Existence of weak solutions to multiphase
Cahn–Hilliard–Darcy and Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman
models for stratified tumor growth with
chemotaxis and general source terms
Patrik Knopf
∗Andrea Signori
†This is a preprint version of the paper. Please cite as: P. Knopf and A. Signori, [Journal] (2022)
https://doi.org/...
Abstract
We investigate a multiphase Cahn–Hilliard model for tumor growth with general source terms. The multiphase approach allows us to consider multiple cell types and multiple chemical species (oxygen and/or nutrients) that are consumed by the tumor. Compared to classical two-phase tumor growth models, the multiphase model can be used to describe a stratified tumor exhibiting several layers of tissue (e.g., proliferating, quiescent and necrotic tissue) more precisely. Our model consists of a convective Cahn–Hilliard type equation to describe the tumor evolution, a velocity equation for the associated volume-averaged velocity field, and a convective reaction-diffusion type equation to describe the density of the chemical species. The velocity equation is either represented by Darcy’s law or by the Brinkman equation. We first construct a global weak solution of the multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman model. After that, we show that such weak solutions of the system converge to a weak solution of the multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Darcy system as the viscosities tend to zero in some suitable sense. This means that the existence of a global weak solution to the Cahn–Hilliard–Darcy system is also established.
Keywords: Tumor growth; Multiphase model; Chemotaxis; Cahn–Hilliard equation; Brinkman’s law; Darcy’s law; Limit of vanishing viscosities.
Mathematics Subject Classification: 35D30, 35K35, 35K86, 35Q92, 76D07, 92C17, 92C50.
1
Introduction
The growth of cancer cells is affected by many biological and chemical mechanisms. Although there already exists a large amount of experimental data resulting from clinical experiments, the possibilities of predicting tumor growth are still in great need of improvement. In particular, it is crucial to gain a better understanding of the underlying biological mechanisms such as proliferation, chemotaxis and necrosis.
In the recent past, several mathematical models for tumor growth have been developed and analyzed from many different viewpoints. Notably, diffuse interface models have gained a lot of interest (see, e.g., [42,52,
59,61]) and, at least for some of them, it could already be shown that they compare very well with clinical data (cf. [2,3,8,39]). Therefore, such models might provide further insights into tumor growth dynamics, especially to understand its key mechanisms and to develop patient-specific treatment strategies.
Many of these diffuse interface models for tumor growth consist of a Cahn–Hilliard equation with addi-tional source terms to describe the tumor, coupled to a reaction-diffusion type equation to describe
chem-∗Department of Mathematics, University of Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
†Dipartimento di Matematica “F. Casorati”, Universit`a di Pavia, via Ferrata 5, 27100 Pavia, Italy
ical substances which are consumed by the tumor (usually oxygen and/or nutrients). Most of these mod-els are two-component phase field modmod-els, meaning that only two types of cells, namely tumor cells and healthy cells, are considered. We refer to [16–18,42,43,45,49,54,65] for the analysis of such models, and to [14,19–21,53,55,60,63,68–73] for the investigation of associated optimal control problems.
It is further known that biological materials usually exhibit viscoelastic properties. For that reason, it was suggested in several works in the literature to include an additional velocity equation in tumor growth models to describe such effects. In some papers, the Stokes equation was employed to describe the tumor as a viscous fluid (see, e.g., [13,15,37,40,41]). In other works, Darcy’s law, which is usually used to describe a viscous flow permeating a porous medium, was chosen instead (cf. [12,36,58]). In general, in the context of tumor growth models, both descriptions are a reasonable choice as the Reynolds number associated with the biological tissues is very small. The decision between Stokes and Darcy depends on the concrete situation that is to be described. However, from the viewpoint of mathematical analysis, Darcy’s law is often more difficult to handle because no derivatives of the velocity field, which could be used to obtain additional regularity, are involved in the equation. In recent times, Brinkman’s equation has also become a popular option (cf. [27,62,74,79]) as it interpolates between the Stokes type and the Darcy type description. The Cahn–Hilliard equation coupled to Darcy’s law is sometimes also referred to as the Cahn–Hilliard– Hele–Shaw system (especially in the context of two-phase flows). We refer, for example, to [25,35,57] for its mathematical investigation. The Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman system was investigated, for instance, in [9,22,23]. A two-component Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman model for tumor growth (including a reaction-diffusion type equation to describe the nutrient density) was proposed and analyzed in [28]. A simplified variant of this model was studied in [29–33].
Although such two-cell-species Cahn–Hilliard type models are very viable when describing the growth of a young tumor whose evolution is mainly governed by proliferation, they are somewhat limited when processes such as necrosis (cf. [52]) or hypoxia (that is an undersupply of oxygen, cf. [11]) of tumor cells have already taken place. Indeed, as illustrated in Figure 1, larger and more mature tumors tend to become stratified (cf. [64,67,76]), meaning that the tumor tissue consists of several layers where each of them exhibits different properties. Indeed, spectroscopic imaging and mapping techniques (see, e.g., [78]) suggest that in many situations, a tumor consists of three layers: a quickly proliferating outer rim, an intermediate quiescent layer whose cells suffer from hypoxia, and a necrotic core whose cells have already died off. For a more detailed discussion, we refer the reader to Section2.
For these reasons, several multiphase models, which allow to describe multiple types of cell species and nutrients, have already been introduced in the literature. We refer the reader to [6,7,34,38,46,52,66,77] and the references therein.
A multiphase Cahn–Hilliard model for tumor growth. In this paper, we combine the ideas of [52] and [28], and we consider the following multiphase Cahn–Hilliard model for tumor growth:
div(v) = Sv(ϕ, σ) in Q, (1.1a)
−div T(ϕ, v, p) + νv = (∇ϕ)>µ − (∇σ)>N
σ(ϕ, σ) in Q, (1.1b)
∂tϕ + div(ϕ ⊗ v) = div C(ϕ, σ)∇µ + Sϕ(ϕ, σ, µ) in Q, (1.1c)
µ = −γε∆ϕ + γε−1Ψϕ(ϕ) + Nϕ(ϕ, σ) in Q, (1.1d)
∂tσ + div(σ ⊗ v) = div D(ϕ, σ)∇Nσ(ϕ, σ) − Sσ(ϕ, σ, µ) in Q, (1.1e)
∂nϕ = 0 on Σ, (1.1f) ∂nµ = 0 on Σ, (1.1g) D(ϕ, σ)∇Nσ(ϕ, σ)n = SΓ(ϕ, σ) on Σ, (1.1h) T(ϕ, v, p)n = 0 on Σ, (1.1i) ϕ|t=0= ϕ0 in Ω, (1.1j) σ|t=0= σ0 in Ω. (1.1k)
Here, Ω ⊂ Rd with d ∈ {2, 3} denotes a bounded, smooth domain with boundary Γ, and T > 0 stands for an arbitrary final time. The outward unit normal vector of Γ is denoted by n, ∂ndenotes the corresponding
outward normal derivative, whereas ⊗ denotes the standard tensor product between two vectors. We further use the notation Q := Ω × (0, T ) and Σ := Γ × (0, T ) .
In this system of partial differential equations, the following quantities are involved:
• The tumor is represented by the vector-valued phase field function ϕ = (ϕ1, ..., ϕL)> (with L ∈ N). For
any i ∈ {1, ..., L}, the component ϕi denotes the volume fraction of the i-th tumor cell type. The healthy
cells are represented by ϕ0, which is defined as
ϕ0:= 1 − L
X
i=1
ϕi in Q.
This ensures that all volume fractions add up to one, that is
L
X
i=0
ϕi= 1 in Q. (1.2)
The vector of chemical potentials associated with the phase field ϕ is denoted by µ = (µ1, ..., µL)>.
Moreover, C(·, ·) is the mobility tensor. The pair (ϕ, µ) is mainly governed by the Cahn–Hilliard type subsystem (1.1c)–(1.1d). Here, Ψϕdenotes the gradient of a given multi-well potential Ψ that is a coercive
function which is bounded from below and attains its global minimum at 0 and at the unit vectors ei,
i = 1, ..., L. By this choice, it is energetically favourable (cf. (1.5)) for the components ϕi, i = 0, ..., L
to attain values close to one (i.e., only the i-th cell type is present) or close to zero (i.e., the i-th cell type is not present) in most parts of the domain Ω. These regions where only one cell type is present are separated by a diffuse interface whose thickness is related to the constant ε > 0. Therefore, ε is usually chosen to be very small. Moreover, the constant γ > 0 is related to the surface tension at the interface. • The nutrients are represented by the vector-valued function σ = (σ1, ..., σM)> (with M ∈ N). For any
j ∈ {1, ..., M }, the component σj≥ 0 denotes the density distribution of the j-th chemical species. These
chemical species are usually oxygen and carbohydrates which are consumed by the tumor cells. The functions Nϕand Nσdenote the partial derivatives of the chemical free energy density N with respect to
the ϕ and the σ variable, respectively. Moreover, D(·, ·) denotes the mobility tensor corresponding to σ. • The function v = (v1, ..., vd) represents the volume-averaged velocity field of the mixture, and p denotes
the associated pressure. The quantity ν in (1.1b) stands for the permeability and is assumed to be a positive constant. The symbol T(ϕ, v, p) denotes the viscous stress tensor which is defined as
T(ϕ, v, p) := 2η(ϕ)Dv + λ(ϕ)div(v)I − pI , (1.3) where Dv := 1 2 ∇v + (∇v)> (1.4)
stands for the symmetrized velocity gradient. Here, η and λ are nonnegative functions representing the shear viscosity and the bulk viscosity, respectively.
If η and λ are identically zero, (1.1b) is known as Darcy’s law, and we refer to the system (1.1) as the multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Darcy system (MCHD). If η and λ are positive, (1.1b) is called the Brinkman equation, which can be regarded as an interpolation between Darcy’s law (η = λ = 0 and ν > 0) and the Stokes equation (η, λ > 0 and ν = 0). In this scenario, the system (1.1) is referred to as the multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman system (MCHB).
• The homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions (1.1f) and (1.1g) are standard choices for Cahn-Hilliard type equations. The condition (1.1f) entails that the mass flux over the boundary is zero. If the diffuse interface associated with the phase-field ϕ intersects the boundary Γ, the condition (1.1g) enforces a
perfect ninety degree contact angle. However, as we are mainly interested in situations where the tumor is confined in the domain Ω (i.e., the interface does not intersect the boundary at all), the condition (1.1g) is primarily motivated from the viewpoint of mathematical analysis.
• The condition (1.1h) describes the nutrient flux over the boundary which is governed by the source term SΓ. In particular, if SΓ is identically zero, no nutrients can enter or leave the domain over the boundary.
In the Brinkman case (η, λ > 0), the condition (1.1i) can be understood as a “no friction” boundary condition on the velocity field. In the Darcy case (η ≡ 0 and λ ≡ 0), this boundary condition degenerates to a homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition on the pressure, i.e., p = 0 on Σ.
• The functions Sv, Sϕ, and Sσ are generic source terms that can be specified depending on the application.
In Section2.1, we present a concrete example for a suitable choice of these source terms in a four-cell-species tumor model.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the model (1.1) is associated with the following free energy (cf. [52]):
E(ϕ, σ) = Z Ω γε−1Ψ(ϕ) + γε 2 L X i=1 |∇ϕi|2dx + Z Ω N (ϕ, σ) dx. (1.5)
Here, the first integral is referred to as the Ginzburg–Landau energy. The second contribution is the chemical free energy. It is associated with the nutrient density N which is usually assumed to be of the form
N (ϕ, σ) = χσ 2 |σ|
2
− G(ϕ, σ)
for a suitable function G. A reasonable choice for the function G in a four-cell-species tumor model is presented in Section2.2.
In the absence of source terms (i.e., Sv≡ 0, Sϕ≡ 0, Sσ≡ 0, and SΓ ≡ 0), we obtain the following energy
law: d dtE(ϕ, σ) + Z Ω 2η(ϕ)|Dv|2+ ν|v|2dx + Z Ω C(ϕ, σ)∇µ : ∇µ + D(ϕ, σ)∇Nσ(ϕ, σ) : ∇Nσ(ϕ, σ) dx = 0. (1.6)
If the tensors C and D are chosen appropriately (i.e., at least positive semidefinite), then both integrals on the left-hand side are nonnegative. This implies that the energy is decreasing along solutions of the system (1.1) over the course of time. Therefore, (1.6) describes the dissipation of the free energy, and in this context, the integrals on the left-hand side of (1.6) can be understood as the dissipation rate. This means that, at least in the absence of source terms, the model (1.1) is thermodynamically consistent.
The multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Darcy model (MCHD) is heavily based on the model derived in [52]. The only difference is that we are using a different right-hand side in the velocity equation (1.1b), which is of the same type as the one proposed for the two-cell-species scenario in [28]. We point out that this choice plays a crucial role in the derivation of the energy dissipation law (1.6) and thus, it also provides crucial advantages for the mathematical analysis.
The Darcy type description is particularly suitable if the viscoelastic flow associated with the biological tissues is assumed to behave like a viscous fluid permeating a porous medium. Although there are some situations where this assumption is justified, this is not always the case. Therefore, the multiphase Cahn– Hilliard–Brinkman model (MCHB) might sometimes provide a better description. The two-phase version of the model (MCHB) was originally introduced in [28]. At least formally, the model (MCHB) converges to the model (MCHD) as the viscosities η and λ tend to zero. We will show that this asymptotic limit can be rigorously verified on the level of weak solutions.
In [52], also several numerical simulations for the system (MCHD) (with slightly different boundary condi-tions) were presented. In the case L = 1 and M = 1, where only two cell species (namely tumor cells and
healthy cells) and one nutrient species are considered, the existence of weak solutions to the Cahn–Hilliard– Darcy model with a special choice of source terms and slightly different boundary conditions compared to (1.1) was established in [48]. For further mathematical investigations related to the two-cell-species Cahn– Hilliard–Darcy system we refer the reader to [48,50,51,56] and the references therein.
Existence results for solutions to multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Darcy systems for tumor growth which are related to (1.1) can be found in [24,44]. Although the models studied in [24] and [44] allow for more general potentials Ψ (including singular potentials like the logarithmic Flory–Huggins potential) which definitely makes the construction of solutions more challenging, they can at least to some extend be understood as a simplified variant of the model (1.1). For instance, the systems investigated in [24,44] are limited to three cell species (L = 2) and one nutrient species (M = 1), the mobility tensors C(·, ·) and D(·, ·) are constant diagonal matrices, the nutrient equation is quasi-stationary, and chemotaxis mechanisms are neglected. In the special case L = 1 and M = 1, the Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman model (MCHB), was introduced in [28] where also the existence of weak solutions was established. A numerical investigation can be found in [30]. In [29] a simplified version of this model was investigated, where the time derivative and the convection term in the nutrient equation are neglected. This means that the simplified nutrient equation is a quasi-static elliptic equation. For this model, the authors proved strong well-posedness and showed that the solutions converge to the corresponding Cahn–Hilliard–Darcy model as the viscosities η and λ tend to zero. For the analysis of weak and stationary solutions of this system with singular potentials, we refer to [33]. In [31,32], optimal control problems for this simplified model were investigated. We further want to mention [26], where the optimal control of a nonlocal Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman model (without nutrient equation) was studied. Structure of this paper. The paper is structured as follows. In Section2, based on the general multiphase Cahn–Hilliard model (1.1), we present a concrete example for a four-cell-species tumor model (L = 3) with one species of nutrient (M = 1). In particular, we describe how the source terms and the chemical free energy density can be chosen (in accordance with the mathematical analysis) to describe biologically relevant mechanisms. In Section3, we first fix some notation, recall auxiliary results and introduce assumptions that are necessary for the mathematical analysis. After that, we present the main results of our paper. The existence of a weak solution to (MCHB) is established in Theorem3.5. In Theorem3.7, we show that the weak solutions of the system (MCHB) constructed in Theorem3.5converge to a weak solution to the system (MCHD) as the viscosities η and λ tend to zero in a suitable sense. This is indeed a novel result since even in the two-cell-species model presented in [28], this asymptotic has not been investigated. However, it is worth mentioning that this “Darcy limit” was established rigorously in [29] for strong solutions to a related two-cell-species model with a simplified quasi-stationary nutrient equation. In particular, this proves the existence of weak solutions to the model (MCHD). The proof of Theorem3.5is given in Section4, whereas the proof of Theorem3.7is presented in Section5.
2
A concrete tumor model with four cell species
In order to describe a stratified tumor by the system (1.1), we now suggest explicit choices for the source terms Sv, Sϕ, Sσ, and SΓ as well as the chemical free energy density N . As often suggested in the literature
(see, e.g., [64,67,76] and the references therein), we assume that the tumor exibits three layers:
• a proliferating rim whose cells consume nutrients and oxygen to proliferate rapidly,
• an intermediate quiescent region whose cells do not proliferate any more as they suffer from hypoxia (lack of oxygen) and/or an undersupply of nutrients,
• and a necrotic core whose cells have already died due to the lack of oxygen and nutrients.
An illustration of such a stratified tumor can be found in Figure 1. In the mathematical model, we thus choose L = 3 to describe the three tumor layers as well as the healthy cells. The proliferating tumor cells are associated with ϕ1, the component ϕ2 stands for the quiescent tissue, whereas ϕ3 corresponds to the
necrotic region. The volume fraction of the healthy cells is thus given as ϕ0= 1 − 3 X i=1 ϕi.
For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to consider oxygen and nutrients as one single chemical species, meaning that M = 1. Therefore, the nutrient density is a scalar function; to emphasize this, we will thus write σ instead of σ.
Figure 1: Schematic representation of the layers of a stratified tumor (L = 3).
2.1
The source terms
We first present some explicit choices for the source terms. We assume that Sv, Sϕ, and Sσ depend only on
ϕ and σ but not on µ. Thus, with some abuse of notation, we write
Sϕ(ϕ, σ) = Sϕ(ϕ, σ, µ), Sσ(ϕ, σ) = Sσ(ϕ, σ, µ).
For the source term of the nutrient equation (1.1e), we make the ansatz
Sσ(ϕ, σ) = −Cϕ1σ + B(σΩ− σ). (2.1)
Here, the term −Cϕ1σ describes the consumption of nutrients by the proliferating cells at a constant rate
C > 0. Moreover, B denotes a positive amplifying constant, and the function σΩ stands for a given nutrient
concentration provided by preexisting blood vessels permeating the tissue. Hence, the term B(σΩ− σ)
describes supply (σ < σΩ) or deprivation (σ > σΩ) of nutrients by the vasculature. In a scenario of pure
avascular growth, this term can be neglected.
For the source term in the phase field equation, the following choices are reasonable: Sϕ(ϕ, σ) = ϕ1(Pσ − Q), Qϕ1− Aϕ2, Aϕ2− Dϕ3 > , (2.2a) Sϕ(ϕ, σ) = 1εp(ϕ1)(Pσ − Q), ε1p(ϕ2)(Q − A), 1εp(ϕ3)(A − D) > . (2.2b)
We point out that similar choices were discussed in [52] for a three-cell-species tumor model (L = 2) neglecting the quiescent region. In (2.2), the positive constants P, Q, A and D denote the proliferation rate, the quiescence rate, the apoptosis rate, and the degradation rate, respectively. Moreover, p stands for the polynomialp(s) = s2(1 − s2)2
, s ∈ R.
The option (2.2a) models the increase of proliferating tumor cells at the rate P. The proliferating cells become quiescent at the rate Q which in turn means that the quiescent cells increase at the rate Q. Similarly, due to
apoptosis, the quiescent cells decrease and the necrotic cells increase at the rate A. Eventually, the necrotic cells degrade at the rate D.
The additional idea in (2.2b) is that the expressions p(ϕi), i = 1, 2, 3, are positive at the diffuse interface
(i.e., in (0, 1)) but zero at the values corresponding to the regions where only one cell type is present (i.e., in {0, 1}). This means that the evolution of the interface is directly influenced by the source terms. The scaling factor 1ε is chosen as in [52,59] in order to retain the possibility of passing to the (formal) sharp interface limit ε → 0.
Furthermore, as shown in [52], the property
L
X
i=0
ϕi= ϕ0+ 1 · ϕ = 1,
where 1 = (1, ..., 1)>∈ RL, entails that the source term S
v needs to be chosen as
Sv(ϕ, σ) = 1 · Sϕ(ϕ, σ) + Sϕ0(ϕ, σ), (2.3)
where Sϕ0(ϕ, σ) is the source term associated with the healthy tissue described by ϕ0.
For instance, if Sϕ is chosen as suggested in (2.2a), a reasonable choice is
Sϕ0(ϕ, σ) = −κ Pσ ϕ1 for some κ ∈ [0, 1]. (2.4)
In the case κ = 1, the mass gain of tumor cells equals the mass loss of healthy cells. This would be the case if all newly emerged tumor cells originate from corrupted healthy cells. If κ = 0, the formation of tumor cells does not mean any loss of healthy cells, whereas the choice κ ∈ (0, 1) interpolates between these rather extreme scenarios.
If Sϕ is given by (2.2b), we recommend to choose Sϕ0(ϕ, σ) = 0 as proposed in [52].
Although the options (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) make sense from the modeling perspective, they do not fulfill the assumptionsA5andA6we have to make in Section3.3for the mathematical analysis. Namely, we require that
|Sv(ϕ, σ)| ≤ A, |Sϕ(ϕ, σ)| ≤ B(|ϕ| + |σ| + 1)
for constants A, B > 0 depending neither on ϕ nor on σ.
To overcome this issue, we replace the term Pσ in (2.2) by a bounded expression. We assume that there exists a critical nutrient concentration cp> 1 such that the proliferation does not increase any more, even if a
larger amount of nutrient (σ > cp) is available. Therefore, we introduce a nondecreasing function P ∈ Cb1(R)
with
(
P (s) = Ps for all s ∈ (−1, cp− 1],
P (s) = Pcp for all s ∈ [cp, ∞) .
(2.5)
Moreover, for any fixed r > 0, we introduce a truncation functionhr∈ Cb1(R) which satisfies
hr(s) = s for all s ∈ [−r, 1 + r].
If the multi-well potential Ψ is reasonably chosen and r > 0 is not too small, the values of the components ϕi will not exceed the interval [−r, 1 + r]. Choosing r = 1 should usually be more than enough to ensure
this condition. In this case, replacing ϕi by hr(ϕi) does not have any effect on the solution of the system
(1.1). We thus choose Sϕ(ϕ, σ) = hr(ϕ1) P (σ) − Qϕ1, Qϕ1− Aϕ2, Aϕ2− Dhr(ϕ3) > , Sϕ0(ϕ, σ) = −κP (σ)hr(ϕ1) for some κ ∈ [0, 1], (2.6a)
or Sϕ(ϕ, σ) = 1εpr(ϕ1) P (σ) − Q, 1εpr(ϕ2)(Q − A), 1εpr(ϕ3)(A − D) > , Sϕ0(ϕ, σ) = 0, (2.6b)
wherepr:=p◦hris a bounded function. It is easily seen that both (2.6a) and (2.6b) satisfy the assumption
A5. Moreover, if the source term Sv is chosen as proposed in (2.3), it fulfills the assumption A6for any
κ ∈ [0, 1].
For the source term SΓ appearing in the boundary condition (1.1h) for the nutrient equation (1.1e), we
assume that it depends only on the nutrient density σ. With some abuse of notation, we thus write SΓ(σ) = SΓ(ϕ, σ).
As suggested in [28,29], we propose the choice
SΓ(σ) = K(σΓ− σ), (2.7)
where σΓ is a given function describing a preexisting nutrient supply over the boundary, and K is a
non-negative permeability constant. Notice that in the case K > 0, (1.1h) is a Robin type boundary condition, whereas if K = 0, it reduces to a no-flux condition. Moreover, the formal asymptotic limit K → ∞ would produce the Dirichlet condition σ = σΓ on Σ. This limit has been investigated in [29] for a simplified
two-cell-species version of the system (1.1) with a quasi-stationary nutrient equation (with M = 1).
2.2
The chemical free energy density
For the chemical free energy, we use a similar decomposition of N as proposed in [52, Sect. 1]. Namely, we choose
N (ϕ, σ) =χσ 2 |σ|
2− G(ϕ, σ), (2.8)
where the function G is defined as
G(ϕ, σ) := χϕσϕ1+f(σ)hr(ϕ2) +g(σ)hr(ϕ3). (2.9)
Here, the term χϕσϕ1 describes the chemotaxis mechanism which drives the proliferating tumor cells to
grow towards regions of high nutrient concentration. We further assume that there exist critical nutrient concentrations 0 < cn< cq< ∞ and functions f, g ∈ Cb2(R) that satisfy the following conditions:
f ≤ 0 on (−∞, cn], f > 0 on (cn, cq), f ≤ 0 on [cq, ∞), (2.10) (g > 0 on (−∞, cn), g ≤ 0 on [cn, ∞). (2.11) The reasons behind these choices are the following:
• If the nutrient concentration lies between the critical values cn and cq, we expect the cells to become
quiescent due to a lack of nutrient. This means that the amount of quiescent cells (that are associated with ϕ2) will increase. We describe this behavior by assuming that f is positive on (cn, cq). As a
consequence the whole termf(σ)hr(ϕ2) is positive provided that ϕ2is positive, and with regard to the
energy E presented in (1.5), it is thus energetically favorable if ϕ2 further increases.
• If the nutrient concentration is below the critical value cn, we expect the cells to necrotize, meaning
that the amount of necrotic cells (described by ϕ3) will increase. To model this behavior, we assume
that g > 0 on (−∞, cn). This entails that the termg(σ)hr(ϕ3) becomes positive if ϕ3 is positive. It
2.3
The tensors C and D
In general, the mobility tensors C and D can be fourth-order tensors (seeA2in Section3.3) or second-order tensors (i.e., matrices; see Remark3.3(a)). A simple but very common choice is to choose C ∈ RL×L and D ∈ RM ×M as diagonal matrices with uniformly positive functions as diagonal entries. However, it is worth mentioning that under the assumptions in Section3.3, even more complicated choices would be possible, as long as the tensors are uniformly positive definite.
In the present scenario with L = 3 and M = 1, we consider a matrix-valued function C : R3× R → R3×3
and a scalar function D : R3× R → R. We assume that the function D is uniformly positive, and that [C(ϕ, σ)]ij= mi(ϕ, σ)δij, i, j = 1, ..., L, (2.12)
where mi: R3× R → R, i = 1, ..., L are given, uniformly positive functions and δij stands for the Kronecker
symbol.
3
Mathematical analysis
3.1
Notation
We first fix some notation that will be used throughout the paper.
The natural numbers excluding zero are denoted by N, whereas the natural numbers including zero are denoted as N0. For any Banach space X we denote its associated norm by k · kX, and its topological dual
space by X0. The duality pairing of X0 and X is denoted by h·, ·iX. If X is a Hilbert space, we denote its
inner product by (·, ·)X. Note that for Banach spaces X and Y , the intersection X ∩ Y is also a Banach
space with respect to the norm k · kX∩Y := k · kX+ k · kY.
For any k ∈ N0, Ck(U ) stands for the space of k-times continuously differentiable functions on any set U for
which this definition makes sense. The subspace Cbk(U ) consists of all bounded functions in Ck(U ) whose partial derivatives up to the order k are also bounded. Note that Cbk(U ) is a Banach space with respect to its standard norm which is denoted by k · kCk
b. Moreover, C
k
c(U ) denotes the space of Ck(U )-functions
that have compact support in U . In the case k = 0, we just write C(U ) = C0(U ), C
b(U ) = Cb0(U ), and
Cc(U ) = Cc0(U ).
For any 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞ and k ≥ 0, the standard Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces defined on Ω are denoted as Lp(Ω) and Wk,p(Ω), and the corresponding norms are denoted as k · kLp(Ω) = k · kLp and k · kWk,p(Ω) = k · kWk,p,
respectively. In the case p = 2, these spaces are Hilbert spaces and we use the standard notation Hk(Ω) =
Wk,2(Ω). A similar notation is used for Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces on Γ, where the norms are denoted by k · kLp(Γ)= k · kLp
Γ and k · kWk,p(Γ)= k · kW k,p Γ
.
For brevity, we sometimes write Lp, Wk,p, Hk and LpΓ, Wk,pΓ , and HkΓ to denote the corresponding spaces of vector or matrix-valued functions defined on Ω and Γ, respectively.
We further define the Hilbert space
Hn2(Ω; Rn) := {ζ ∈ H2(Ω; Rn) : ∂nζ = 0 a.e. on Γ}
for any n ∈ N. Moreover, we set
L2div(Ω) := {f ∈ L2(Ω; Rd) : div(f ) ∈ L2(Ω)}.
Here, the relation div(f ) ∈ L2(Ω) means that the divergence exists in the weak sense and belongs to L2(Ω). Notice that L2div(Ω) is a Hilbert space when equipped with the norm
kf k2L2 div := kf k 2 L2+ kdiv(f )k 2 L2.
Moreover, we recall that for any f ∈ L2div(Ω), the expression f · n is well defined on Γ by the following
integration by parts formula:
hf · n, φiH1/2(Γ)= Z Ω f · ∇φ dx + Z Ω
φ div(f ) dx for all φ ∈ H1(Ω); (3.1)
see, e.g., [47, Sect. III.2]. Moreover, there exists a positive constant Cdiv, which depends only on Ω, such
that kf · nk(H1/2 Γ )0 ≤ Cdivkf kL2 div .
For vectors a = (a1, ..., ak)>∈ Rkand b = (b1, ..., bl)>∈ Rl, we denote the standard tensor product by a ⊗ b
which produces an element of Rk×l and is defined componentwise as (a ⊗ b)
ij = aibj for all i ∈ {1, ..., k},
j ∈ {1, ..., l}.
For given matrices A, B ∈ Rn×m, we define the scalar product
A : B := n X i=1 m X j=1 [A]ij[B]ij .
Furthermore, for any fourth order tensor C in Rn×m×n×m
, and any matrix A ∈ Rn×m, we set
[CA]ij := n X k=1 m X l=1
[C]ijkl[A]kl for all i ∈ {1, ..., n} and j ∈ {1, ..., m},
and we use the notation
|A| = n X i=1 m X j=1 |[A]ij|2 !12 , |C| = n X i,k=1 m X j,l=1 |[C]ijkl|2 !12 .
3.2
Auxiliary results
Before diving into the obtained results, let us first introduce some useful auxiliary results.
The following interpolation result for Sobolev spaces on bounded domains can be found in [75, Sec 4.3.1, Thm. 1].
Lemma 3.1 (Interpolation between Sobolev spaces). Suppose that Ω ⊂ Rd
with d ∈ N is a smooth, bounded domain. Furthermore, let θ ∈ (0, 1) be arbitrary, and let r, s0, and s1 be any real numbers satisfying
r = (1 − θ)s0+ θs1.
Then Hr(Ω) is the real interpolation of Hs0(Ω) and Hs1(Ω) with interpolation parameter θ, that is,
Hr(Ω) = Hs0(Ω), Hs1(Ω)
θ,2.
In particular, there exists a constant C > 0 such that for all f ∈ Hs0(Ω) ∩ Hs1(Ω),
kf kHr(Ω)≤ C kf k
1−θ
Hs0(Ω)kf k
θ
Hs1(Ω).
Next, we recall a well-known result related to the solvability of the divergence equation. The lemma and the corresponding proof can be found, e.g., in [47, Sec. III.3].
Lemma 3.2. Let Ω ⊂ Rd, d ≥ 2, be a bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary Γ, and let q ∈ (1, ∞) be arbitrary. Then, for every f ∈ Lq(Ω) and a ∈ W1−1
q,1(Γ) with Z Ω f dx = Z Γ a · n dS, (3.2)
there exist a strong solution u ∈ W1,q(Ω) to the problem (
div(u) = f in Ω,
u = a on Γ,
and a positive constant CΩ,q depending only on Ω and q, such that
kukW1,q(Ω)≤ CΩ,q
kf kLq(Ω)+ kakW1−1/q,1(Γ)
.
Let us further recall Korn’s inequality:
There exists a positive constant CK depending only on Ω such that for all v ∈ H1(Ω),
kvkH1≤ CK kvk2L2+ kDvk 2 L2 1/2 . (3.3)
Furthermore, we will frequently use the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality:
Let Ω ⊂ Rd with d ≥ 2 be a bounded domain with Lipschitz-boundary. We assume that p, q, r ∈ [1, ∞],
m, j ∈ N0 with 0 ≤ j < m, and θ ∈ [mj, 1] satisfy the relation
j −d p = m −d r θ + −d q (1 − θ).
Then, there exists a positive constant C depending only on Ω, d, m, j, p, q, r, and θ, such that Djf Lp ≤ C kf k θ Wm,rkf k 1−θ Lq for all f ∈ Wm,r(Ω) ∩ Lq(Ω). (3.4)
3.3
Assumptions
The following assumptions are supposed to hold throughout the paper.
A1 The set Ω ⊂ Rd with d ∈ {2, 3} is a smooth, bounded domain with boundary Γ := ∂Ω. Moreover, the parameters ν, ε, and γ are given positive constants.
A2 The phase mobility tensor C and the nutrient mobility tensor D are continuously differentiable functions C : RL× RM → RL×d×L×d, D : RL× RM → RM ×d×M ×d. (3.5) There further exist positive constants C0 and D0 such that for all p ∈ RL, s ∈ RM, A ∈ RL×d, and
B ∈ RM ×d,
C0|A|2≤ C(p, s)A : A, D0|B|2≤ D(p, s)B : B.
This means that the tensors C(p, s) and D(p, s) are uniformly positive definite for all p ∈ RL and s ∈ RM.
A3 The viscosities are functions η, λ ∈ Cb1(RL; R), and there exist constants η0, η1, λ∗ such that, for every
p ∈ RL, it holds
A4 The chemical free energy density N is defined as N : RL× RM → R, N (p, s) = χσ 2 |s| 2− G(p, s), (3.7) where G ∈ C2 (RL× RM
; R) and χσ is a positive constant. For the partial derivatives, we will use the
notation
Gϕ:= ∂pG, Gσ:= ∂sG, Gϕσ := ∂s∂pG, Gσσ:= ∂s2G, Gϕϕ:= ∂p2G,
Nϕ:= ∂pN, Nσ:= ∂sN, Nϕσ := ∂s∂pN, Nσσ:= ∂2sN, Nϕϕ:= ∂p2N.
This means that Nϕ = Gϕ, Nϕσ = Gϕσ, and Nϕϕ = Gϕϕ. We further assume that there exist
positive constants AG, BG, CG, DG, EG, and λG∈ (0, χσ) such that for all p ∈ RL and s ∈ RM:
|G(p, s)| ≤ CG(|p||s| + |p| + |s| + 1), (3.8)
|Gϕ(p, s)| ≤ AG(|s| + 1), |Gσ(p, s)| ≤ BG(|p| + 1), (3.9)
kGϕσ(p, s)k ≤ DG, kGϕϕ(p, s)k ≤ EG, kGσσ(p, s)k ≤ χσ− λG, (3.10)
where k · k stands for the operator norm. This directly implies the existence of positive constants AN,
BN, and CN such that for all p ∈ RLand s ∈ RM:
|N (p, s)| ≤ CN(|s|2+ |p||s| + |p| + |s| + 1), (3.11)
|Nϕ(p, s)| ≤ AN(|p| + |s| + 1), |Nσ(p, s)| ≤ BN(|p| + |s| + 1). (3.12)
It further follows that Nσσis uniformly positive definite with
ξ>Nσσ(p, s)ξ = χσ|ξ| 2 − ξ>Gσσ(p, s)ξ ≥ λG|ξ| 2 (3.13) for all p ∈ RL and ξ, s ∈ RM
. In combination with the assumptions on the tensor D inA2, this ensures that the nutrient equation (1.1e) has a parabolic structure. Moreover, for all p ∈ RL
and s ∈ RM the
matrix Nσσ(p, s) is invertible and the operator norm of the inverse matrix is uniformly bounded by
Nσσ(p, s) −1 ≤ λ −1 G . (3.14)
A5 The source terms Sϕ and Sσ are continuously differentiable, vector-valued functions
Sϕ: RL× RM× RL→ RL, Sσ: RL× RM × RL→ RM. (3.15)
We further assume that there exist continuously differentiable functions
Λϕ: RL× RM → RL, θϕ: RL× RM → RL×L, (3.16)
Λσ: RL× RM → RM, θσ : RL× RM → RM ×L, (3.17)
such that Sϕ and Sσ exhibit the following decomposition:
Sϕ(p, s, m) = Λϕ(p, s) − θϕ(p, s)m, (3.18)
Sσ(p, s, m) = Λσ(p, s) − θσ(p, s)m (3.19)
for all p, m ∈ RL
and s ∈ RM.
Moreover, we demand that there exist positive constants Aϕ, Aσ, Bϕand Bσ such that, for all p ∈ RL
and s ∈ RM, we have
|Λϕ(p, s)| ≤ Aϕ(|p| + |s| + 1), kθϕ(p, s)k ≤ Bϕ, (3.20)
|Λσ(p, s)| ≤ Aσ(|p| + |s| + 1), kθσ(p, s)k ≤ Bσ. (3.21)
In particular, this entails that there exists a positive constant BS such that, for all p, m ∈ RL and
s ∈ RM,
A6 The source term Sv is a continuously differentiable scalar function
Sv: RL× RM → R. (3.23)
We further assume that there exists a positive constant AS such that for all p ∈ RL and s ∈ RM,
|Sv(p, s)| ≤ AS. (3.24)
A7 The boundary source term SΓ is continuously differentiable, vector-valued function
SΓ : RL× RM → RM.
Furthermore, there exists a continuously differentiable function
ΛΓ: RL× RM → RM, (3.25)
and a nonnegative constant K such that
SΓ(p, s) = K(ΛΓ(p, s) − s), (3.26)
for all p ∈ RL
and s ∈ RM. Moreover, there exists a positive constant A
Γ such that for all p ∈ RL
and s ∈ RM,
|ΛΓ(p, s)| ≤ AΓ. (3.27)
A8 The potential Ψ belongs to C2(RL; R) and there exist positive constants AΨ, BΨ such that for every
p ∈ RL it holds that
Ψ(p) ≥ AΨ|p|2− BΨ. (3.28)
In addition, the potential can be decomposed as Ψ = Ψ(1)+ Ψ(2) with Ψ(1), Ψ(2)∈ C2
(RL
; R), where Ψ(1) is convex, and Ψ(2)
: RL
→ RL is Lipschitz-continuous.
For the gradient and the Hessian of Ψ, we will write
Ψϕ:= ∇Ψ, Ψϕϕ:= D2Ψ,
and we will use an analogous notation for Ψ(1) and Ψ(2).
Moreover, we assume:
A8.1 If the matrix-valued function θϕin A5is uniformly positive definite, that is
∃θ0> 0 ∀p, ζ ∈ RL, s ∈ RM : ζ>θϕ(p, s)ζ ≥ θ0|ζ|2, (3.29)
there exist an exponent ρ ∈ [2, 6], and positive constants BΨ, CΨand DΨ, such that
|Ψ(p)| ≤ BΨ(|p|ρ+ 1), |Ψϕ(p)| ≤ CΨ(|p|ρ−1+ 1),
|Ψϕϕ(p)| ≤ DΨ(|p|ρ−2+ 1).
(3.30)
for all p ∈ RL.
A8.2 If the matrix-valued function θϕ inA5is not uniformly positive definite, that is (3.29) does not
hold, there exist positive constants BΨ, CΨ and DΨ such that
|Ψ(p)| ≤ BΨ(|p|2+ 1), |Ψϕ(p)| ≤ CΨ(|p| + 1), |Ψϕϕ(p)| ≤ DΨ (3.31)
A9 The diffuse interface parameter ε is a fixed positive constant which satisfies ε < γχσAΨ
8C2 G
. (3.32)
Here, AΨ is the constant from (3.28), χσ and CG are the constants fromA4, and γ > 0 is the surface
tension parameter.
Remark 3.3. (a) Instead of fourth-order tensors, C and D could also just be matrices (second-order tensors) in RL×L
and RM ×M, respectively. This because a matrix can still be described by an associated fourth-order
tensor in the following way:
Suppose that n, m ∈ N, and M ∈ Rn×n is a given matrix. Then the corresponding fourth-order tensor
M ∈ Rn×m×n×m is defined as
[M]ijkl:= δjl[M]ik for all i, k ∈ {1, ..., n} and j, l ∈ {1, ..., m},
where δjl stands for the Kronecker symbol. In particular, for any matrix A ∈ Rn×m, it thus holds
[MA]ij= n X k=1 m X l=1 [M]ijkl[A]kl= n X k=1
[M]ik[A]kj= [MA]ij for all i ∈ {1, ..., n} and j ∈ {1, ..., m},
which means MA = MA.
(b) We point out that the tensors, the nutrient density and the source terms proposed in Section2 for the special case L = 3 and M = 1 fit into the framework of the above assumptions. To be precise, the source terms Sσ defined in (2.1) and Sϕintroduced in (2.6) satisfyA5(with θϕ≡ 0 and θσ≡ 0), the source term
Sv proposed in (2.3) fulfills A6, the nutrient density defined in (2.8)–(2.11) satisfiesA4, and the tensors C
and D introduced in Section2.3 fulfillA2. Moreover, the boundary source term proposed in (2.7) satisfies A7with ΛΓ(p, s) ≡ σΓ, provided that the prescribed function σΓ is sufficiently regular.
(c) As the positive coefficient ε is related to the thickness of the diffuse interface, it is usually chosen to be very small in the applications. Therefore, assumptionA9is not a severe restriction.
3.4
Main results
Let us now present the main results of this paper. First, after introducing the notion of weak solutions to the multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman system (MCHB), we prove the existence of such a weak solution. Unfortunately, we are not able to prove the uniqueness of weak solutions. This is mainly due to the fairly low regularity of the nutrient variable σ, of which we can merely establish σ ∈ L∞(0, T ; L2) ∩ L2(0, T ; H1).
A weak solution to the multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman system (MCHB) is defined as follows.
Definition 3.4 (Definition of a weak solution to (MCHB)). The quintuplet (ϕ, µ, σ, v, p) is called a weak solution to the multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman system (1.1) if the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) The functions (ϕ, µ, σ, v, p) possess the regularities ϕ ∈ H1(0, T ; (H1)0) ∩ C([0, T ]; L2) ∩ L∞(0, T ; H1), σ ∈ W1,43(0, T ; (H1)0) ∩ C([0, T ]; (H1)0) ∩ L∞(0, T ; L2) ∩ L2(0, T ; H1), ϕ|Γ∈ C([0, T ]; L2Γ), σ|Γ∈ L4(0, T ; L2Γ), µ ∈ L2(0, T ; H1), v ∈ L2(0, T ; H1), p ∈ L43(0, T ; L2), div(ϕ ⊗ v) ∈ L2(0, T ; L32), div(σ ⊗ v) ∈ L1(0, T ; L 3 2). (3.33)
(ii) The weak formulation Z Ω T(ϕ, v, p) : ∇η + νv · η dx = Z Ω (∇ϕ)>µ · η + (∇σ)>Nσ(ϕ, σ) · η dx, (3.34a) h∂tϕ , ζiH1+ Z Ω div(ϕ ⊗ v) · ζ dx = − Z Ω C(ϕ, σ)∇µ : ∇ζ + Sϕ(ϕ, σ, µ) · ζ dx, (3.34b) Z Ω µ · θ dx = Z Ω γε∇ϕ : ∇θ + γε−1Ψϕ(ϕ) · θ + Nϕ(ϕ, σ) · θ dx, (3.34c) h∂tσ , ζiH1+ Z Ω div(σ ⊗ v) · ξ dx = − Z Ω D(ϕ, σ)∇Nσ(ϕ, σ) : ∇ξ dx − Z Ω Sσ(ϕ, σ, µ) · ξ dx + Z Γ SΓ(ϕ, σ) · ξ dS, (3.34d)
holds almost everywhere on (0, T ) for all test functions η ∈ H1(Ω; Rd), ζ, θ ∈ H1(Ω; RL) and ξ ∈ H1
(Ω; RM). It further holds that
div(v) = Sv(ϕ, σ) a.e. in Q, (3.34e)
ϕ|t=0= ϕ0 a.e. in Ω, (3.34f)
hσ|t=0, ΦiH1 = hσ0, ΦiH1 for all Φ ∈ H1(Ω; RM). (3.34g)
The corresponding existence result reads as follows.
Theorem 3.5 (Existence of weak solution to (MCHB)). Suppose that the assumptions A1–A9 hold, and let ϕ0∈ H1
(Ω; RL) and σ
0∈ L2(Ω; RM) be any initial data.
Then, there exists a weak solution (ϕ, µ, σ, v, p) to system (1.1) in the sense of Definition 3.4. In addition, this solution satisfies
ϕ ∈ L2(0, T ; H3) ∩ C([0, T ]; H1), Ψϕ(ϕ) ∈ L4(0, T ; L2) ∩ L2(0, T ; L6). (3.35)
Moreover, there exists a positive constant CB that may depend on the initial data and the constants introduced
in Section 3.3except for η0 such that
kϕkL∞(0,T ;H1)∩L2(0,T ;H3)+ kσkL∞(0,T ;L2)∩L2(0,T ;H1)+ kσkL4(0,T ;L2 Γ) + kµkL2(0,T ;H1)+ kvkL2(0,T ;L2)+ p η(ϕ) Dv 2 L2(0,T ;L2)+ kpkL4/3(0,T ;L2) + kΨϕ(ϕ)kL4(0,T ;L2)∩L2(0,T ;L6)+ k∇Nσ(ϕ, σ)kL2(0,T ;L2) + kdiv(ϕ ⊗ v)kL4/3(0,T ;L3/2)+ kdiv(σ ⊗ v)kL1(0,T ;L1)≤ CB. (3.36)
The proof of this theorem will be presented in Section4.
The second main result we are going to address is the existence of weak solutions to the multiphase Cahn– Hilliard–Darcy system (MCHD). Roughly speaking, this can be established by investigating the “Darcy limit” where the positive viscosities η and λ in the Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman system (MCHB) are sent to zero. In this way, we can show that the corresponding weak solutions of the system (MCHB) converge to a weak solution of the system (MCHD).
To begin with, let us start by presenting the notion of weak solution for the Cahn–Hilliard–Darcy model. Definition 3.6 (Definition of a weak solution to (MCHD)). The quintuplet (ϕ, µ, σ, v, p) is called a weak solution to the multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Darcy system (1.1) if the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) The functions (ϕ, µ, σ, v, p) possess the regularities ϕ ∈ W1,85(0, T ; (H1)0) ∩ C([0, T ]; L2) ∩ L∞(0, T ; H1), σ ∈ W1,1(0, T ; (W1,4)0) ∩ C([0, T ]; (W1,4)0) ∩ L∞(0, T ; L2) ∩ L2(0, T ; H1), ϕ|Γ∈ C([0, T ]; L2Γ), σ|Γ∈ L4(0, T ; L2Γ), µ ∈ L 2(0, T ; H1), p ∈ L43(0, T ; L2) ∩ L1 0, T ; W1, 3 2 0 , v ∈ L 2(0, T ; L2 div), div(ϕ ⊗ v) ∈ L43(0, T ; L 3 2) ∩ L85(0, T ; (H1)0), div(σ ⊗ v) ∈ L1(0, T ; L1). (3.37)
(ii) The weak formulation Z Ω ∇p · η + νv · η dx = Z Ω (∇ϕ)>µ · η + (∇σ)>Nσ(ϕ, σ) · η dx, (3.38a) h∂tϕ, ζiH1+ Z Ω div(ϕ ⊗ v) · ζ dx = − Z Ω C(ϕ, σ)∇µ : ∇ζ + Sϕ(ϕ, σ, µ) · ζ dx, (3.38b) Z Ω µ · θ dx = Z Ω γε∇ϕ : ∇θ + γε−1Ψϕ(ϕ) · θ + Nϕ(ϕ, σ) · θ dx, (3.38c) h∂tσ, ξiW1,4+ Z Ω div(σ ⊗ v) · ξ dx = − Z Ω D(ϕ, σ)∇Nσ(ϕ, σ) : ∇ξ dx − Z Ω Sσ(ϕ, σ, µ) · ξ dx + Z Γ SΓ(ϕ, σ) · ξ dS, (3.38d)
holds almost everywhere on (0, T ) for all test functions η ∈ L2
(Ω; Rd), ζ, θ ∈ H1
(Ω; RL), and ξ ∈
W1,4
(Ω; RM). Moreover, the following conditions are fulfilled
div(v) = Sv(ϕ, σ) a.e. in Q, (3.38e)
ϕ|t=0= ϕ0 a.e. in Ω, (3.38f)
hσ|t=0, ΦiW1,4= hσ0, ΦiW1,4 for all Φ ∈ W1,4(Ω; RM). (3.38g)
The sense in which weak solutions to (MCHB) convergence to a weak solution of (MCHD) is specified by the following theorem.
Theorem 3.7 (“Darcy limit” and existence of a weak solution to (MCHD)). Suppose that A1–A9 are fulfilled, and let ϕ0 ∈ H1
(Ω; RL) and σ
0 ∈ L2(Ω; RM) be arbitrary initial data. Furthermore, let {ηn}n∈N
and {λn}n∈N be sequences of viscosity functions such that for each fixed n ∈ N, ηn and λn are compatible
withA3. We further assume that
kηnkCb(R)→ 0, kλnkCb(R)→ 0, as n → ∞. (3.39)
For any n ∈ N, let (ϕn, µn, σn, vn, pn) denote the weak solution of the multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Brinkman
system (1.1) constructed in Theorem3.5associated with the viscosities ηn and λn.
Then, there exists a quintuplet (ϕ, µ, σ, v, p) such that for all s ∈ [0, 1), ϕn→ ϕ weakly-∗ in L∞(0, T ; H
1
),
weakly in W1,85(0, T ; (H1)0) ∩ L2(0, T ; H3), a.e. in Q,
and strongly in C([0, T ]; Hs) ∩ L2(0, T ; H2+s), ϕn|Γ→ ϕ|Γ strongly in C([0, T ]; L2Γ), and a.e. on Σ,
σn→ σ weakly-∗ in L∞(0, T ; L2),
and strongly in C([0, T ]; (W1,4)0) ∩ L2(0, T ; Hs), σn|Γ→ σ|Γ weakly in L4(0, T ; L2Γ), strongly in L 2(0, T ; L2 Γ), and a.e. on Σ, µn→ µ weakly in L2(0, T ; H1), vn→ v weakly in L2(0, T ; L2div), pn→ p weakly in L 4 3(0, T ; L2), div(ϕn⊗ vn) → τ weakly in L 4 3(0, T ; L 3 2) ∩ L85(0, T ; (H1)0), div(σn⊗ vn) → ϑ weakly in L1(0, T ; L1),
as n → ∞, along a nonrelabeled subsequence.
Moreover, the limit (ϕ, µ, σ, v, p) is a weak solution to the multiphase Cahn–Hilliard–Darcy system (1.1) in the sense of Definition 3.6. In addition, this solution satisfies
ϕ ∈ L2(0, T ; H3) ∩ C([0, T ]; H1), Ψϕ(ϕ) ∈ L4(0, T ; L2) ∩ L2(0, T ; L6). (3.41)
Comment. We point out that for any n ∈ N, the choice of the corresponding weak solution to (MCHB) is explicit, since we are choosing exactly the corresponding weak solution that was constructed in Theorem3.5. This means that even though the weak solutions to (MCHB) are not unique, we do not require the axiom of choice for our approach.
The proof of Theorem3.7is presented in Section5.
4
Existence of weak solutions to the (MCHB) system
This section is devoted to the construction of a weak solution to the system multiphase Cahn–Hilliard– Brinkman system (MCHB) in the sense of Definition3.4.
Proof of Theorem 3.5. To construct a weak solution we discretize the weak formulation (3.34a)–(3.34d) via a Faedo–Galerkin scheme. Then, we derive suitable a priori estimates for the discrete approximate solutions that are independent of the dimension of the finite-dimensional subspace. This allows us to show that the sequence of approximate solutions converges to a weak solution of the Brinkman system (1.1) in the sense specified by Definition3.4.
In the whole proof, the letter C denotes a generic positive constant that may depend only on the initial data and the constants introduced in Section 3.3(including the final time T ), except for η0as this constant will
play a role in the “Darcy limit” (see Theorem3.7). The proof is split into several steps.
Step 1: The Faedo–Galerkin scheme. The idea of our Faedo–Galerkin scheme is to spatially approximate the functions ϕ, µ and σ by functions from suitable finite-dimensional subspaces. To approximate ϕ and µ, we will use the eigenfunctions wi : Ω → RL, i ∈ N, of the L-component vector-valued Poisson equation
with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions. This means that for any i ∈ N, there exist an eigenvalue λi such that the eigenfunction wi is a weak solution to the problem
−∆wi= λiwi in Ω, ∂nwi= 0 on Γ. (4.1)
It is well known that all eigenvalues are nonnegative, and can be sorted such that they form a nondecreas-ing sequence {λi}i∈N with λi → ∞ as i → ∞. We further assume that the eigenfunctions are chosen
such that kwikL2 = 1 for all i ∈ N, and for the eigenvalue λ1 = 0, we choose the eigenfunction w1 = 1
L|Ω|
−1/2
(1, ..., 1)>. As the domain Ω is smooth, elliptic regularity theory implies that wi∈ C∞(Ω; RL) for
all i ∈ N. Moreover, by construction, the eigenfunctions are orthogonal with respect to the inner product of L2
(Ω; RL) and thus, they form an orthonormal Schauder basis of L2
(Ω; RL). Moreover, the family {w
i}i∈N
is also a Schauder basis of H2
In a similar fashion, we approximate σ by means of the eigenfunctions zi: Ω → RM, i ∈ N, of the analogous
M -component vector-valued Poisson–Neumann problem. Then the family {zi}i∈N forms an orthonormal
Schauder basis of the space L2
(Ω; RM), and also a Schauder basis of H2
n(Ω; RM).
Let us now fix any arbitrary k ∈ N. We define the k-dimensional subspaces
Wk:= spanw1, ..., wk ⊂ H1(Ω; RL), Zk := spanz1, ..., zk ⊂ H1(Ω; RM),
and we write PWk and PZk to denote the L
2
-orthogonal projection onto Wk and Zk, respectively. We now
make the following ansatz
ϕk(x, t) := k X i=1 aki(t)wi(x), µk(x, t) := k X i=1 bki(t)wi(x), σk(x, t) := k X i=1 cki(t)zi(x), (4.2)
where the coefficients aki, bki, cki, i ∈ {1, ..., k}, are assumed to be continuously differentiable functions that are still to be determined. At every time t ∈ [0, T ] for which the expressions in (4.2) are defined, we further introduce the functions vk(t), pk(t) ∈ H2× H1 as the unique strong solution of the system
−div T(ϕk(t), vk(t), pk(t)) + νvk(t) = ∇ϕk(t) > µk(t) + ∇σk(t) > Nσ ϕk(t), σk(t) in Ω, (4.3a) div vk(t) = Sv ϕk(t), σk(t) in Ω, (4.3b) T ϕk(t), vk(t), pk(t)n = 0 on Γ. (4.3c)
As the right-hand sides of (4.3a) and (4.3b) belong to L2
(Ω; Rd) and H1(Ω), respectively, the existence
and the uniqueness of the solution vk(t), pk(t) ∈ H2× H1 follows from a fundamental result on Stokes
operators with variable viscosity established in [1] that can also be found in [28, Lem. 1.5]. Moreover, we use (4.3b) and the chain rule to derive the identities
div(ϕk⊗ vk) = (∇ϕk)vk+ ϕkSv(ϕk, σk) in Q, (4.4)
div(σk⊗ vk) = (∇σk)vk+ σkSv(ϕk, σk) in Q. (4.5)
The next goal is to determine the continuously differentiable coefficients aki, bki, and cki, i ∈ {1, ..., k}, such that the discretized weak formulation
Z Ω T(ϕk, vk, pk) : ∇η + νvk· η dx = Z Ω (∇ϕk)>µk· η + (∇σk)>Nσ(ϕk, σk) · η dx, (4.6a) h∂tϕk, ζiH1+ Z Ω div(ϕk⊗ vk) · ζ dx = − Z Ω C(ϕk, σk)∇µk: ∇ζ + Sϕ(ϕk, σk, µk) · ζ dx, (4.6b) Z Ω µk· θ dx = Z Ω γε∇ϕk : ∇θ + γε−1Ψϕ(ϕk) · θ + Nϕ(ϕk, σk) · θ dx, (4.6c) h∂tσk, ζiH1+ Z Ω div(σk⊗ vk) · ξ dx = − Z Ω D(ϕk, σk)∇Nσ(ϕk, σk) : ∇ξ dx − Z Ω Sσ(ϕk, σk, µk) · ξ dx + Z Γ SΓ(ϕk, σk) · ξ dS, (4.6d)
is satisfied for all test functions ζ, θ ∈ Wk, ξ ∈ Zk, and η ∈ H1(Ω; Rd). Note that we only need to detect
aki, bki, cki, i ∈ {1, ..., k} such that the equations (4.6b)–(4.6d) are fulfilled. Then (4.6a) holds automatically due to the construction of vk and pk. Of course, also the initial conditions have to be approximated. We
thus demand that
In the following, we write ak := (ak1, ..., akk)>, b
k := (bk
1, ..., bkk)>, and c
k := (ck
1, ..., ckk)> to denote the
coefficient vectors. Plugging the ansatz (4.2) into the discrete formulations (4.6b)–(4.6d), and testing with w1, ..., wk and z1, ..., zk, respectively, we conclude that the vector (ak, bk, ck) needs to satisfy a system of
nonlinear ordinary differential equations and algebraic equations. By means of the vector-valued algebraic equation resulting from (4.6c), we can replace the variable bkappearing in the right-hand side of the
vector-valued ODEs resulting from (4.6b) and (4.6d) by an expression depending only on ak and ck to eventually
obtain a closed system of ODEs for (ak, ck). In fact, notice that from (4.7) we naturally obtain the initial
conditions
[ak]i(0) = aki(0) = (PWk(ϕ0) , wi)L2, [ck]i(0) = cki(0) = (PZk(σ0) , zi)L2, i ∈ {1, ..., k}. (4.8)
In particular, this entails that k X i=1 [ak]i(0) wi H1 ≤ kϕ0kH1, k X i=1 [ck]i(0) zi H1 ≤ kσ0kH1. (4.9)
Recalling the assumptionsA2–A8, we notice that the right-hand side of the ODE system depends continu-ously on the unknown variables (ak, ck). Hence, the Cauchy–Peano theorem implies the existence of at least
one local solution (ak, ck) : [0, T∗
k) ∩ [0, T ] → R
2k with T∗
k > 0. Without loss of generality, we assume that
Tk∗≤ T and that (ak, ck) is the right-maximal solution of the ODE system mentioned above, that is, T∗
k is
chosen as large as possible.
We can now reconstruct bk by means of the vector-valued algebraic equation as a function bk: [0, T∗ k) → R
k.
Consequently, by (4.2) and the construction of (vk, pk), we obtain functions
ϕk, µk∈ C1 [0, T∗ k); C ∞ (Ω; RL), σk ∈ C1 [0, Tk∗); C ∞ (Ω; RM), vk ∈ C1 [0, Tk∗); H2(Ω; Rd), pk∈ C1 [0, Tk∗); H1(Ω), (4.10)
which satisfy the discretized weak formulation (4.6) on the time interval [0, Tk∗).
In Step 3, we will see that the solution (ak, ck) of the ODE system mentioned above can actually be extended
onto the whole time interval [0, T ]. Then the functions ϕk, µk, σk, vk, and pk given by (4.10) satisfy the
discretized weak formulation (4.6) not only on [0, Tk∗) but on the whole time interval [0, T ].
Step 2: A priori estimates. Now, we intend to establish a priori estimates to bound our approximate solution (ϕk, µk, σk, vk, pk) uniformly with respect to the index k in suitable norms. We claim that there
exist constants CAP, CAP0 > 0 such that, for all k ∈ N and all Tk < Tk∗,
kϕkkL∞(0,T k;H1)∩L2(0,Tk;H3) + kσkkL∞(0,T k;L2)∩L2(0,Tk;H1)+ kσkkL4(0,Tk;L2Γ) + kµkkL2(0,T k;H1)+ kvkkL2(0,Tk;L2)+ p η(ϕk) Dvk 2 L2(0,Tk;L2)+ kpkkL4/3(0,Tk;L2) + kΨϕ(ϕ)kL4(0,Tk;L2)∩L2(0,Tk;L6)+ k∇Nσ(ϕ, σ)kL2(0,T k;L2) + kdiv(ϕk⊗ vk)kL4/3(0,T k;L3/2)+ kdiv(σk⊗ vk)kL1(0,Tk;L1) ≤ CAP, (4.11) and kϕkkH1(0,Tk;(H1)0)+ kσkkW1,4/3(0,Tk;(H1)0)+ kvkkL2(0,Tk;H1) + kdiv(ϕk⊗ vk)kL2(0,T k;L3/2)+ kdiv(σk⊗ vk)kL1(0,Tk;L3/2) ≤ CAP0 1 + η0−1. (4.12)
We point out that the constants CAP and CAP0 depend only on the initial data and the constants introduced
In the following proof of this estimate, we omit the subscript k to provide a cleaner presentation. Moreover, with some abuse of notation, we will also just write T instead of Tk.
Step 2.1: Energy estimate. To handle both casesA8.1andA8.2 simultaneously, we introduce constants α and β in the following way:
(
α := 1, β := θ0 ifA8.1 holds,
α := 0, β := 1 ifA8.2 holds. (4.13)
For any t ∈ [0, T ], we choose u(t) as a strong solution to the following problem (div u(t) = Sv ϕ(t), σ(t) in Ω, u(t) = |Γ|1 R ΩSv ϕ(t), σ(t) dx n =: r on Γ,
whose solvability is a direct consequence of Lemma3.2with f = Sv(ϕ(t), σ(t)). This lemma further implies
u ∈ C1([0, T ]; W1,q) for all q ∈ (1, ∞) as well as the estimate
ku(t)kW1,q ≤ C
Sv ϕ(t), σ(t) Lq ≤ C. (4.14)
Notice that condition (3.2) in Lemma3.2is fulfilled as it holds that Z Γ r · n dS = 1 |Γ| Z Ω Sv ϕ(t), σ(t) dx Z Γ n · n dS = Z Ω Sv ϕ(t), σ(t) dx.
Next, we test (4.6a) by v − u, (4.6b) by µ, (4.6c) by −∂tϕ, (4.6d) by Nσ, add the resulting equalities, and
use the decompositions (3.18), (4.4) and (4.5) to infer the discrete energy identity d dtE(ϕ, σ) + Z Ω 2η(ϕ)|Dv|2+ ν|v|2dx + Z Ω C(ϕ, σ)∇µ : ∇µ + D(ϕ, σ)∇Nσ(ϕ, σ) : ∇Nσ(ϕ, σ) dx + Z Γ Kχσ|σ|2dS = Z Ω Λϕ(ϕ, σ) · µ − θϕ(ϕ, σ)µ · µ − Sσ(ϕ, σ, µ) · Nσ(ϕ, σ) dx − Z Ω [(∇ϕ)u + ϕSv(ϕ, σ)] · µ + [(∇σ)u + σSv(ϕ, σ)] · Nσ(ϕ, σ) dx + Z Γ K ΛΓ(ϕ, σ) · Nσ(ϕ, σ) + σ · Gσ(ϕ, σ) dS + Z Ω 2η(ϕ)Dv : Du + νv · u dx (4.15) on [0, T ], where the energy E is defined by (1.5). Notice that some of the terms vanish due to the fact that div(v − u) = 0.
Using the parameter α introduced in (4.13) and recalling the condition (3.29) inA8.1, we derive the estimate d dtE(ϕ, σ) + Z Ω 2η(ϕ)|Dv|2+ ν|v|2dx + Z Ω α θ0|µ|2 dx + Z Ω C(ϕ, σ)∇µ : ∇µ + D(ϕ, σ)∇Nσ(ϕ, σ) : ∇Nσ(ϕ, σ) dx + Z Γ Kχσ|σ|2dS ≤ Z Ω Λϕ(ϕ, σ) · µ dx + (1 − α) Z Ω θϕ(ϕ, σ)µ · µ dx + Z Ω Sσ(ϕ, σ, µ) · Nσ(ϕ, σ) dx + Z Ω [(∇ϕ)u + ϕSv(ϕ, σ)] · µ dx + Z Ω [(∇σ)u + σSv(ϕ, σ)] · Nσ(ϕ, σ) dx + Z Γ K ΛΓ(ϕ, σ) · Nσ(ϕ, σ) + σ · Gσ(ϕ, σ) dS + Z Ω 2η(ϕ)Dv : Du + νv · u dx . (4.16)
Using Young’s and H¨older’s inequalities, and (4.14) with q = 2, we infer that Z Ω 2η(ϕ)Dv : Du + νv · u dx ≤ p η(ϕ) Dv 2 L2+ ν 2kvk 2 L2+ C on [0, T ]. (4.17)
To estimate the boundary integral, we employ the bounds on Gσ and Nσ demanded inA4, as well as the
trace theorem to infer that Z Γ K ΛΓ(ϕ, σ) · Nσ(ϕ, σ) + σ · Gσ(ϕ, σ) dS ≤Kχσ 2 kσk 2 L2 Γ + C(1 + kϕk2H1) (4.18)
on [0, T ]. Having this bound at our disposal, we next estimate the integrals on the right-hand side of (4.16) that are depending on µ. Recalling the decomposition (3.18) for Sϕpresented inA5, we use H¨older’s and
Young’s inequalities along with (3.21) to infer that Z Ω Λϕ(ϕ, σ) · µ dx + (1 − α) Z Ω θϕ(ϕ, σ)µ · µ dx ≤ 1 6β kµk 2 L2+ C(kϕk 2 L2+ kσk 2 L2+ 1). (4.19)
Proceeding similarly and using the decomposition (3.19) fromA5as well as the estimates (3.12) and (3.22), we further deduce that
Z Ω Sσ(ϕ, σ, µ) · Nσ(ϕ, σ) dx ≤ 1 6β kµk 2 L2+ C(kϕk 2 L2+ kσk 2 L2+ 1) on [0, T ]. (4.20)
Since (4.14) holds for q = d + 1, and W1,d+1(Ω; Rd) is continuously embedded in Cb(Ω; Rd), we know that
u ∈ C1 [0, T ]; Cb(Ω; Rd)
with ku(t)kC
b≤ C for all t ∈ [0, T ]. (4.21)
Hence, usingA4andA6, as well as Young’s and H¨older’s inequalities, we infer that Z Ω [(∇ϕ)u + ϕSv(ϕ, σ)] · µ dx ≤ 1 6β kµk 2 L2+ C kϕk 2 H1. (4.22)
RecallingA4, we use the chain rule to derive the identity ∇σ = Nσσ(ϕ, σ)
−1
∇Nσ(ϕ, σ) + Gϕσ(ϕ, σ)∇ϕ in Q. (4.23)
According to (3.14) inA4, the operator norm of the matrix (Nσσ(ϕ, σ))−1 is bounded by λ−1G . We now use
(3.10) fromA4to bound Gϕσ(ϕ, σ), which leads to the estimate
k∇σkL2≤ λ−1G k∇Nσ(ϕ, σ)kL2+ DGk∇ϕkL2
on [0, T ]. (4.24)
We can thus useA4, A6and (4.21) along with Young’s inequality to conclude that Z Ω [(∇σ)u + σSv(ϕ, σ)] · Nσ(ϕ, σ) dx ≤ D0λ 2 G 2 k∇σk 2 L2+ C(kNσ(ϕ, σ)k2L2+ kσk 2 L2) ≤D0 2 k∇Nσk 2 L2+ C 1 + kϕk 2 H1+ kσk 2 L2 (4.25) on the interval [0, T ].
IfA8.2holds (i.e., α = 0 and β = 1), we still have to derive an estimate for the L2-norm of µ since it cannot be absorbed by the left-hand side. We test (3.34c) with µ, and we useA8.2, (3.12) and Young’s inequality to infer that kµk2L2≤ C0k∇µk 2 L2+ C 1 + kϕk 2 H1+ kσk 2 L2 on [0, T ] ifA8.2 holds. (4.26)
We now combine the inequalities (4.17)–(4.20), (4.22), (4.25) and (4.26) to estimate the right-hand side of the discrete energy identity (4.16). In the resulting inequality, we observe that several terms on the right-hand side can be absorbed by the left-hand side. Recalling the definition of the energy E and integrating with respect to time, we eventually obtain for all t ∈ [0, T ],
Z Ω γε−1Ψ ϕ(t) +γε 2 |∇ϕ(t)| 2+χσ 2 |σ(t)| 2− G ϕ(t), σ(t) dx + Z t 0 p η(ϕ(s)) Dv(s) 2 L2+ ν 2 kv(s)k 2 L2+ Kχσ 2 kσ(s)k 2 L2 Γ ds + Z t 0 αθ0 2 kµ(s)k 2 L2+ C0 2 k∇µ(s)k 2 L2+ D0 2 ∇Nσ ϕ(s), σ(s) 2 L2 ds ≤ CT + C Z t 0 kϕ(s)k2H1+ kσ(s)k 2 L2 ds. (4.27)
We next use the estimate (3.8) fromA4along with Young’s inequality to derive the estimate Z Ω G ϕ(t), σ(t) dx ≤ Z Ω CG 2δ |ϕ(t)| 2 + 2CGδ |σ(t)| 2 + CG δ + 1 4δ+ 1 dx
for all t ∈ [0, T ] and all δ > 0. Choosing δ = χσ/(8CG), using the growth condition (3.28) fromA8, and
recallingA9, we infer that Z Ω G ϕ(t), σ(t) dx ≤ Z Ω 4C2 G χσ |ϕ(t)|2+χσ 4 |σ(t)| 2 dx + C ≤ Z Ω γ 2εΨ ϕ(t) + χσ 4 |σ(t)| 2 dx + C
for all t ∈ [0, T ]. Invoking the growth condition (3.28) once more, we find that for all t ∈ [0, T ], min γAΨ 2ε , χσ 4 , γε 2 kϕ(t)k2H1+ kσ(t)k 2 L2 ≤ C + Z Ω γε−1Ψ ϕ(t) +γε 2 |∇ϕ(t)| 2+χσ 2 |σ(t)| 2− G ϕ(t), σ(t) dx.
Using this estimate to bound the left-hand side in (4.27) from below, we finally conclude that kϕ(t)k2H1+ kσ(t)k 2 L2 ≤ C(1 + T ) + C Z t 0 kϕ(s)k2H1+ kσ(s)k 2 L2 ds (4.28)
for all t ∈ [0, T ]. Invoking Gronwall’s lemma, we thus obtain the uniform estimate
kϕk2L∞(0,T ;H1)+ kσk
2
L∞(0,T ;L2)≤ C. (4.29)
Using this inequality to bound the right-hand side of (4.27), invoking (4.24), and additionally using (4.26) ifA8.2holds, we infer that
kvk2L2(0,T ;L2)≤ C, p η(ϕ) Dv 2 L2(0,T ;L2)≤ C, (4.30) kσk2L2(0,T ;H1)+ kσk 2 L2(0,T ;L2 Γ)+ kµk 2 L2(0,T ;H1)+ ∇Nσ ϕ, σ 2 L2(0,T ;L2)≤ C. (4.31)
Using the lower bound on η fromA3and Korn’s inequality (3.3), we directly conclude that
kvk2L2(0,T ;H1)≤ C 1 + η−10 . (4.32)
Moreover, applying a trace estimate presented in [47, Thm. II.4.1] (with the parameters therein being chosen as r = q = 2, m = 1, n = d, λ = 0), we infer that kσkL2 Γ ≤ C kσkL2+ kσk 1/2 L2 kσk 1/2 H1 on [0, T ], (4.33)
and in combination with (4.30), this leads to the uniform bound
kσkL4(0,T ;L2
Γ)≤ C. (4.34)
Step 2.2: An estimate for the pressure. We next want to derive a uniform estimate on the pressure p. To this end, we rewrite (3.34a) as
Z Ω p divη dx = Z Ω 2η(ϕ)Dv + λ(ϕ)Sv(ϕ, σ)I : ∇η dx + Z Ω νv − (∇ϕ)>µ − (∇σ)>Nσ(ϕ, σ) · η dx (4.35) on [0, T ] for every η ∈ H1
(Ω; Rd). Then, by invoking Lemma 3.2, we infer the existence of a function
q ∈ C([0, T ]; H1) such that for all t ∈ [0, T ], q(t) is a strong solution to the system (
div q(t) = p(t) in Ω,
q(t) = |Γ|1 RΩp(t) dxn on Γ. We point out that the complementary condition (3.2) is fulfilled as
Z Γ q(t) · n dS = 1 |Γ| Z Ω p(t) dx Z Γ n · n dS = Z Ω p(t) dx for all t ∈ [0, T ]. In particular, according to Lemma3.2, we have the estimate
kqkH1 ≤ C kpkL2 on [0, T ]. (4.36)
Then, we choose η = q in (4.35) and, invokingA3,A4andA6, using the uniform estimates (4.29), (4.30), (4.36) as well as H¨older’s and Young’s inequalities, we derive the estimate
kpk2L2 ≤ C p η(ϕ)Dv 2 L2+ kvk 2 L2+ kSv(ϕ, σ)k 2 L2 + k∇ϕk2L2kµk 2 L3+ k∇σk 2 L2kNσ(ϕ, σ)k 2 L3 ≤ C (4.37)
on [0, T ]. RecallingA4and the uniform estimate (4.29), we notice that kNσ(ϕ, σ)kL∞(0,T ;L2)≤ C.
From the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality (3.4), we thus deduce the estimate kNσ(ϕ, σ)k 4 L4(0,T ;L3)≤ C Z T 0 kNσ(ϕ, σ)k 2 L2kNσ(ϕ, σ)k 2 H1 dt ≤ C kNσ(ϕ, σ)k 2 L∞(0,T ;L2)kNσ(ϕ, σ)k 2 L2(0,T ;H1)≤ C. (4.38)
Combining (4.37) and (4.38), we eventually conclude the uniform bound
kpk4/3L4/3(0,T ;L2)≤ C Z T 0 p η(ϕ)Dv 4/3 L2 + kvk 4/3 L2 + k∇ϕk 4/3 L2 kµk 4/3 L3 + k∇σk 4/3 L2 kNσ(ϕ, σ)k 4/3 L3 + 1 dt ≤ C p η(ϕ)Dv 4/3 L2(0,T ;L2)+ kvk 4/3 L2(0,T ;L2)+ k∇ϕk 4/3 L4(0,T ;L2)kµk 4/3 L2(0,T ;L3) + k∇σk4/3L2(0,T ;L2)kNσ(ϕ, σ)k 4/3 L4(0,T ;L3)+ 1 ≤ C. (4.39)
Step 2.3: Higher regularity for the phase-field. To establish higher order uniform a priori estimates on ϕ, we test (4.6c) with −∆ϕ and integrate the resulting equation with respect to time. This is actually allowed
since the basis functions wi, i = 1, ..., k are eigenfunctions of the problem (4.1) and thus, −∆ϕ(t) ∈ Wk for
all t ∈ [0, T ]. Next, we integrate the resulting equation with respect to time to obtain, after integration by parts, γε Z T 0 k∆ϕk2L2 dt + γε−1 Z T 0 Z Ω Ψ(1)ϕϕ(ϕ)∇ϕ : ∇ϕ d(x, t) = Z T 0 Z Ω −µ · ∆ϕ + γε−1Ψ(1) ϕ (ϕ) · ∆ϕ + Nϕ(ϕ, σ) · ∆ϕ d(x, t).
Note that the second integral on the left-hand side is nonnegative as Ψ(1)ϕϕ(ϕ) is a positive definite matrix
due to the convexity of Ψ(1). Applying Young’s inequality on the right-hand side, using (3.12) fromA4, and
recalling that Ψ(2)ϕ is Lipschitz continuous (seeA8), we derive the estimate
γε 2 Z T 0 k∆ϕk2L2 dt ≤ C Z T 0 1 + kµk2L2+ kϕk 2 L2+ kσk 2 L2 dt.
Invoking elliptic regularity theory and the uniform estimates (4.29) and (4.31), we conclude that
kϕkL2(0,T ;H2)≤ C k∆ϕkL2(0,T ;L2)+ kϕkL2(0,T ;L2) ≤ C. (4.40)
We next test (4.6c) with ∆2ϕ and integrate the resulting equation with respect to time. Arguing similarly
as above, ∆2ϕ is indeed an admissible test function due to the choice of the basis functions w
i, i = 1, ..., k.
After integrating by parts, using the chain rule and recalling that Nϕϕ= Gϕϕ, Nϕσ = Gϕσ due toA4, we
have γε Z T 0 k∇∆ϕk2L2 dt = Z T 0 Z Ω ∇µ : ∇∆ϕ − γε−1Ψϕϕ(ϕ)∇ϕ · ∇∆ϕ − Gϕϕ(ϕ, σ)∇ϕ · ∇∆ϕ − Gϕσ(ϕ, σ)∇σ · ∇∆ϕ d(x, t). Applying Young’s inequality on the right-hand side and invokingA4andA8, we infer that
γε 2 Z T 0 k∇∆ϕk2L2 dt ≤ C Z T 0 k∇µk2L2+ k∇ϕk 2 L2+ k∇σk 2 L2 dt.
Using elliptic regularity theory, as well as the uniform estimates (4.29) and (4.31), we eventually obtain
kϕkL2(0,T ;H3)≤ C k∇∆ϕkL2(0,T ;L2)+ k∇ϕkL2(0,T ;L2) ≤ C. (4.41)
Step 2.4: Estimates for the gradient of the potential. Using interpolation (Lemma 3.1) and Sobolev’s em-bedding theorem, we obtain the continuous emem-bedding
L∞(0, T ; H1(Ω)) ∩ L2(0, T ; H3(Ω)) ,→ Lκ(0, T ; Lκ−86κ (Ω)) (4.42)
for all κ ∈ (8, ∞). This entails that
ϕ ∈ L20(0, T ; L10(Ω)) ∩ L10(0, T ; L30(Ω)).
RecallingA8, for general exponents q and r still to be chosen, we derive the estimate
kΨϕ(ϕ)kqLq(0,T ;Lr)≤ C Z T 0 |ϕ|ρ−1 q Lr+ 1 dt ≤ C Z T 0 kϕkq(ρ−1) Lr(ρ−1)+ 1 dt.
Choosing (q, r) = (4, 2) and (q, r) = (2, 6), respectively, and recalling that ρ ≤ 6, we directly conclude that
