Skip to main content

New general decay results for a viscoelastic plate equation with a logarithmic nonlinearity


In this paper, we investigate the stability of the solutions of a viscoelastic plate equation with a logarithmic nonlinearity. We assume that the relaxation function g satisfies the minimal condition

$$ g^{\prime }(t)\le -\xi (t) G\bigl(g(t)\bigr), $$

where ξ and G satisfy some properties. With this very general assumption on the behavior of g, we establish explicit and general energy decay results from which we can recover the exponential and polynomial rates when \(G(s) = s^{p}\) and p covers the full admissible range \([1, 2)\). Our new results substantially improve and generalize several earlier related results in the literature such as Gorka (Acta Phys. Pol. 40:59–66, 2009), Hiramatsu et al. (J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2010(06):008, 2010), Han and Wang (Acta Appl. Math. 110(1):195–207, 2010), Messaoudi and Al-Khulaifi (Appl. Math. Lett. 66:16–22, 2017), Mustafa (Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 41(1):192–204, 2018), and Al-Gharabli et al. (Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 18(1):159–180, 2019).


In the present paper, we consider the following viscoelastic plate problem with logarithmic nonlinearity:

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} u_{tt}+\Delta ^{2} u+u-\int _{0}^{t}g(t-s)\Delta ^{2} u(s)\,ds=k u \ln { \vert u \vert }, & \text{in } \varOmega \times (0,\infty ), \\ u=\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu }=0, & \text{in } \partial \varOmega \times (0,\infty ), \\ u(x,0)=u_{0}(x), \qquad u_{t}(x,0)=u_{1}(x), & \text{in } \varOmega , \end{cases} $$

where \(\varOmega \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{2}\) is a bounded domain with a smooth boundary ∂Ω. The vector ν is the unit outer normal to ∂Ω and the constant k is a small positive real number. The function g is the kernel and satisfies some conditions to be specified later.

Problems with logarithmic nonlinearity

The logarithmic nonlinearity appears naturally in inflation cosmology and supersymmetric filed theories, quantum mechanics, and many other branches of physics such as nuclear physics, optics, and geophysics [1, 79] and [10]. These specific applications in physics and other fields attract a lot of mathematical scientists to work with such problems. Birula and Mycielski [8] and [11] introduced the following problem:

$$ \begin{aligned} \textstyle\begin{cases} u_{tt}- u_{xx} +u-\varepsilon u \ln { \vert u \vert }^{2}=0, &\text{in }[a,b] \times (0,T), \\ u(a,t)=u(b,t)=0, &\text{in } (0,T), \\ u(x,0)=u_{0}(x), \qquad u_{t}(x,0)=u_{1}(x), &\text{in } [a,b], \end{cases}\displaystyle \end{aligned} $$

which is a relativistic version of logarithmic quantum mechanics and can also be obtained by taking the limit \(p \to 1\) for the p-adic string equation [12, 13]. They showed that wave equations with the logarithmic nonlinearity have stable, localized, soliton-like solutions in any number of dimensions. In [14], Cazenave and Haraux established the existence and uniqueness of the solution for the following Cauchy problem:

$$ u_{tt} -\Delta u= u \ln { \vert u \vert }^{k}, \quad \text{in }\mathbb{R} ^{3}. $$

Gorka [1] considered the corresponding one-dimensional Cauchy problem for equation (3) and established the global existence of weak solutions for all \((u_{0},u_{1}) \in H^{1}_{0} \times L^{2}\) by using some compactness arguments. In [7], Bartkowski and Gorka investigated weak solutions and also proved existence results of classical solutions. Hiramatsu et al. [2] investigated a numerical study of the solution of the following problem:

$$ u_{tt} -\Delta u+u+u_{t}+ \vert u \vert ^{2} u=u \ln { \vert u \vert }. $$

However, there was no theoretical analysis for this problem. In [15], Han considered the initial boundary value problem (4) in \(\varOmega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}\) and obtained global existence of weak solutions for all \((u_{0},u_{1}) \in H^{1}_{0} ( \varOmega )\times L^{2} (\varOmega )\). For more recent work dealing with logarithmic nonlinearity, we refer to [1620].

Plate problems

Regarding the plate equations, we start with the result obtained by Lagnese [21]. He considered a viscoelastic plate equation and introduced a dissipative mechanism on the boundary of the system, and then he proved that when the time goes to infinity, the energy decays to zero. In [22], Rivera et al. investigated the energy of the solutions of a viscoelastic plate equation and they proved that first and second order energy decays exponentially provided that the kernel also decays exponentially. Messaoudi [23] established an existence result of the following problem:

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} u_{tt}+\Delta ^{2} u+ \vert u_{t} \vert ^{m-2} u_{t} = \vert u \vert ^{p-2} u, &\text{in }Q_{T}=\varOmega \times (0,T), \\ u=\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu }=0, &\text{on }\varGamma _{T}=\partial \varOmega \times [0,T), \\ u(x,0)=u_{0}(x),\qquad u_{t}(x,0)=u_{1}(x), &\text{in }\varOmega , \end{cases} $$

obtained global solution in case \(m \ge p\), and proved blow-up when the initial energy is negative and \(m< p\). These results, for the same problem in [23], were improved and extended by Chen and Zhou [24]. Santos and Junior [25] studied the following system:

$$ \begin{aligned} \textstyle\begin{cases} u_{tt}+\Delta ^{2} u=0, &\text{in }\varOmega \times (0,\infty ), \\ u=\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu }=0, &\text{on }\varGamma _{0} \times (0, \infty ), \\ -u+\int _{0}^{t}g_{1}(t-s)\beta _{1} u(s) \,ds=0, &\text{on }\varGamma _{1} \times (0,\infty ), \\ \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu }+ \int _{0}^{t}g_{2}(t-s)\beta _{2} u(s) \,ds=0, &\text{on }\varGamma _{2} \times (0,\infty ), \\ u(0,x)=u_{0}(x), \qquad u_{t}(0,x)=u_{1}(x), &\text{in }\varOmega , \end{cases}\displaystyle \end{aligned} $$


$$ \beta _{1}u=\Delta u+(1-\mu )B_{1}u \quad \text{and} \quad \beta _{2}u=\frac{\partial \Delta u}{\partial \mu }+(1- \mu ) \frac{\partial B_{2}u}{\partial \eta } $$


$$ B_{1}u=2\nu _{1}\nu _{2}u_{xy}- \nu _{1}^{2}u_{yy}-\nu _{2}^{2}u_{xx} \quad \text{and} \quad B_{2}u= (\nu _{1}-\nu _{2} )u_{xy}+ \nu _{1}\nu _{2} (u_{yy}-u_{xx} ) $$

with boundary damping, and they obtained stability results. For more results in this direction, see [3, 2629].

Viscoelastic problems

The importance of the viscoelastic properties of materials has been realized because of the rapid developments in rubber and plastic industry. Many advances in the studies of constitutive relations, failure theories, and life prediction of viscoelastic materials and structures were reported and reviewed in the last two decades [30]. Dafermos [31, 32] considered a one-dimensional viscoelastic problem of the form

$$ \rho u_{tt}=c u_{xx}- \int _{-\infty }^{t}g(t-s)u_{xx}(s)\,ds, $$

and established various existence results and then proved, for smooth monotone decreasing relaxation functions, that the solutions go to zero as t goes to infinity. However, no rate of decay has been specified. In [33], Cavalcanti et al. considered the equation

$$ u_{tt}-\Delta u+ \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s)\Delta u(x,s)\,ds+a(x)u_{t}+{ \vert u \vert }^{p-1} u=0, \quad \text{in } \varOmega \times (0,\infty ), $$

where \(a:\varOmega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{+}\) is a function which may vanish on a part of the domain Ω but satisfies \(a(x)\ge a_{0}\) on \(\omega \subset \varOmega \) and g satisfies, for two positive constants \(\xi _{1}\) and \(\xi _{2}\),

$$ -\xi _{1} g(t) \le g^{\prime }(t)\le -\xi _{2} g(t), \quad t\ge 0. $$

They established an exponential decay result under some restrictions on ω. For more results, we refer to [3437]. However, in all the above mentioned works, the rates of decay in relaxation functions were either of exponential or polynomial type. In 2008, Messaoudi [36, 37] generalized the decay rates allowing an extended class of relaxation functions and gave general decay rates from which the exponential and the polynomial decay rates were only special cases. However, the optimality in the polynomial decay case was not obtained. Precisely, he considered relaxation functions that satisfy

$$ g^{\prime }(t)\le -\xi (t) g(t),\quad t\ge 0, $$

where \(\xi :\mathbb{R}^{+} \to \mathbb{R}^{+}\) is a nonincreasing differentiable function and showed that the rate of the decay of the energy is the same rate of decay of g, which is not necessarily of exponential or polynomial decay type. After that a series of papers using (8) have appeared; see, for instance, [3844]. Inspired by the experience with frictional damping initiated in the work of Lasiecka and Tataru [45], another step forward was done by considering relaxation functions satisfying

$$ g^{\prime }(t)\le -\chi \bigl(g(t)\bigr). $$

This condition, with several constraints imposed on χ, was used by several authors with different approaches. We refer to previous studies [4650], and [51], where general decay results in terms of χ were obtained. Here, it should be mentioned that in [52] it was the first time where Lasiecka and Wang established not only general but also optimal results in which the decay rates were characterized by an ODE of the same type as the one generated by inequality (9) satisfied by g. Mustafa and Messaoudi [53] established an explicit and general decay rate for relaxation function satisfying

$$ g^{\prime }(t)\le -H\bigl(g(t)\bigr), $$

where \(H\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R})\) with \(H(0)=0\) and H is a linear or strictly increasing and strictly convex function \(C^{2}\) near the origin. In [54], Cavalcanti et al. considered a nonlinear viscoelastic wave equation with a relaxation function satisfying (10) and some additional requirements on H. They characterized the decay of the energy by the solution of a corresponding ODE as in [45]. Messaoudi and Al-Khulaifi [4] treated the same problem considered in [54] with a relaxation function satisfying

$$ g^{\prime }(t)\le -\xi (t) g^{p}(t), \quad \forall t \ge 0, 1 \le p< \frac{3}{2}. $$

They obtained a more general stability result for which the results of [36, 37] are only special cases. Moreover, the optimal decay rate for the polynomial case is achieved without any extra work and conditions as in [49] and [45]. Very recently, Al-Gharabli et al. [6] considered (1) with a relaxation function which satisfies (11), proved the existence of the solutions locally and globally, and established a general decay result depending on the behavior of g. Now, there are two natural questions that arose in dealing with the general decay of viscoelastic problems:

  1. QI.

    Can we extend the range of polynomial decay rate optimality from \(p \in [1,\frac{3}{2})\) to \(p \in [1,2)\) in the case of (11)?

  2. QII.

    Can we get a general decay result for a class of relaxation functions satisfying

    $$ g^{\prime }(t)\le -\xi (t)H\bigl(g(t)\bigr), \quad \forall t \ge 0, $$

    where ξ is a positive nonincreasing differentiable defined function on \([0,\infty )\) and H is some increasing convex function such that (12) yields (11) as a special case? Mustafa [5] answered these questions for a viscoelastic wave equation and established an optimal decay result.

Motivated by the papers of Gorka [1], Hiramatsu et al. [2], Mustafa [5], and Al-Gharabli et al. [6], we intend to establish a two-fold objective:

  1. (1)

    extend the work for the wave equation in [1, 2], and [5] to a viscoelastic plate equation with logarithmic nonlinearity. We believe this is a natural extension done for many problems such as thermoelastic plate.

  2. (2)

    consider a more general damping instead of the one considered in [6]. In fact, the results of [6] are special cases of this work when \(G(s)=s^{p}\) and our assumption allows p to cover the full admissible range \([1, 2)\).

Remark 1.1

Let us note here that though the logarithmic nonlinearity is somehow weaker than the polynomial nonlinearity, both the existence and stability result are not obtained by straightforward application of the method used for polynomial nonlinearity. We need to make some extra condition on the nonlinearity coefficient k (see condition (A3)).

This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we present some notation and material needed for our work. In Sect. 3, we present the local and global existence of the solutions of the problem. The stability results are presented in Sect. 4.


In this section, we present some notations and material needed for the proof of our results. We use the standard Lebesgue space \(L^{2}( \varOmega )\) and the Sobolev space \(H^{2}_{0}(\varOmega )\) with their usual scalar products and norms. Throughout this paper, c is used to denote a generic positive constant, and we consider the following hypotheses:

  1. (A1)

    \(g: \mathbb{R}^{+}\to \mathbb{R}^{+}\) is a \(C^{1}\)- nonincreasing function satisfying

    $$ g(0)>0 \quad \text{and} \quad 1- \int _{0}^{\infty }g(s)\,ds=\ell >0. $$
  2. (A2)

    There exists a positive nonincreasing differentiable function \(\xi :\mathbb{R}^{+}\to \mathbb{R}^{+}\) with \(\xi (0)>0\), and a \(C^{1}\) function \(G:(0,\infty )\to (0,\infty )\) satisfies

    $$ g^{\prime }(t)\le -\xi (t) G\bigl(g(t)\bigr), \qquad G(0)=G^{\prime }(0)=0, \quad \forall t\ge 0, $$

    and G is a linear or strictly increasing and strictly convex \(C^{2}\) function on \((0,r]\), \(0 < r < 1\).

  3. (A3)

    The constant k in (1) satisfies \(0< k< k_{0}\), where \(k_{0}\) is the positive real number satisfying

    $$ {\sqrt{\frac{2\pi \ell }{k_{0} c_{p}}}}=e^{-\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{k _{0}}} $$

    and \(c_{p}\) is the smallest positive number satisfying

    $$ \Vert \nabla u \Vert ^{2}_{2} \le c_{p} \Vert \Delta u \Vert ^{2}_{2} , \quad \forall u \in H_{0}^{2}(\varOmega ), $$

    where \(\|\cdot \|_{2}=\|\cdot\|_{L^{2}(\varOmega )}\).

Remark 2.1

If G is a strictly increasing and strictly convex \(C^{2}\) function on \((0, r]\), with \(G(0) = G'(0) = 0\), then it has an extension , which is a strictly increasing and strictly convex \(C^{2}\) function on \((0,+\infty )\). For instance, if \(G(r) = a\), \(G'(r) = b\), \(G''(r) = C\), we can define for \(t > r\) by

$$ \overline{G}(t)=\frac{C}{2} t^{2}+ (b-Cr)t+ \biggl(a+\frac{C}{2} {r}^{2}-b r \biggr). $$

For simplicity, we will use G for both G and .

Remark 2.2

Since G is strictly convex on \((0,r]\) and \(G(0)=0\), then

$$ G(\theta z)\le \theta G(z),\quad 0\le \theta \le 1,\text{ and }z \in (0,r]. $$

Remark 2.3

The function \(f(s)=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi \ell }{c_{p} s}}-e^{- \frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{s}}\) is a continuous and decreasing function on \((0,\infty )\) with

$$ \lim_{s\to 0^{+}}f(s)=\infty \quad \text{and} \quad \lim _{x\to \infty }f(x)=-e^{-\frac{3}{2}}. $$

Then there exists unique \(k_{0} >0\) such that \(f(k_{0})=0\). Moreover,

$$ e^{-\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{s}}< \sqrt{\frac{2\pi \ell }{c_{p} s}} , \quad \forall s\in (0,k_{0} ), $$

which implies that the selection of k in (A3) is possible.

The modified energy functional associated with problem (1) is given by

$$ \begin{aligned}[b] E(t)={}&\frac{1}{2} \biggl( \Vert u_{t} \Vert _{2}^{2}+ \biggl(1- \int _{0}^{t}g(s)\,ds \biggr) \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{2} +\frac{k+2}{2} \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2} \biggr) \\ & {} -\frac{1}{2} \int _{\varOmega }u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx+ \frac{1}{2}(go\Delta u) (t), \end{aligned} $$


$$ (go\Delta u) (t)= \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl\Vert \Delta u(s) - \Delta u(t) \bigr\Vert _{2} ^{2} \,ds. $$

Direct differentiation of (19), using (1), leads to

$$ E^{\prime }(t)=\frac{1}{2}\bigl(g^{\prime }o \Delta u\bigr) (t)-\frac{1}{2}g(t) \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{2}\le \frac{1}{2}\bigl(g^{\prime }o \Delta u\bigr) (t)\le 0. $$

Lemma 2.1

([55, 56] (Logarithmic Sobolev inequality))

Letube any function in\(H^{1}_{0}(\varOmega )\)andabe any positive real number. Then

$$ \int _{\varOmega }u^{2} \ln { \vert u \vert }\,dx \le \frac{1}{2}{ \Vert u \Vert }^{2} _{2}\ln { \Vert u \Vert }^{2}_{2}+\frac{a^{2}}{2\pi }{ \Vert \nabla u \Vert }^{2}_{2} -(1+ \ln {a}){ \Vert u \Vert }^{2}_{2}. $$

Corollary 2.1

Letube any function in\(H^{2}_{0}(\varOmega )\)andabe any positive real number. Then

$$ \int _{\varOmega }u^{2} \ln { \vert u \vert }\,dx \le \frac{1}{2}{ \Vert u \Vert }^{2} _{2}\ln { \Vert u \Vert }^{2}_{2}+\frac{ c_{p} a^{2}}{2\pi }{ \Vert \Delta u \Vert }^{2} _{2} -(1+\ln {a}){ \Vert u \Vert }^{2}_{2} . $$

Local and global existence

In this section, we state the existence results of [6] for problem (1).

Definition 3.1

Let \(T>0\). A function

$$ u\in C\bigl([0,T],H^{2}_{0}(\varOmega )\bigr)\cap C^{1}\bigl([0,T],L^{2}(\varOmega )\bigr) \cap C^{2}\bigl([0,T],H^{-2}(\varOmega )\bigr) $$

is called a weak solution of (1) on \([0,T]\) if, for any \(w\in H^{2}_{0} (\varOmega )\) and \(t\in [0,T]\),

$$ \begin{aligned} \textstyle\begin{cases} \int _{\varOmega }u_{tt}(x,t)w(x)\,dx+\int _{\varOmega }\Delta u(x,t)\Delta w(x)\,dx+ \int _{\varOmega }u(x,t) w(x)\,dx \\ \quad{} -\int _{\varOmega } \Delta w(x)\int _{0}^{t}g(t-s)\Delta u(s)\,ds\,dx= \int _{\varOmega }u(x,t) w(x)\ln { \vert u(x,t) \vert ^{k}}\,dx, \\ u(x,0)=u_{0}(x), \qquad u_{t}(x,0)=u_{1}(x). \end{cases}\displaystyle \end{aligned} $$

Theorem 3.1

Assume that (A1) and (A3) hold and let\((u_{0},u_{1}) \in H^{2} _{0}(\varOmega ) \times L^{2}(\varOmega )\). Then problem (1) has a weak solution

$$ u\in C\bigl([0,T],H^{2}_{0}(\varOmega )\bigr)\cap C^{1}\bigl([0,T],L^{2}(\varOmega )\bigr) \cap C^{2}\bigl([0,T],H^{-2}(\varOmega )\bigr). $$

For the global existence, we introduce the following functionals:

$$ \begin{aligned}[b]J(t)={}&\frac{1}{2} \biggl( \biggl(1- \int _{0}^{t}g(s)\,ds \biggr) \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{2}+ \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2} +(go\Delta u) (t)- \int _{\varOmega }u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx \biggr) \\ & {} +\frac{k}{4} \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2} \end{aligned} $$


$$ I(t)= \biggl(1- \int _{0}^{t}g(s)\,ds \biggr) \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{2}+ \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2} +(go\Delta u) (t)-3 \int _{\varOmega }u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx. $$

From (25) and (26), one can easily see that

$$ \begin{aligned} J(t)=\frac{1}{3} \biggl[ \biggl(1- \int _{0}^{t}g(s)\,ds \biggr) \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{2}+ \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2} +(go\Delta u) (t) \biggr]+\frac{k}{4} \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2}+\frac{1}{6}I(t). \end{aligned} $$

Lemma 3.1

The following inequalities hold:

$$ - kd_{0} {\sqrt{ \vert \varOmega \vert c_{*}^{3}}} \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{ \frac{3}{2}} \le \int _{\varOmega }u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx \le k c _{*}^{3} \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{3} , \quad \forall u \in H^{2}_{0}(\varOmega ), $$

where\(d_{0} =\sup_{0< s<1} {\sqrt{s}}\vert \ln s\vert \), \(\vert \varOmega \vert \)is the Lebesgue measure ofΩ, and\(c_{*}\)is the smallest embedding constant

$$ \biggl( \int _{\varOmega } \vert u \vert ^{3} \,dx \biggr)^{\frac{1}{3}}\le c _{*} \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2} , \quad \forall u \in H^{2}_{0}( \varOmega ) $$

(\(c_{*}\)exists thanks to the embedding of\(H^{2}_{0}(\varOmega )\)in\(L^{\infty }(\varOmega )\), \(\varOmega \subset \mathcal{R}^{2}\)).



$$ \varOmega _{1}=\bigl\{ x\in \varOmega : \bigl\vert u(x) \bigr\vert >1\bigr\} \quad \text{and}\quad \varOmega _{2}= \bigl\{ x\in \varOmega : \bigl\vert u(x) \bigr\vert \le 1\bigr\} . $$

So, using (29), we have

$$ \begin{aligned} \int _{\varOmega }u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx&= \int _{\varOmega _{2}}u^{2} \ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx+ \int _{\varOmega _{1}}u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx \\ & \le k \int _{\varOmega _{1}}u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert }\,dx\le k \int _{\varOmega _{1}} \vert u \vert ^{3} \,dx\le k \int _{\varOmega } \vert u \vert ^{3}\,dx \le kc_{*}^{3} \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{3} , \end{aligned} $$

this gives the right inequality in (28). On the other hand, using Hölder’s inequality and (29), we find

$$ \begin{aligned}- \int _{\varOmega }u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx&=- \int _{\varOmega _{2}}u^{2} \ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx- \int _{\varOmega _{1}}u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx \\ & \le -k \int _{\varOmega _{2}}u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert }\,dx =k \int _{\varOmega _{2}}u^{2} \bigl\vert \ln { \vert u \vert } \bigr\vert \,dx \\ &\le kd_{0} \int _{\varOmega } \vert u \vert ^{\frac{3}{2}} \,dx \le kd_{0} {\sqrt{ \vert \varOmega \vert }} \biggl( \int _{\varOmega } \vert u \vert ^{3} \,dx \biggr) ^{\frac{1}{2}} \\ &\le kd_{0} {\sqrt{ \vert \varOmega \vert c_{*}^{3}}} \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{\frac{3}{2}}, \end{aligned} $$

which implies the left inequality in (28). □

Lemma 3.2

Assume that (A1)–(A3). Let\((u_{0},u_{1})\in H^{2}_{0}(\varOmega ) \times L^{2}(\varOmega )\)such that

$$ I(0)>0 \quad \textit{and}\quad \sqrt{54}k c^{3}_{*} \biggl(\frac{E(0)}{\ell } \biggr) ^{\frac{1}{2}} < \ell . $$


$$ I(t)>0,\quad \forall t\in [0,T). $$


From (26), we have

$$ \int _{\varOmega }u^{2}\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}}\,dx=\frac{1}{3} \biggl(1- \int _{0}^{t}g(s)\,ds \biggr) \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{2}+\frac{1}{3} \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2}+ \frac{1}{3} (go\Delta u) (t) - \frac{1}{3} I(t). $$

Substituting (32) in (25), we find

$$ \begin{aligned} J(t)=\frac{1}{3} \biggl[ \biggl(1- \int _{0}^{t}g(s)\,ds \biggr) \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{2}+ \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2} +(go\Delta u) (t) \biggr]+\frac{k}{4} \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2}+\frac{1}{6}I(t). \end{aligned} $$

Since \(I(0)>0\) and I is continuous on \([0,T]\), there exists \(t_{0} \in (0,T]\) such that \(I(t)>0\) for all \(t\in [0,t_{0})\). Let us denote by \(t_{0}\) the largest real number in \((0,T]\) such that \(I>0\) on \([0,t_{0})\). If \(t_{0} =T\), then (31) is satisfied. We assume by contradiction that \(t_{0}\in (0,T)\). Thus \(I(t_{0})=0\) and

$$ \begin{aligned} \bigl\Vert \Delta u(t) \bigr\Vert ^{2}_{2}\le \frac{3}{\ell }J(t)\le \frac{3}{\ell }E(t) \le \frac{3}{\ell }E(0),\quad \forall t \in [0,t_{0}). \end{aligned} $$

If \(\|\Delta u(t_{0})\|_{2}^{2} =0\), then (28) and (29) give

$$ 0=I(t_{0})= (g o \Delta u ) (t_{0})= \int _{0}^{t_{0}}g(s) \bigl\Vert \Delta u(s) \bigr\Vert _{2}^{2} \,ds. $$

Consequently, if \(g>0\) on \([0,t_{0})\), we get

$$ \bigl\Vert \Delta u(s) \bigr\Vert _{2}=0, \quad \forall s\in [0,t_{0}). $$


$$ I(t)=0, \quad \forall t\in [0,t_{0}), $$

which is not true since \(I>0\) on \([0,t_{0})\). If g is not positive on \([0,t_{0})\), then let \(t_{1} \in [0,t_{0})\) be the smallest real number such that \(g(t_{1})=0\). Because \(g(0)>0\) and g is positive, nonincreasing, and continuous on \(\mathbb{R}^{+}\) (condition (A1)), then \(t_{1} >0\) and \(g=0\) on \([t_{1} ,\infty )\). Therefore, from (35), we deduce that

$$ 0= \int _{0}^{t_{0}}g(s) \bigl\Vert \Delta u(s) \bigr\Vert _{2}^{2} \,ds= \int _{0}^{t_{1}}g(s) \bigl\Vert \Delta u(s) \bigr\Vert _{2}^{2} \,ds, $$

then \(\|\Delta u(s)\|_{2}=0\) for any \(s\in [0,t_{1})\), which implies that \(I(t)=0\) for any \(t\in [0,t_{1})\). As before, this is a contradiction to the fact that \(I>0\) on \([0,t_{0})\). Then we conclude that \(\|\Delta u(t_{0})\|_{2}^{2} >0\). On the other hand, we have

$$ I(t_{0}) \ge \ell \bigl\Vert \Delta u(t_{0}) \bigr\Vert _{2}^{2}-3 \int _{\varOmega }u(t_{0})^{2} \ln { \bigl\vert u(t_{0}) \bigr\vert ^{k}}\,dx. $$

By using (34) and Lemma 3.1, we have

$$ I(t_{0})\ge \biggl[\ell -3kc_{*}^{3} { \biggl(\frac{6E(0)}{\ell } \biggr)} ^{\frac{1}{2}} \biggr] \bigl\Vert \Delta u(t_{0}) \bigr\Vert _{2}^{2}. $$

By recalling (30), we arrive at \(I(t_{0})>0\), which contradicts the assumption \(I(t_{0})=0\). Hence, \(t_{0} =T\) and then

$$ I(t)>0,\quad \forall t\in [0,T). $$



In this section, we state and prove our stability results. We start by establishing several lemmas needed for the proof of our main result.

Lemma 4.1


Assume thatgsatisfies (A1). Then, for\(u\in H^{2}_{0}(\varOmega )\),

$$ \int _{\varOmega } \biggl( \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds \biggr)^{2}\,dx \le c(go \Delta u) (t), $$


$$ \int _{\varOmega } \biggl( \int _{0}^{t} g^{\prime }(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds \biggr) ^{2}\,dx\le -c\bigl(g^{\prime } o \Delta u\bigr) (t). $$

Lemma 4.2

Assume that (A1)–(A3) and (30) hold. Then the functional

$$ \psi _{1}(t)= \int _{\varOmega }u u_{t}\,dx $$

satisfies, along the solutions of (1),

$$ \psi _{1}^{\prime }(t) \le { \Vert u_{t} \Vert }_{2}^{2}-\frac{ \ell }{2}{ \Vert {\Delta u} \Vert }_{2}^{2}-{ \Vert u \Vert }_{2}^{2} + \int _{\varOmega }u^{2} \ln { \vert u \vert }^{k} \,dx+c(go \Delta u) (t). $$


By using (1), we easily see that

$$ \begin{aligned}[b]\psi _{1}^{\prime }={}&{ \Vert u_{t} \Vert }_{2}^{2}-{ \Vert { \Delta u} \Vert }_{2}^{2}-{ \Vert u \Vert } _{2}^{2}+ \int _{\varOmega } \Delta u \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \Delta u(s)\,ds\,dx \\ & {} + \int _{\varOmega }u^{2} \ln { \vert u \vert }^{k} \,dx. \end{aligned} $$

We now use Lemma 4.1 and Young’s inequality to obtain, for any \(\mu >0\),

$$ \begin{aligned} & \int _{\varOmega }\Delta u(t) \biggl( \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s)\Delta u(s)\,ds \biggr)\,dx \\ & \quad \le \biggl( 1-\ell +\frac{\mu }{2} \biggr) { \Vert {\Delta u} \Vert }_{2}^{2} +\frac{1}{2\mu }(1-\ell ) (go \Delta u) (t) . \end{aligned} $$

By choosing \(\mu =\ell \) and combining (37) and (38), we obtain (36). □

Lemma 4.3

Assume that (A1)–(A3) and (30) hold. Then the functional

$$ \psi _{2}(t)=- \int _{\varOmega } u_{t} \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx $$

satisfies, along the solutions of (1) and for any\(\epsilon _{0} \in (0,1)\)and\(\delta >0\),

$$ \begin{aligned}[b] \psi _{2}^{\prime }(t) \le{} &\delta { \Vert {\Delta u} \Vert }_{2}^{2}+ \frac{c}{\delta }(go\Delta u) (t)+\frac{c}{\delta }\bigl(-g^{ \prime }o \Delta u\bigr) (t) + \biggl(\delta - \int _{0}^{t}g(s)\,ds \biggr) \Vert u _{t} \Vert _{2}^{2} \\ & {} +c_{\epsilon _{0} ,\delta }(go\Delta u)^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}(t) . \end{aligned} $$


Direct computations, using (1), yield

$$\begin{aligned} \psi _{2}^{\prime }(t) =& \int _{\varOmega }\Delta u \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl( \Delta u(t)-\Delta u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx+ \int _{\varOmega }u \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx \\ &{} + \int _{\varOmega } \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(\Delta u(t)-\Delta u(s)\bigr)\,ds \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s)\Delta u(s)\,ds\,dx \\ &{} - \int _{\varOmega }u\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}} \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx \\ &{}- \int _{\varOmega }u_{t} \int _{0}^{t}g^{\prime }(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx - \biggl( \int _{0}^{t}g(s)\,ds \biggr) \int _{\varOmega }u_{t} ^{2} \,dx. \end{aligned}$$

Similar to (37), we estimate the right-hand side terms of (40). So, by using Young’s inequality, the first term gives, for any \(\delta >0\),

$$ \begin{aligned} \int _{\varOmega }\Delta u \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(\Delta u(t)-\Delta u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx \le \frac{\delta }{4} { \Vert {\Delta u} \Vert }_{2}^{2} +\frac{c}{ \delta }(go\Delta u) (t). \end{aligned} $$

Using Lemma 4.1, Young’s and Poincaré’s inequalities, the second and fifth terms lead to

$$ \begin{aligned} \int _{\varOmega }u \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx\le \frac{\delta }{4} { \Vert {\Delta u} \Vert }_{2}^{2}+ \frac{c}{\delta }(go \Delta u) (t) \end{aligned} $$


$$ \begin{aligned}[b] {-} \int _{\varOmega }u_{t} \int _{0}^{t}g^{\prime }(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx\le \delta { \Vert u_{t} \Vert }_{2}^{2}-\frac{c}{\delta }\bigl(g ^{\prime }o \Delta u\bigr) (t). \end{aligned} $$

Similarly, the third term can be estimated as follows:

$$ \begin{aligned} & \int _{\varOmega } \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(\Delta u(t)-\Delta u(s)\bigr)\,ds \int _{0} ^{t}g(t-s)\Delta u(s)\,ds\,dx \\ & \quad \le \frac{\delta }{4} { \Vert {\Delta u} \Vert }_{2}^{2}+c \biggl(1+\frac{1}{\delta } \biggr) (go \Delta u) (t). \end{aligned} $$

Let \(\epsilon _{0} \in (0,1)\) and \(h(s)=s^{\epsilon _{0}} (\vert \ln {s}\vert -s )\). Notice that h is continuous on \((0,\infty )\) and its limit at 0 is 0, and its limit at ∞ is −∞. Then h has a maximum \(d_{\epsilon _{0}}\) on \([0,\infty )\), so the following inequality holds:

$$ s \vert \ln {s} \vert \le s^{2} +d_{\epsilon _{0}} s^{1-\epsilon _{0}}, \quad \forall s>0. $$

Applying (45) to \(u \ln {\vert u\vert }\), using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, the embedding of \(H^{2}_{0}(\varOmega )\) in \(L^{\infty }(\varOmega )\), and performing the same calculations as before, we get, for any \(\delta _{1} >0\),

$$\begin{aligned} & \int _{\varOmega }u\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}} \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx \\ & \quad \le k \int _{\varOmega } \bigl(u^{2} +d_{\epsilon _{0}} \vert u \vert ^{1- {\epsilon _{0}}} \bigr) \biggl\vert \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx \biggr\vert \\ &\quad \le c \int _{\varOmega } \vert u \vert ^{2} \biggl\vert \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds \biggr\vert \,dx \\ &\qquad {}+\delta _{1} \int _{\varOmega } u^{2} \,dx +c_{\epsilon _{0},\delta _{1}} \int _{\varOmega } \biggl\vert \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds \biggr\vert ^{\frac{2}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} \,dx \\ &\quad \le c\delta _{1} { \Vert {\Delta u} \Vert }_{2}^{2} +\frac{c}{\delta _{1}} \int _{\varOmega } \biggl\vert \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds \biggr\vert ^{2} \,dx \\ &\qquad {}+c_{\epsilon _{0},\delta _{1}} \int _{\varOmega } \biggl\vert \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds \biggr\vert ^{\frac{2}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} \,dx. \end{aligned}$$

Then, putting \(\frac{\delta }{4}=c\delta _{1}\) and using Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 4.1, we find

$$ \begin{aligned}[b] \int _{\varOmega }u\ln { \vert u \vert ^{k}} \int _{0}^{t}g(t-s) \bigl(u(t)-u(s)\bigr)\,ds\,dx \le {}&\frac{\delta }{4} { \Vert {\Delta u} \Vert }_{2}^{2} +\frac{c}{ \delta }(go\Delta u) (t) \\ & {} +c_{\epsilon _{0} ,\delta }(go\Delta u)^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}(t). \end{aligned} $$

The above inequalities imply (39). □

Lemma 4.4

Assume that (A1)–(A3) and (30) hold, and let\(\epsilon _{0} \in (0,1)\). Then, forksmall enough, there exist positive constants\(\varepsilon _{1}\), \(\varepsilon _{2}\), m, and\(t_{0}\)such that the functional

$$ L(t)=E(t)+\varepsilon _{1} \psi _{1}(t)+\varepsilon _{2} \psi _{2}(t) $$


$$ L \sim E $$


$$ L^{\prime }(t)\le -m E(t)+c(go \Delta u) (t)+c_{\epsilon _{0}}(go\Delta u)^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}(t), \quad \forall t \ge t_{0}. $$


For the proof of (47), we see that, using similar calculations as before,

$$ \begin{aligned} \bigl\vert L(t)-E(t) \bigr\vert &= \bigl\vert \varepsilon _{1} \psi _{1}(t)+\varepsilon _{2} \psi _{2}(t) \bigr\vert \\ &\le c (\varepsilon _{1} +\varepsilon _{2} ) \bigl({ \Vert u_{t} \Vert }_{2}^{2}+{ \Vert { \Delta u} \Vert }_{2}^{2} +(go \Delta u) (t) \bigr), \end{aligned} $$

therefore, from (31) and (33), we obtain

$$ \bigl\vert L(t)-E(t) \bigr\vert \le c (\varepsilon _{1} + \varepsilon _{2} ) \biggl(\frac{1}{2}{ \Vert u_{t} \Vert }_{2}^{2}+J(t) \biggr) =c ( \varepsilon _{1} +\varepsilon _{2} )E(t), $$


$$ \bigl(1-c (\varepsilon _{1} +\varepsilon _{2} ) \bigr)E(t) \le L(t)\le \bigl(1+c (\varepsilon _{1} +\varepsilon _{2} ) \bigr)E(t). $$

Hence, for \(\varepsilon _{1} ,\,\varepsilon _{2}>0\) satisfying

$$ 1-c (\varepsilon _{1} +\varepsilon _{2} )>0, $$

equivalence (47) holds.

Now, we prove inequality (48). Since g is positive and \(g(0)>0\), then, for any \(t_{0} >0\), we have

$$ \int _{0}^{t}g(s)\,ds \ge \int _{0}^{t_{0}}g(s)\,ds=g_{0}>0,\quad \forall t \ge t_{0}. $$

By using (20), (36), (39), and the definition of \(E(t)\), for \(t\ge t_{0}\) and any \(m>0\), we have

$$ \begin{aligned}[b]L^{\prime }(t)\le{}& {-}mE(t)- \biggl(\varepsilon _{2}(g_{0}-\delta )- \varepsilon _{1}-\frac{m}{2} \biggr) \Vert u_{t} \Vert _{2}^{2} \\ & {} - \biggl(\frac{\ell }{2}\varepsilon _{1}-\varepsilon _{2} \delta - \frac{m}{2} \biggr) \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{2} - \biggl(\varepsilon _{1}- \frac{(k+2)m}{4} \biggr) \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2} \\ & {} + \biggl(k\varepsilon _{1} -k\frac{m}{2} \biggr) \int _{ \varOmega }u^{2} \ln { \vert u \vert }\,dx+ \biggl(c\varepsilon _{1} + \varepsilon _{2} \frac{c}{\delta }+\frac{m}{2} \biggr) (go\Delta u) (t) \\ & {} + \biggl(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{c \varepsilon _{2}}{\delta } \biggr) \bigl(g ^{\prime }o\Delta u\bigr) (t)+\varepsilon _{2} c_{\epsilon _{0} ,\delta }(go \Delta u)^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}(t). \end{aligned} $$

Using the logarithmic Sobolev inequality, for \(0< m<2 \varepsilon _{1}\), we get

$$ \begin{aligned}[b] L^{\prime }(t)\le{}& {-}m E(t)- \biggl(\varepsilon _{2}(g_{0}-\delta )- \varepsilon _{1}-\frac{m}{2} \biggr) \Vert u_{t} \Vert _{2}^{2} \\ & {} - \biggl(\frac{\ell }{2}\varepsilon _{1}-\varepsilon _{2} \delta -\frac{m}{2}-k \biggl(\varepsilon _{1}-\frac{m}{2} \biggr)\frac{ c_{p} a^{2}}{2 \pi } \biggr) \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{2} \\ &{} - \biggl(\varepsilon _{1} -\frac{m(k+2)}{4} +k \biggl( \varepsilon _{1} -\frac{m}{2} \biggr) (1+\ln {a} ) +k \biggl( \frac{m}{4} -\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{2} \biggr)\ln { \Vert u \Vert ^{2}_{2}} \biggr) \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2} \\ & {} + \biggl(c\varepsilon _{1}+\varepsilon _{2} \frac{c}{ \delta }+\frac{m}{2} \biggr) (go\Delta u) (t) \\ &{} + \biggl(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{c \varepsilon _{2}}{\delta } \biggr) \bigl(g ^{\prime }o\Delta u\bigr) (t)+\varepsilon _{2} c_{\epsilon _{0} ,\delta }(go \Delta u)^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}(t). \end{aligned} $$

At this point we choose δ so small that

$$ g_{0}-\delta > \frac{1}{2}g_{0} \quad \text{and} \quad \delta < \frac{\ell g_{0}}{16}. $$

Whence δ is fixed, the choice of any two positive constants \(\varepsilon _{1}\) and \(\varepsilon _{2}\) satisfying

$$ \frac{g_{0}}{4}\varepsilon _{2}< \varepsilon _{1} < \frac{g_{0}}{2} \varepsilon _{2} $$

will make

$$ k_{1}:=\varepsilon _{2}(g_{0}-\delta )- \varepsilon _{1}>0 \quad \text{and} \quad k_{2}:= \frac{\ell }{2}\varepsilon _{1}-\varepsilon _{2} \delta >0. $$

Then we choose \(\varepsilon _{1}\) and \(\varepsilon _{2}\) so small that (49) and (52) remain valid and, further,

$$ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{c\varepsilon _{2}}{\delta }>0. $$

Consequently, we get (47) and

$$\begin{aligned} L^{\prime }(t) \le& -m E(t)- \biggl(k_{1}-\frac{m}{2} \biggr) \Vert u_{t} \Vert _{2}^{2} \\ &{} - \biggl(k_{2}-\frac{m}{2}-k \biggl(\varepsilon _{1}- \frac{m}{2} \biggr)\frac{ c_{p} a^{2}}{2 \pi } \biggr) \Vert \Delta u \Vert _{2}^{2} \\ &{} - \biggl(\varepsilon _{1} -\frac{m(k+2)}{4} +k \biggl( \varepsilon _{1} -\frac{m}{2} \biggr) (1+\ln {a} ) +k \biggl( \frac{m}{4} -\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{2} \biggr)\ln { \Vert u \Vert ^{2}_{2}} \biggr) \Vert u \Vert _{2}^{2} \\ &{} +c(go\Delta u) (t)+c_{\epsilon _{0} ,\delta }(go\Delta u)^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}(t). \end{aligned}$$

Thanks to (A3), we choose

$$ e^{-\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{k}}< a< \sqrt{\frac{2\pi \ell }{kc_{p}}}. $$

This selection will make

$$ \ell -\frac{k a^{2} c_{p} }{2\pi }>0 \quad \text{and} \quad \frac{k+2}{2} +k (1+\ln {a} ) > 0. $$

Then, using (54) and selecting m and k so small that

$$ \alpha _{1}=k_{1}-\frac{m}{2}>0,\qquad \alpha _{2}=k_{2}-\frac{m}{2}-k \biggl( \varepsilon _{1}-\frac{m}{2} \biggr)\frac{ c_{p} a^{2}}{2 \pi }>0 $$


$$ \alpha _{3}=\varepsilon _{1} -\frac{m(k+2)}{4} +k \biggl(\varepsilon _{1} -\frac{m}{2} \biggr) (1+\ln {a} ) +k \biggl( \frac{m}{4} -\frac{ \varepsilon _{1}}{2} \biggr)\ln { \Vert u \Vert ^{2}_{2}}>0, $$

we arrive at the desired result (48). □

Remark 4.1

Using (13), (19), (25), (31), and (33), we have

$$ E(t)=J(t)+\frac{1}{2} \bigl\Vert u_{t} (t) \bigr\Vert _{2}^{2} \geq J(t)\geq \frac{1}{3} (go \Delta u) (t) . $$

Then, using (20),

$$ (go \Delta u) (t)\leq 3E(t)\leq 3 E(0). $$

Using (55), we obtain

$$ \begin{aligned}[b](go\Delta u) (t)&=(go\Delta u)^{\frac{\epsilon _{0}}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}(t) (go\Delta u)^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}(t) \\ & \le c (go\Delta u)^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}(t). \end{aligned} $$

Remark 4.2

In the case of Gis linear and since ξ is nonincreasing, we have

$$ \begin{aligned}[b]\xi (t) (g\circ \Delta u)^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}(t)&= \bigl(\xi ^{ \epsilon _{0}} (t)\xi (t) (g\circ \Delta u) (t) \bigr)^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}} \\ & \leq \bigl(\xi ^{\epsilon _{0}} (0)\xi (t) (g\circ \Delta u) (t) \bigr)^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} \\ & \leq c \bigl(\xi (t) (g\circ \Delta u) (t) \bigr)^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}} \\ & \leq c\bigl(-E^{\prime }(t)\bigr)^{\frac{1}{(1+\epsilon _{0} )}} . \end{aligned} $$

Lemma 4.5

If (A1)–(A2) are satisfied, then we have the following estimate:

$$ (go\nabla u) (t)\le \frac{t}{q} G^{-1} \biggl(\frac{qI(t)}{t\xi (t)} \biggr), \quad \forall t > 0, $$

whereqis small enough andis defined in Remark (2.1) and the functionalIis defined by

$$ I(t):=\bigl(-g^{\prime }o\nabla u\bigr) (t)\le -c E^{\prime }(t). $$


To establish (58), let us define the following functional:

$$ \lambda (t):=\frac{q}{t} \int _{0}^{t} \bigl\Vert \Delta (t)-\Delta (t-s) \bigr\Vert _{2}^{2}\,ds, \quad \forall t>0. $$

Then, using (19), (20), and the dentition of \(\lambda (t)\), we have

$$ \begin{aligned}[b]\lambda (t)&\leq \frac{2q}{t} \biggl( \int _{0}^{t} \biggl\vert \bigl\vert \Delta (t) \bigr\vert \biggl\vert _{2}^{2}+ \int _{0}^{t} \biggr\vert \bigl\vert \Delta (t-s) \bigr\vert \biggr\vert _{2}^{2}\,ds \biggr). \\ & \le \frac{4q}{\ell t} \biggl( \int _{0}^{t} \bigl(E(t)+E(t-s) \bigr)\,ds \biggr) \\ & \le \frac{8q}{\ell t} \int _{0}^{t} E(s) \,ds \\ & \le \frac{8q}{\ell t} \int _{0}^{t} E(0) \,ds=\frac{8q}{ \ell }E(0)< + \infty . \end{aligned} $$

Thus, q can be chosen so small so that, for all \(t > 0\),

$$ \lambda (t)< 1. $$

Without loss of the generality, for all \(t > 0\), we assume that \(\lambda (t)> 0\), otherwise we get an exponential decay from (48). The use of Jensen’s inequality and using (59), (2.2), and (62) give

$$\begin{aligned} I(t) =&\frac{1}{q\lambda (t)} \int _{0}^{t}\lambda (t) \bigl(-g'(s) \bigr) \int _{ \varOmega }{q \bigl\vert \Delta (t)-\Delta (t-s) \bigr\vert }^{2}\,dx\,ds \\ \ge& \frac{1}{q\lambda (t)} \int _{0}^{t}\lambda (t)\xi (s) G\bigl(g(s) \bigr) \int _{\varOmega }{q \bigl\vert \Delta (t)-\Delta (t-s) \bigr\vert }^{2}\,dx\,ds \\ \ge& \frac{\xi (t)}{q\lambda (t)} \int _{0}^{t}G\bigl(\lambda (t)g(s)\bigr) \int _{\varOmega }{q \bigl\vert \Delta (t)-\Delta (t-s) \bigr\vert }^{2}\,dx\,ds \\ \ge &\frac{t\xi (t)}{q}G \biggl(\frac{q}{t} \int _{0}^{t}g(s) \int _{\varOmega }{ \bigl\vert \Delta (t)-\Delta (t-s) \bigr\vert }^{2}\,dx\,ds \biggr) \\ =&\frac{t \xi (t)}{q}\overline{G} \biggl(\frac{q}{t} \int _{0}^{t}g(s) \int _{\varOmega }{ \bigl\vert \Delta u(t)-\Delta u(t-s) \bigr\vert }^{2}\,dx\,ds \biggr), \end{aligned}$$

hence (58) is established. □

Theorem 4.1

Let\((u_{0},u_{1}) \in H^{2}_{0}(\varOmega ) \times L^{2}(\varOmega )\). Assume that (A1)–(A3) and (30) hold. Then there exist positive constants\(C_{1}\), \(C_{2}\), \(t_{0}\), and\(t_{1}\)such that the solution of (1) satisfies, for all\(t \geq t_{1}\),

$$\begin{aligned}& E(t)\le C_{1} \biggl(1+ \int _{t_{0}}^{t}\xi ^{1+\epsilon _{0}}(s)\,ds \biggr) ^{\frac{-1}{\epsilon _{0}}}, \quad \textit{if }G\textit{ is linear}, \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}& E(t) \leq C_{2} t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} {K_{2}}^{-1} \biggl( \frac{k _{2}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}\int _{t_{1}}^{t}\xi (s) \,ds } \biggr), \quad \textit{if }G\textit{ is nonlinear}, \end{aligned}$$

where\({K_{2}}(s)=s K^{\prime }(\varepsilon _{1}s)\)and\(K(t)= ( [G ^{-1} ]^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} )^{-1}(t)\).


Case 1: G is linear.

We multiply (48) by \(\xi (t)\) and use (56) and (57) to get

$$ \begin{aligned} &\xi (t) L^{\prime }(t) \le -m \xi (t)E(t)+c \bigl( -E^{\prime }(t) \bigr) ^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}, \quad \forall t\ge t_{0}. \end{aligned} $$

Multiply (66) by \(\xi ^{\epsilon _{0}}(t) E^{\epsilon _{0}}(t)\) and recall that \(\xi ^{\prime } \le 0\) to obtain

$$ \xi ^{\epsilon _{0} +1}(t)E^{\epsilon _{0}}(t)L^{\prime }(t) \le -m \xi ^{\epsilon _{0} +1}(t)E^{\epsilon _{0}+1}(t)+c (\xi E ) ^{\epsilon _{0}}(t) \bigl(-E^{\prime }(t) \bigr)^{\frac{1}{\epsilon _{0} +1}} , \quad \forall t\ge t_{0}. $$

Use of Young’s inequality, with \(q=\epsilon _{0}+1\) and \(q^{*}=\frac{ \epsilon _{0}+1}{\epsilon _{0}}\), gives, for any \(\varepsilon ^{\prime } >0\),

$$ \begin{aligned}\xi ^{\epsilon _{0} +1}(t)E^{\epsilon _{0}}(t)L^{\prime }(t) &\le -m \xi ^{\epsilon _{0} +1}(t)E^{\epsilon _{0}+1}(t) +c \bigl(\varepsilon ^{\prime } \xi ^{\epsilon _{0}+1}(t)E^{\epsilon _{0}+1}-c_{\varepsilon ^{\prime }}E ^{\prime }(t) \bigr) \\ & =-\bigl(m-\varepsilon ^{\prime } c\bigr)\xi ^{\epsilon _{0} +1}(t)E ^{\epsilon _{0}+1}-cE^{\prime }(t), \quad \forall t\ge t_{0}. \end{aligned} $$

We then choose \(0<\varepsilon ^{\prime } <\frac{m}{c}\) and use that \(\xi ^{\prime } \le 0\) and \(E^{\prime } \le 0\) to get, for \(c_{1} =m- \varepsilon ^{\prime } c\),

$$ \bigl( \xi ^{\epsilon _{0} +1} E^{\epsilon _{0}}L \bigr)^{\prime }(t) \le \xi ^{\epsilon _{0}+1}(t) E^{\epsilon _{0}}(t) L_{1}^{\prime }(t) \le -c_{1} \xi ^{\epsilon _{0}+1}(t) E^{\epsilon _{0}+1}(t) -c E^{\prime }(t), \quad \forall t\ge t_{0}, $$

which implies

$$ \bigl( \xi ^{\epsilon _{0}+1}E^{\epsilon _{0}} L+cE \bigr)^{\prime }(t) \le -c_{1} \xi ^{\epsilon _{0}+1}(t) E^{\epsilon _{0}+1}(t), \quad \forall t\ge t_{0} . $$

Let \(L_{1}=\xi ^{\epsilon _{0} +1}E^{\epsilon _{0}}L +cE\). Then \(L_{1}\sim E\) (thanks to (47)) and

$$ L_{1}^{\prime }(t) \le -c \xi ^{\epsilon _{0}+1}(t) L_{1}^{\epsilon _{0}+1}(t), \quad \forall t \ge t_{0}. $$

Integrating over \((t_{0},t)\) and using the fact that \(L_{1} \sim E\), we obtain (64).

Case 2: G is nonlinear.

Using (48), (56), and (58), we obtain, \(\forall t\ge t_{0}\),

$$ L^{\prime }(t)\le -m E(t)+ct^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} \biggl[G^{-1} \biggl(\frac{qI(t)}{t\xi (t)} \biggr) \biggr]^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}. $$

Combining the strictly increasing property of and the fact that \(\frac{1}{t} < 1\) whenever \(t > 1\), we obtain

$$ G^{-1} \biggl(\frac{qI(t)}{t\xi (t)} \biggr)\le G^{-1} \biggl(\frac{qI(t)}{t ^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}\xi (t)} \biggr), $$

and then (67) becomes, for \(\forall t \ge t_{1}=\max {\{t_{0},1\}}\),

$$ \begin{aligned} &L^{\prime }(t)\le -m E(t)+ct^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} \biggl[G^{-1} \biggl(\frac{qI(t)}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}\xi (t)} \biggr) \biggr] ^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}. \end{aligned} $$


$$ K(t)= \bigl( \bigl[G^{-1} \bigr]^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} \bigr) ^{-1}(t), \qquad \chi (t)=\frac{qI(t)}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} \xi (t)}. $$

In fact,

$$\begin{aligned}& K^{\prime }=(1+\epsilon _{0}) G^{\prime } \bigl(G^{-1} \bigr)^{\frac{ \epsilon _{0}}{1+\epsilon }}>0 \quad \text{on } (0,r], \\& K^{\prime \prime }=\frac{\epsilon _{0}}{{(G^{-1})}^{1+\epsilon _{0}}}+(1+ \epsilon _{0}) \bigl(G^{-1} \bigr)^{\frac{\epsilon _{0}}{1+\epsilon }}G ^{\prime \prime } >0 \quad \text{on } (0,r]. \end{aligned}$$

So, (69) reduces to

$$ L_{1}^{\prime }(t)\le -m E(t)+ct^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} K^{-1}\bigl( \chi (t)\bigr), \quad \forall t\ge t_{1}. $$

Now, for \(\varepsilon _{1}< r\) and using (71) and the fact that \(E^{\prime }\le 0\), \(K^{\prime }>0\), \(K^{\prime \prime }>0\) on \((0,r]\), we find that the functional \(L_{2}\), defined by

$$ L_{2}(t):=K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr)L_{1}(t), $$

satisfies, for some \(\alpha _{1},\alpha _{2}>0\),

$$ \alpha _{1} L_{2}(t)\le E(t)\le \alpha _{2}L_{2}(t), $$

and, for all \(t\ge t_{1}\),

$$ \begin{aligned} &L_{2}^{\prime }(t) \le -m E(t)K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t ^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr)+ct^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}K^{\prime } \biggl( \frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr)K^{-1}\bigl( \chi (t)\bigr). \end{aligned} $$

Let \(K^{*}\) be the convex conjugate of K in the sense of Young (see [57]), then

$$ K^{*}(s)=s\bigl(K^{\prime } \bigr)^{-1}(s)-K \bigl[\bigl(K^{\prime }\bigr)^{-1}(s) \bigr], \quad \text{if } s\in \bigl(0,K^{\prime }(r)\bigr], $$

and \(K^{*}\) satisfies the following generalized Young inequality:

$$ A B\le K^{*}(A)+K(B), \quad \text{if } A\in \bigl(0,K^{\prime }(r)\bigr], B\in (0,r]. $$

So, with \(A=K^{\prime } (\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} )\) and \(B=K^{-1}(\chi (t))\), we arrive at

$$ \begin{aligned}[b]L_{2}^{\prime }(t) \le{}& {-}m E(t)K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t ^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr)+c t^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}K^{*} \biggl(K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t ^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr) \biggr) \\ & {} +c t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}\chi (t) \\ \le{}& {-}m E(t)K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t ^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr)+c \frac{E(t)}{E(0)}K^{\prime } \biggl( \frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr) \\ & {} +ct^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}\chi (t). \end{aligned} $$

Then, multiplying (76) by \(\xi (t)\) and using (59), (70), we get

$$ \begin{aligned}\xi (t)L_{2}^{\prime }(t)\le{}& {-}m \xi (t) E(t)K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{ \varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr)+c \varepsilon _{1} \xi (t) \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)}K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr) \\ & {}-cE^{\prime }(t), \quad \forall t\ge t_{1}. \end{aligned} $$

Using the nonincreasing property of ξ, we obtain, for all \(t \ge t_{1}\),

$$ \begin{aligned}(\xi L_{2}+cE)^{\prime }(t)\le{}& {-}m \xi (t) E(t)K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{ \varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr) \\ & {} +c \varepsilon _{1}\xi (t) \frac{E(t)}{E(0)}K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr). \end{aligned} $$

Therefore, by setting \(L_{3}:=\xi L_{2}+cE \sim E\), we conclude that

$$ F_{3}^{\prime }(t)\le -m \xi (t) E(t)K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{ \varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr)+c \varepsilon _{1} \xi (t) \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)}K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr). $$

This gives, for a suitable choice of \(\varepsilon _{1}\),

$$ \begin{aligned} &L_{3}^{\prime }(t)\le -k \xi (t) \biggl(\frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr)K ^{\prime } \biggl( \frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr), \quad \forall t\ge t_{1}, \end{aligned} $$


$$ k \biggl(\frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr)K^{\prime } \biggl( \frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr) \xi (t)\leq - L_{3}^{\prime }(t), \quad \forall t\ge t_{1}. $$

An integration of (77) yields

$$ \int _{t_{1}}^{t} k \biggl( \frac{E(s)}{E(0)} \biggr)K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{ \varepsilon _{1}}{s^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(s)}{E(0)} \biggr)\xi (s) \,ds \leq - \int _{t_{1}}^{t} L_{3}^{ \prime }(s)\,ds \le L_{3}(t_{1}). $$

Using the facts that \(K',K'' > 0\) and the nonincreasing property of E, we deduce that the map \(t \mapsto E(t)K^{\prime } (\frac{ \varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} )\) is nonincreasing; consequently, we have

$$ \begin{aligned} & k \biggl( \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr)K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{ \varepsilon _{1}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr) \int _{t_{1}}^{t} \xi (s) \,ds \\ & \quad \leq \int _{t_{1}}^{t} k \biggl( \frac{E(s)}{E(0)} \biggr)K ^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{s^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(s)}{E(0)} \biggr)\xi (s) \,ds\le L_{3}(t_{1}), \quad \forall t\ge t_{1}. \end{aligned} $$

Multiplying each side of (79) by \(\frac{1}{t^{\frac{1}{1+ \epsilon _{0}}}}\), we have

$$ k \biggl(\frac{1}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr) K^{\prime } \biggl(\frac{\varepsilon _{1}}{t ^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr) \int _{t _{1}}^{t} \xi (s) \,ds \leq \frac{k_{2}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}}, \quad \forall t\ge t_{1}. $$

Next, we set \({K_{2}}(s)=s K^{\prime }(\varepsilon _{1}s)\), which is strictly increasing, and consequently we obtain

$$ k K_{2} \biggl(\frac{1}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}} \cdot \frac{E(t)}{E(0)} \biggr) \int _{t_{1}}^{t} \xi (s) \,ds \leq \frac{k _{2}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}}, \quad \forall t\ge t_{1}. $$

Finally, for two positive constants \(k_{2}\) and \(k_{3}\), we infer

$$ E(t) \leq k_{3} t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}} {K_{2}}^{-1} \biggl( \frac{k _{2}}{t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon _{0}}}\int _{t_{1}}^{t}\xi (s) \,ds } \biggr). $$

This finishes the proof. □

The following examples illustrate our results.

Example 4.2

Let \(g(t)=a e^{-b(1+t)}\), where \(b>0\) and \(a>0\) is small enough so that (A1) holds. Then \(g^{\prime }(t)=-\xi (t) G(g(t))\), where \(G(t)=t\) and \(\xi (t)=b\). Therefore, we can use (64) to deduce

$$ E(t) \leq \frac{c_{1}}{(1+t)^{\frac{1}{\epsilon _{0}}}}. $$

Example 4.3

Let \(g(t)=\frac{a}{(1+t)^{q}}\), where \(q >1+\epsilon _{0}\) and a is chosen so that hypothesis (A1) is satisfied. Then

$$ g^{\prime }(t)=-b G\bigl(g(t)\bigr), \quad \text{with } G(s)=s^{\frac{q+1}{q}}, $$

where b is a fixed constant. Since \(\varPhi (s)=s^{ \frac{(\epsilon _{0}+1)(q+1)}{q}}\), then (65) gives

$$ E(t)\leq \frac{c}{t^{\frac{q-1-\epsilon _{0}}{(1+\epsilon _{0})^{2} (q+1)}}}. $$


  1. 1.

    Gorka, P.: Logarithmic Klein–Gordon equation. Acta Phys. Pol. 40, 59–66 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hiramatsu, T., Kawasaki, M., Takahashi, F.: Numerical study of q-ball formation in gravity mediation. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2010(06), 008 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Han, X., Wang, M.: General decay estimate of energy for the second order evolution equations with memory. Acta Appl. Math. 110(1), 195–207 (2010)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Messaoudi, S.A., Al-Khulaifi, W.: General and optimal decay for a quasilinear viscoelastic equation. Appl. Math. Lett. 66, 16–22 (2017)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Mustafa, M.I.: Optimal decay rates for the viscoelastic wave equation. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 41(1), 192–204 (2018)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Al-Gharabli, M.M., Guesmia, A., Messaoudi, S.A.: Existence and a general decay results for a viscoelastic plate equation with a logarithmic nonlinearity. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 18(1), 159–180 (2019)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bartkowski, K., Górka, P.: One-dimensional Klein–Gordon equation with logarithmic nonlinearities. J. Phys. A, Math. Theor. 41(35), 355201 (2008)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bialynicki-Birula, I., Mycielski, J.: Wave equations with logarithmic nonlinearities. Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., Cl. 3(23), 461 (1975)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Barrow, J.D., Parsons, P.: Inflationary models with logarithmic potentials. Phys. Rev. D 52(10), 5576 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Enqvist, K., McDonald, J.: Q-balls and baryogenesis in the MSSM. Phys. Lett. B 425(3–4), 309–321 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bialynicki-Birula, I., Mycielski, J.: Nonlinear wave mechanics. Ann. Phys. 100(1–2), 62–93 (1976)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Górka, P., Prado, H., Reyes, E.: Nonlinear equations with infinitely many derivatives. Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 5(1), 313–323 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Vladimirov, V.S.: The equation of the p-adic open string for the scalar tachyon field. Izv. Math. 69(3), 487 (2005)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Cazenave, T., Haraux, A.: Équations d’évolution avec non linéarité logarithmique. In: Annales de la Faculté des Sciences de Toulouse: Mathématiques, vol. 2, pp. 21–51 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Han, X.: Global existence of weak solutions for a logarithmic wave equation arising from q-ball dynamics. Bull. Korean Math. Soc. 50(1), 275–283 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kafini, M., Messaoudi, S.: Local existence and blow up of solutions to a logarithmic nonlinear wave equation with delay. Appl. Anal., 1–18 (2018)

  17. 17.

    Peyravi, A.: General stability and exponential growth for a class of semi-linear wave equations with logarithmic source and memory terms. Appl. Math. Optim., 1–17 (2018)

  18. 18.

    Xu, R., Lian, W., Kong, X., Yang, Y.: Fourth order wave equation with nonlinear strain and logarithmic nonlinearity. Appl. Numer. Math. 141, 185–205 (2019)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lian, W., Xu, R.: Global well-posedness of nonlinear wave equation with weak and strong damping terms and logarithmic source term. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 9(1), 613–632 (2019)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wang, X., Chen, Y., Yang, Y., Li, J., Xu, R.: Kirchhoff-type system with linear weak damping and logarithmic nonlinearities. Nonlinear Anal. 188, 475–499 (2019)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Lagnese, J.E.: Asymptotic energy estimates for Kirchhoff plates subject to weak viscoelastic damping. Int. Ser. Numer. Math. 91, 211–236 (1989)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Rivera, J.M., Lapa, E.C., Barreto, R.: Decay rates for viscoelastic plates with memory. J. Elast. 44(1), 61–87 (1996)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Messaoudi, S.A.: Global existence and nonexistence in a system of Petrovsky. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 265(2), 296–308 (2002)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chen, W., Zhou, Y.: Global nonexistence for a semilinear Petrovsky equation. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 70(9), 3203–3208 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    de Lima Santos, M., Junior, F.: A boundary condition with memory for Kirchhoff plates equations. Appl. Comput. Math. 148(2), 475–496 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Guesmia, A., et al.: Existence globale et stabilisation interne non linéaire d’un système de Petrovsky. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin 5(4), 583–594 (1998)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lagnese, J.: Boundary Stabilization of Thin Plates. SIAM, Philadelphia (1989) Google Scholar

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Lasiecka, I.: Exponential decay rates for the solutions of Euler–Bernoulli equations with boundary dissipation occurring in the moments only. J. Differ. Equ. 95(1), 169–182 (1992)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Al-Mahdi, A.M.: Optimal decay result for Kirchhoff plate equations with nonlinear damping and very general type of relaxation functions. Bound. Value Probl. 2019(1), 82 (2019)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Christensen, R.: Theory of Viscoelasticity: An Introduction. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Dafermos, C.M.: Asymptotic stability in viscoelasticity. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 37(4), 297–308 (1970)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Dafermos, C.M.: An abstract Volterra equation with applications to linear viscoelasticity. J. Differ. Equ. 7(3), 554–569 (1970)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cavalcanti, M.M., Domingos Cavalcanti, V.N., Soriano, J.A.: Exponential decay for the solution of semilinear viscoelastic wave equations with localized damping. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2002, 44 (2002)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Berrimi, S., Messaoudi, S.A.: Exponential decay of solutions to a viscoelastic equation with nonlinear localized damping. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2004, 88 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Cavalcanti, M.M., Oquendo, H.P.: Frictional versus viscoelastic damping in a semilinear wave equation. SIAM J. Control Optim. 42(4), 1310–1324 (2003)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Messaoudi, S.A.: General decay of the solution energy in a viscoelastic equation with a nonlinear source. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 69(8), 2589–2598 (2008)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Messaoudi, S.A.: General decay of solutions of a viscoelastic equation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 341(2), 1457–1467 (2008)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Liu, W.: General decay of solutions to a viscoelastic wave equation with nonlinear localized damping. In: Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ. Mathematica, vol. 34, pp. 291–302 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Liu, W.: General decay rate estimate for a viscoelastic equation with weakly nonlinear time-dependent dissipation and source terms. J. Math. Phys. 50(11), 113506 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Messaoudi, S.A., Mustafa, M.I.: On the control of solutions of viscoelastic equations with boundary feedback. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 10(5), 3132–3140 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Mustafa, M.I.: Uniform decay rates for viscoelastic dissipative systems. J. Dyn. Control Syst. 22(1), 101–116 (2016)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Mustafa, M.I.: Well posedness and asymptotic behavior of a coupled system of nonlinear viscoelastic equations. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 13(1), 452–463 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Park, J.Y., Park, S.H.: General decay for quasilinear viscoelastic equations with nonlinear weak damping. J. Math. Phys. 50(8), 083505 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Wu, S.-T.: General decay for a wave equation of Kirchhoff type with a boundary control of memory type. Bound. Value Probl. 2011(1), 55 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Lasiecka, I., Tataru, D., et al.: Uniform boundary stabilization of semilinear wave equations with nonlinear boundary damping. Differ. Integral Equ. 6(3), 507–533 (1993)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Alabau-Boussouira, F., Cannarsa, P.: A general method for proving sharp energy decay rates for memory-dissipative evolution equations. C. R. Math. 347(15–16), 867–872 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Cavalcanti, M.M., Domingos Cavalcanti, V.N., Lasiecka, I., Falcao Nascimento, F.A.: Intrinsic decay rate estimates for the wave equation with competing viscoelastic and frictional dissipative effects. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Ser. B 19(7), 1987–2012 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Cavalcanti, M.M., Cavalcanti, A.D., Lasiecka, I., Wang, X.: Existence and sharp decay rate estimates for a von Karman system with long memory. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 22, 289–306 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Lasiecka, I., Messaoudi, S.A., Mustafa, M.I.: Note on intrinsic decay rates for abstract wave equations with memory. J. Math. Phys. 54(3), 031504 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Mustafa, M.I.: On the control of the wave equation by memory-type boundary condition. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Ser. A 35(3), 1179–1192 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Xiao, T.-J., Liang, J.: Coupled second order semilinear evolution equations indirectly damped via memory effects. J. Differ. Equ. 254(5), 2128–2157 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Lasiecka, I., Wang, X.: Intrinsic decay rate estimates for semilinear abstract second order equations with memory. In: New Prospects in Direct, Inverse and Control Problems for Evolution Equations, pp. 271–303. Springer, Berlin (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Mustafa, M.I., Messaoudi, S.A.: General stability result for viscoelastic wave equations. J. Math. Phys. 53(5), 053702 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Cavalcanti, M.M., Cavalcanti, V.N.D., Lasiecka, I., Webler, C.M.: Intrinsic decay rates for the energy of a nonlinear viscoelastic equation modeling the vibrations of thin rods with variable density. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 6(2), 121–145 (2017)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Gross, L.: Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities. Am. J. Math. 97(4), 1061–1083 (1975)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Chen, H., Luo, P., Liu, G.: Global solution and blow-up of a semilinear heat equation with logarithmic nonlinearity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 422(1), 84–98 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Arnol’d, V.I.: Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, vol. 60. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The author thanks KFUPM for its continuous support and also thanks an anonymous referee for his/her very careful reading and valuable suggestions. This work was funded by KFUPM under Project #SB181018.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ information

Not applicable.


This work is funded by KFUPM under Project (SB181018).

Author information




I read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad M. Al-Gharabli.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Additional information


Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is 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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Gharabli, M.M. New general decay results for a viscoelastic plate equation with a logarithmic nonlinearity. Bound Value Probl 2019, 194 (2019).

Download citation


  • Optimal decay
  • Plate equations
  • Viscoelastic
  • Convexity