Stokes system. J. Math. Fluid Mech. 13, 137-146 (2011)
Acknowledgements
The research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant No. 11271153 and Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education No. 20140101-20161231.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. 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 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
Yuan, H., Yang, Z. A class of compressible non-Newtonian fluids with external force and vacuum under no compatibility conditions. Bound Value Probl 2016, 201 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-016-0708-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-016-0708-2
MSC
- 76N10
- 76A05
Keywords
- non-Newtonian fluid
- vacuum
- strong solution