Finite-dimensional boundary uniform stabilization of the Boussinesq system in Besov spaces by critical use of Carleman estimate-based inverse theory

Irena Lasiecka; Buddhika Priyasad; Roberto Triggiani

doi:10.1515/jiip-2020-0132

Article

Finite-dimensional boundary uniform stabilization of the Boussinesq system in Besov spaces by critical use of Carleman estimate-based inverse theory

Irena Lasiecka , Buddhika Priyasad and Roberto Triggiani

Published/Copyright: April 2, 2021

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Journal of Inverse and Ill-posed Problems Volume 30 Issue 1

Abstract

We consider the 𝑑-dimensional Boussinesq system defined on a sufficiently smooth bounded domain and subject to a pair { v , u } of controls localized on { Γ ~ , ω } . Here, 𝑣 is a scalar Dirichlet boundary control for the thermal equation, acting on an arbitrarily small connected portion Γ ~ of the boundary Γ = ∂ ⁡ Ω . Instead, 𝒖 is a 𝑑-dimensional internal control for the fluid equation acting on an arbitrarily small collar 𝜔 supported by Γ ~ . The initial conditions for both fluid and heat equations are taken of low regularity. We then seek to uniformly stabilize such Boussinesq system in the vicinity of an unstable equilibrium pair, in the critical setting of correspondingly low regularity spaces, by means of an explicitly constructed, finite-dimensional feedback control pair { v , u } localized on { Γ ~ , ω } . In addition, they will be minimal in number and of reduced dimension; more precisely, 𝒖 will be of dimension ( d - 1 ) , to include necessarily its 𝑑-th component, and 𝑣 will be of dimension 1. The resulting space of well-posedness and stabilization is a suitable, tight Besov space for the fluid velocity component (close to L 3 ⁢ ( Ω ) for d = 3 ) and a corresponding Besov space for the thermal component, q > d . Unique continuation inverse theorems for suitably over-determined adjoint static problems play a critical role in the constructive solution. Their proof rests on Carleman-type estimates, a topic pioneered by M. V. Klibanov since the early 80s.

Keywords: Boussinesq system; boundary stabilization; Besov space; inverse theory

MSC 2010: 35K05; 35Q30; 35R30; 93C20; 93S15

Dedicated to Mikhail Klibanov

Funding source: National Science Foundation

Award Identifier / Grant number: DMS-1713506

Funding source: H2020 European Research Council

Award Identifier / Grant number: 668998

Funding statement: The research of I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant DMS-1713506. The research of B. Priyasad was partially supported by the ERC advanced grant 668998 (OCLOC) under the EU’s H2020 research program.

Appendix A Some auxiliary results for the Stokes and Oseen operators. Analytic semigroup generation, maximal regularity, domains of fractional powers

In this section, we collect some known results used in the paper. As a prerequisite of the present Appendix A, we make reference to Definition 1.2, equations (1.7)–(1.11) and Remark 1.2.

A.1 The Stokes and Oseen operators generate a strongly continuous analytic semigroup on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , 1 < q < ∞

Theorem A.1

Let d ≥ 2 , 1 < q < ∞ , and let Ω be a bounded domain in R d of class C 3 .

Then the Stokes operator - A q = P q ⁢ Δ in (1.14), repeated here as
(A.1) - A q ⁢ ψ = P q ⁢ Δ ⁢ ψ , ψ ∈ D ⁢ ( A q ) = W 2 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ W 0 1 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ,
generates an s.c. analytic semigroup e - A q ⁢ t on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) . See [32] and the review paper [35, Theorem 2.8.5, p. 17].
The Oseen operator A q in (1.17),
(A.2) A q = - ( ν ⁢ A q + A o , q ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) = D ⁢ ( A q ) ⊂ L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ,
generates an s.c. analytic semigroup e A q ⁢ t on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) . This follows as A o , q is relatively bounded with respect to A q 1 / 2 , see (1.15); thus a standard theorem on perturbation of an analytic semigroup generator applies [69, Corollary 2.4, p. 81].
We have
{ 0 ∈ ρ ⁢ ( A q ) = the resolvent set of the Stokes operator ⁢ A q , A q - 1 : L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) → L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ⁢ is compact .
The s.c. analytic Stokes semigroup e - A q ⁢ t is uniformly stable on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ; there exist constants M ≥ 1 , δ > 0 (possibly depending on 𝑞) such that
(A.3) ∥ e - A q ⁢ t ∥ L ⁢ ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) ≤ M ⁢ e - δ ⁢ t , t > 0 .

A.2 Domains of fractional powers D ⁢ ( A q α ) , 0 < α < 1 of the Stokes operator A q on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , 1 < q < ∞

We elaborate on (1.16).

Theorem A.2

For the domains of fractional powers D ⁢ ( A q α ) , 0 < α < 1 , of the Stokes operator A q in (A.1) = (1.14), the following complex interpolation relation holds true, see [33] and [35, Theorem 2.8.5, p. 18]:

[ D ⁢ ( A q ) , L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ] 1 - α = D ⁢ ( A q α ) , 0 < α < 1 , 1 < q < ∞ ;

in particular,

[ D ⁢ ( A q ) , L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ] 1 / 2 = D ⁢ ( A q 1 / 2 ) ≡ W 0 1 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) .

Thus, on the space D ⁢ ( A q 1 / 2 ) , the norms ∥ ∇ ⋅ ∥ L q ⁢ ( Ω ) and ∥ ⋅ ∥ L q ⁢ ( Ω ) are related via the Poincaré inequality.

A.3 The Stokes operator - A q and the Oseen operator A q , 1 < q < ∞ , generate s.c. analytic semigroups on the Besov space, from (1.11)

They are defined by (A.4)

(A.4a) ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p = { g ∈ B q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) : div ⁡ g = 0 , g | Γ = 0 } if ⁢ 1 q < 2 - 2 p < 2 ,

(A.4b) ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p = { g ∈ B q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) : div ⁡ g = 0 , g ⋅ ν | Γ = 0 } ≡ B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) if ⁢ 0 < 2 - 2 p < 1 q .

Theorem A.1 states that the Stokes operator - A q generates an s.c. analytic semigroup on the space L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , 1 < q < ∞ , hence on the space D ⁢ ( A q ) in (1.14) = (A.1), with norm ∥ ⋅ ∥ D ⁢ ( A q ) = ∥ A q ⋅ ∥ L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) as 0 ∈ ρ ⁢ ( A q ) . Then one obtains that the Stokes operator - A q generates an s.c. analytic semigroup on the real interpolation spaces in (A.4). Next, the Oseen operator A q = - ( ν ⁢ A q + A o , q ) in (A.2) = (1.17) likewise generates an s.c. analytic semigroup e A q ⁢ t on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) since A o , q is relatively bounded with respect to A q 1 / 2 , as A o , q ⁢ A q - 1 / 2 is bounded on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) . Moreover, A q generates an s.c. analytic semigroup on D ⁢ ( A q ) = D ⁢ ( A q ) (equivalent norms). Hence A q generates an s.c. analytic semigroup on the real interpolation space of (A.4). Here, below, however, we shall formally state the result only in the case 2 - 2 p < 1 q , i.e., 1 < p < 2 ⁢ q 2 ⁢ q - 1 , in the space B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) , as this does not contain B.C., Remark 1.2. The objective of the present paper is precisely to obtain stabilization results on spaces that do not recognize B.C.

Theorem A.3

Let 1 < q < ∞ , 1 < p < 2 ⁢ q 2 ⁢ q - 1 .

The Stokes operator - A q in (A.1) = (1.14) generates an s.c. analytic semigroup e - A q ⁢ t on the space B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) defined in (1.11) = (A.4b) which moreover is uniformly stable, as in (A.3),
∥ e - A q ⁢ t ∥ L ⁢ ( B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) ) ≤ M ⁢ e - δ ⁢ t , t > 0 .
The Oseen operator A q in (A.2) = (1.17) generates an s.c. analytic semigroup e A q ⁢ t on the space B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) in (1.11) = (A.4).

A.4 Space of maximal L p regularity on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) of the Stokes operator - A q , 1 < p < ∞ , 1 < q < ∞ , up to T = ∞

We return to the dynamic Stokes problem in { φ ⁢ ( t , x ) , π ⁢ ( t , x ) } , (A.5)

(A.5a) φ t - Δ ⁢ φ + ∇ ⁡ π = F in ⁢ ( 0 , T ] × Ω ≡ Q ,

(A.5b) div ⁡ φ ≡ 0 in ⁢ Q ,

(A.5c) φ | Σ ≡ 0 in ⁢ ( 0 , T ] × Γ ≡ Σ ,

(A.5d) φ | t = 0 = φ 0 in ⁢ Ω ,

rewritten in abstract form, after applying the Helmholtz projection P q to (A.5a) and recalling A q in (A.1) = (1.14) as

(A.6) φ ′ + A q ⁢ φ = F σ ≡ P q ⁢ F , φ 0 ∈ ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p .

Next, we introduce the space of maximal regularity for { φ , φ ′ } as [35, p. 2; Theorem 2.8.5 (iii), p. 17], [31, p. 1404-5], with 𝑇 up to ∞,

(A.7) X ~ p , q , σ T = L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; D ⁢ ( A q ) ) ∩ W 1 , p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) )

(recall (A.1) = (1.14) for D ⁢ ( A q ) ) and the corresponding space for the pressure as

Y ~ p , q T = L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; W ^ 1 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) , W ^ 1 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) = W 1 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) / R .

The following embedding, also called trace theorem, holds true, see [5, Theorem 4.10.2, p. 180, BUC for T = ∞ ], [71]:

(A.8) X ~ p , q , σ T ⊂ X ~ p , q T ≡ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; W 2 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) ∩ W 1 , p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) ↪ C ⁢ ( [ 0 , T ] ; B q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) ) .

For a function 𝒈 such that div ⁡ g ≡ 0 , g | Γ = 0 , we have g ∈ X ~ p , q T ⇔ g ∈ X ~ p , q , σ T .

The solution of equation (A.6) is

(A.9) φ ⁢ ( t ) = e - A q ⁢ t ⁢ φ 0 + ∫ 0 t e - A q ⁢ ( t - s ) ⁢ F σ ⁢ ( τ ) ⁢ d τ .

The following is the celebrated result on maximal regularity on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) of the Stokes problem due originally to Solonnikov [77, 78, 79, 80, 81] reported in [35, Theorem 2.8.5 (iii) and Theorem 2.10.1, p. 24, for φ 0 = 0 ], [74], [31, Proposition 4.1, p. 1405].

Theorem A.4

Let 1 < p , q < ∞ , T ≤ ∞ . With reference to problem (A.5) = (A.6), assume

(A.10) F σ ∈ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) , φ 0 ∈ ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p .

Then there exists a unique solution φ ∈ X ~ p , q , σ T , π ∈ Y ~ p , q T to the dynamic Stokes problem (A.5) or (A.6), continuously on the data; there exist constants C 0 , C 1 independent of T , F σ , φ 0 such that, via (A.8),

(A.11) C 0 ⁢ ∥ φ ∥ C ⁢ ( [ 0 , T ] ; B q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) ) ≤ ∥ φ ∥ X ~ p , q , σ T + ∥ π ∥ Y ~ p , q T ≡ ∥ φ ′ ∥ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) + ∥ A q ⁢ φ ∥ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) + ∥ π ∥ Y ~ p , q T ≤ C 1 ⁢ { ∥ F σ ∥ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) + ∥ φ 0 ∥ ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p } .

In particular, the following statements hold.

With reference to the variation-of-parameter formula (A.9) of problem (A.6) arising from Stokes problem (A.5), we have, recalling (A.7), that the map
F σ → ∫ 0 t e - A q ⁢ ( t - τ ) ⁢ F σ ⁢ ( τ ) ⁢ d τ ⁢ is continuous ,

L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) → X ~ p , q , σ T ≡ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; D ⁢ ( A q ) ) ∩ W 1 , p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) .
The s.c. analytic semigroup e - A q ⁢ t generated by the Stokes operator - A q , see (A.1) = (1.14), on the space ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p , see the statement below (A.4), satisfies
e - A q ⁢ t ⁢ is continuous , ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p → X ~ p , q , σ T ≡ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; D ⁢ ( A q ) ) ∩ W 1 , p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) .
In particular, via (A.4b), for future use, for 1 < q < ∞ , 1 < p < 2 ⁢ q 2 ⁢ q - 1 , the s.c. analytic semigroup e - A q ⁢ t on the space B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) satisfies
e - A q ⁢ t ⁢ is continuous , B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) → X ~ p , q , σ T .
Moreover, for future use, for 1 < q < ∞ , 1 < p < 2 ⁢ q 2 ⁢ q - 1 , then (A.11) specializes to
∥ φ ∥ X ~ p , q , σ T + ∥ π ∥ Y ~ p , q T ≤ C ⁢ { ∥ F σ ∥ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) + ∥ φ 0 ∥ B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) } .

A.5 Maximal L p regularity on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) of the Oseen operator A q , 1 < p < ∞ , 1 < q < ∞ , up to T < ∞

We next transfer the maximal regularity of the Stokes operator ( - A q ) on L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) asserted in Theorem A.4 into the maximal regularity of the Oseen operator A q = - ν ⁢ A q - A o , q in (A.2) exactly on the same space X ~ p , q , σ T defined in (A.7), however, only up to T < ∞ .

Thus, consider the dynamic Oseen problem in { φ ⁢ ( t , x ) , π ⁢ ( t , x ) } with equilibrium solution y e , see (1.2), (A.12)

(A.12a) φ t - Δ ⁢ φ + L e ⁢ ( φ ) + ∇ ⁡ π = F in ⁢ ( 0 , T ] × Ω ≡ Q ,

(A.12b) div ⁡ φ ≡ 0 in ⁢ Q ,

(A.12c) φ | Σ ≡ 0 in ⁢ ( 0 , T ] × Γ ≡ Σ ,

(A.12d) φ | t = 0 = φ 0 in ⁢ Ω ,

L e ( φ ) = ( y e . ∇ ) φ + ( φ . ∇ ) y e ,

rewritten in abstract form, after applying the Helmholtz projector P q to (A.12a) and recalling A q in (A.2), as

(A.13) φ t = A q ⁢ φ + P q ⁢ F = - ν ⁢ A q ⁢ φ - A o , q ⁢ φ + F σ , φ 0 ∈ ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p ,

whose solution is, via (1.18) = (A.2),

φ ⁢ ( t ) = e A q ⁢ t ⁢ φ 0 + ∫ 0 t e A q ⁢ ( t - τ ) ⁢ F σ ⁢ ( τ ) ⁢ d τ ,

φ ⁢ ( t ) = e - ν ⁢ A q ⁢ t ⁢ φ 0 + ∫ 0 t e - ν ⁢ A q ⁢ ( t - τ ) ⁢ F σ ⁢ ( τ ) ⁢ d τ - ∫ 0 t e - ν ⁢ A q ⁢ ( t - τ ) ⁢ A o , q ⁢ φ ⁢ ( τ ) ⁢ d τ .

Theorem A.5

Let 1 < p , q < ∞ , 0 < T < ∞ . Assume, as in (A.10),

F σ ∈ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) , φ 0 ∈ ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p ,

where D ⁢ ( A q ) = D ⁢ ( A q ) , see (A.2) = (1.18). Then there exists a unique solution φ ∈ X ~ p , q , σ T , π ∈ Y ~ p , q T of the dynamic Oseen problem (A.12), continuously on the data, that is, there exist constants C 0 , C 1 independent of F σ , φ 0 such that

C 0 ⁢ ∥ φ ∥ C ⁢ ( [ 0 , T ] ; B q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) ) ≤ ∥ φ ∥ X ~ p , q , σ T + ∥ π ∥ Y ~ p , q T ≡ ∥ φ ′ ∥ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) + ∥ A q ⁢ φ ∥ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) + ∥ π ∥ Y ~ p , q T ≤ C T ⁢ { ∥ F σ ∥ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) + ∥ φ 0 ∥ ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p } ,

where T < ∞ . Equivalently, for 1 < p , q < ∞ , the following statements hold.

The map
F σ → ∫ 0 t e A q ⁢ ( t - τ ) F σ ( τ ) d τ is continuous , L p ( 0 , T ; L σ q ( Ω ) ) → L p ( 0 , T ; D ( A q ) = D ( A q ) ) ,
where then, automatically, see (A.13), L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) → W 1 , p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) , and ultimately, via (A.7),
L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) → X ~ p , q , σ T ≡ L p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; D ⁢ ( A q ) ) ∩ W 1 , p ⁢ ( 0 , T ; L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) .
The s.c. analytic semigroup e A q ⁢ t generated by the Oseen operator A q , see (A.2) = (1.18), on the space ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p satisfies, for 1 < p , q < ∞ ,
e A q ⁢ t is continuous , ( L σ q ( Ω ) , D ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p → L p ( 0 , T ; D ( A q ) = D ( A q ) ) ,
and hence, automatically, by (A.7),
e A q ⁢ t ⁢ is continuous , ( L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) , D ⁢ ( A q ) ) 1 - 1 / p , p → X ~ p , q , σ T .
In particular, for future use, for 1 < q < ∞ , 1 < p < 2 ⁢ q 2 ⁢ q - 1 , we have that the s.c. analytic semigroup e A q ⁢ t on the space B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) satisfies
e A q ⁢ t is continuous , B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ( Ω ) → L p ( 0 , T ; D ( A q ) = D ( A q ) ) , T < ∞ ,
and hence, automatically,
e A q ⁢ t ⁢ is continuous , B ~ q , p 2 - 2 / p ⁢ ( Ω ) → X ~ p , q , σ T , T < ∞ .

A proof is given in [56, Appendix B].

Appendix B Material in support of the proof of Theorem 4.1. The required UCP and D * ⁢ B q * ⁢ f in (4.16)

B.1 The required UCP

We return to the operator A q in (1.33),

(B.1) A q = [ A q - C γ - C θ e - B q ] : W σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) = L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) × L q ⁢ ( Ω ) ⊃ D ⁢ ( A q ) = D ⁢ ( A q ) × D ⁢ ( B q ) = ( W 2 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ W 0 1 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) × ( W 2 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ W 0 1 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) ) → W σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) .

With Φ = [ φ , ψ ] , the PDE version of A q ⁢ Φ = λ ⁢ Φ is

(B.2) { - ν ⁢ Δ ⁢ φ + L e ⁢ ( φ ) + ∇ ⁡ π - γ ⁢ ψ ⁢ e d = λ ⁢ φ in ⁢ Ω , - κ ⁢ Δ ⁢ ψ - y e ⋅ ∇ ⁡ ψ + φ ⋅ ∇ ⁡ θ e = λ ⁢ ψ in ⁢ Ω , div ⁡ φ = 0 in ⁢ Ω , φ = 0 , ψ = 0 on ⁢ Γ .

Several UCPs for over-determined versions of the eigenproblem (B.2) are given in [89, 87]. However, establishing in Theorem 4.1 controllability of the finite-dimensional projected problem (4.21) or (4.27) via verification of the Kalman rank condition (4.29) involves the following UCP for the adjoint problem. First, recall from (4.3) that the adjoint A q * or A q in (B.1) is

A q * = [ A q * - C θ e * - C γ * - B q * ] : W σ q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) = L σ q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) × L q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) ⊃ D ⁢ ( A q * ) = D ⁢ ( A q * ) × D ⁢ ( B q * ) = ( W 2 , q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ W 0 1 , q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ L σ q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) ) × ( W 2 , q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ W 0 1 , q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) ) → W σ q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) .

With Φ * = [ φ * , ψ * ] , the PDE version of A q * ⁢ Φ * = λ ⁢ Φ * is

(B.3) { - ν ⁢ Δ ⁢ φ * + L e * ⁢ ( φ * ) + ψ * ⁢ ∇ ⁡ θ e + ∇ ⁡ π = λ ⁢ φ * in ⁢ Ω , - κ ⁢ Δ ⁢ ψ * - y e ⋅ ∇ ⁡ ψ * - γ ⁢ φ * ⋅ e d = λ ⁢ ψ * in ⁢ Ω , div ⁡ φ * = 0 in ⁢ Ω , φ * = 0 , ψ * = 0 on ⁢ Γ .

The UCP invoked in the proof of Theorem 4.1 is given by the following theorem.

Theorem B.1

Theorem B.1 ([89, Theorem 5])

Let { φ , ψ , π } ∈ [ W 2 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ] × W 2 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) , π ∈ W 1 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) be a solution of the dual problem (B.4)

(B.4a) - ν ⁢ Δ ⁢ φ * + L e * ⁢ ( φ * ) + ψ * ⁢ ∇ ⁡ θ e + ∇ ⁡ π = λ ⁢ φ * in ⁢ Ω ,

(B.4b) - κ ⁢ Δ ⁢ ψ * - y e ⋅ ∇ ⁡ ψ * - γ ⁢ φ * ⋅ e d = λ ⁢ ψ * in ⁢ Ω ,

(B.4c) div ⁡ φ * = 0 in ⁢ Ω

(B.4d) { φ * ( 1 ) , … , φ * ( d - 1 ) } = 0 , ψ * = 0 on ⁢ ω ,

with over-determination in (B.4d). Then φ * = 0 , ψ * = 0 , π = const . in Ω.∎

Proof of D * ⁢ B * ⁢ f = - κ ⁢ ∂ ⁡ f ∂ ⁡ ν | Γ , f ∈ D ⁢ ( B q * ) , in (4.16), essentially by Green’s formula

(1) Let 1 < q < ∞ , and define

(B.5) B o , q ⁢ h = y e ⋅ h , L q ⁢ ( Ω ) ⊃ D ⁢ ( B o , q ) = W 0 1 , q ⁢ ( Ω ) → L q ⁢ ( Ω ) .

Then

(B.6) B o , q * ⁢ h = - y e ⋅ f , L q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) ⊃ D ⁢ ( B o , q * ) = W 0 1 , q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) → L q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) .

In fact, recalling y e | Γ ≡ 0 and div y e ≡ 0 in Ω from (1.2c)–(1.2d), we compute, in the duality pairing L q ⁢ ( Ω ) , L q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) , with h ∈ D ⁢ ( B o , q ) , f ∈ D ⁢ ( B o , q * ) , by (B.5),

⟨ B o , q ⁢ h , f ⟩ = ∫ Ω f ⁢ y e ⋅ ∇ ⁡ h ⁢ d ⁢ Ω = ∫ Γ h ⁢ f ⁢ y e ⋅ ν ⁢ d ⁢ Γ - ∫ Ω h ⁢ div ⁡ ( f ⁢ y e ) ⁢ d Ω = - ∫ Ω h ⁢ y e ⋅ ∇ ⁡ f ⁢ d ⁢ Ω = ⟨ h , B o , q * ⁢ f ⟩ Ω

(2) We return to the operator B q in (1.18), with h ∈ D ⁢ ( B q ) ,

(B.7) B q ⁢ h = - κ ⁢ Δ ⁢ h + B o , q ⁢ h so that B q * ⁢ h = - κ ⁢ Δ ⁢ f + B o , q * ⁢ f , f ∈ D ⁢ ( B q * ) .

We shall show that

(B.8) D * ⁢ B * ⁢ f = - κ ⁢ ∂ ⁡ f ∂ ⁡ ν | Γ , f ∈ D ⁢ ( B q * ) = W 2 , q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) ∩ W 0 1 , q ′ ⁢ ( Ω ) .

In fact, by (B.6) and (B.7), we compute with v ∈ L 2 ⁢ ( Γ ) , recalling the definition of 𝐷 in (1.23a),

⟨ D * ⁢ B q * ⁢ f , v ⟩ Γ = ⟨ B q * ⁢ f , D ⁢ v ⟩ Ω = ⟨ Δ ⁢ f , - κ ⁢ D ⁢ v ⟩ Ω + ⟨ f , B o , q * ⁢ D ⁢ v ⟩ Ω = ⟨ f , ( - κ ⁢ Δ - y e ⋅ ∇ ) ⁢ D ⁢ v ⟩ Ω + ∫ Γ ∂ ⁡ f ∂ ⁡ ν ⁢ ( - κ ⁢ D ⁢ v ) ⁢ d ⁢ Γ + ∫ Γ f ⁢ ( κ ⁢ ∂ ⁡ D ⁢ v ∂ ⁡ ν ) ⁢ d ⁢ Γ = ⟨ - κ ⁢ ∂ ⁡ f ∂ ⁡ ν , v ⟩ Γ for all ⁢ v ∈ L q ⁢ ( Γ ) ,

and (B.8) is established. ∎

Appendix C Validation of the Kalman controllability conditions (4.29) with fluid vectors { u 1 , … , u ℓ i } , ℓ i ≤ K , i = 1 , … , M , having only ( d - 1 ) components

For the sake of the clarity, we shall consider separately the cases d = 2 and d = 3 .

Case d = 2

Express the 2-dimensional vectors u i and φ i ⁢ j * of Section 4 in terms of their two components,

(C.1) u i = [ u i ( 1 ) , u i ( 2 ) ] , φ i ⁢ j * = [ φ i ⁢ j * ( 1 ) , φ i ⁢ j * ( 2 ) ] , i = 1 , … , M , j = 1 , … , ℓ i .

Here, we shall recall the matrix W i in (4.22), but we shall replace the matrix U i in (4.23) with the following matrix:

U i ( 2 ) = [ ⟨ u 1 ( 2 ) , φ i ⁢ 1 * ( 2 ) ⟩ ω … ⟨ u ℓ i ( 2 ) , φ i ⁢ 1 * ( 2 ) ⟩ ω ⟨ u 2 ( 2 ) , φ i ⁢ 2 * ( 2 ) ⟩ ω … ⟨ u ℓ i ( 2 ) , φ i ⁢ 2 * ( 2 ) ⟩ ω ⋮ ⋮ ⟨ u 1 ( 2 ) , φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 2 ) ⟩ ω … ⟨ u ℓ i ( 2 ) , φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 2 ) ⟩ ω ] : ℓ i × K ,

where now the duality pairing ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ ω involves two scalar functions. Next, for d = 2 , we shall establish the Kalman algebraic rank condition for the finite-dimensional, unstable, feedback problem (4.21), by employing not the full strength of the 2-dimensional vectors u i and φ i ⁢ j * as in (4.29) involving the matrix U i in (4.23), but instead replacing U i with U i ( 2 ) . This way, only the second (scalar) components u i ( 2 ) and φ i ⁢ j * ( 2 ) of the 2-dimensional vectors u i and φ i ⁢ j * in (C.1) are needed. Recall that we are dealing with a pair { ω , Γ ~ } as in Figure 1. The counterpart of Theorem 4.1 is now the following theorem.

Theorem C.1

Let d = 2 . It is possible to select boundary vectors f 1 , … , f K in F ⊂ W 2 - 1 / q , q ⁢ ( Γ ~ ) with support on Γ ~ , and scalar second components { u 1 ( 2 ) , … , u ℓ i ( 2 ) } as in (C.1), such that rank ⁡ [ W i , U i ( 2 ) ] = ℓ i , i , … , M .

Proof

We shall appropriately modify the proof of Theorem 4.1. As in this proof, the crux is to establish that we cannot have simultaneously

(C.2) ∂ ν ⁡ ψ i ⁢ ℓ i * = ∑ j = 1 ℓ i - 1 α j ⁢ ∂ ν ⁡ ψ i ⁢ j * ⁢ in ⁢ L q ⁢ ( Γ ~ ) and φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 2 ) = ∑ j = 1 ℓ i - 1 α j ⁢ φ i ⁢ j * ( 2 ) ⁢ in ⁢ L σ q ⁢ ( ω )

with the same constant α 1 , … , α ℓ i - 1 in both expressions.

Claim

Statement (C.2) is false.

By contradiction, suppose that both linear combinations in (C.2) hold true. Next, as in (4.31), define the ( d + 1 ) -vector Φ * ≡ { φ * , ψ * } by

(C.3) Φ * ≡ [ φ * ψ * ] = ∑ j = 1 ℓ i - 1 [ α j ⁢ φ i ⁢ j * α j ⁢ ψ i ⁢ j * ] - [ φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ψ i ⁢ ℓ i * ] = ∑ j = 1 ℓ i - 1 α j ⁢ Φ i ⁢ j * - Φ i ⁢ ℓ i * , i = 1 , … , M , q ≥ 2 ,

in W σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) ≡ L σ q ⁢ ( Ω ) × L q ⁢ ( Ω ) , with Φ i ⁢ j * ≡ { φ i ⁢ j * , ψ i ⁢ j * } eigenvector of A q , N * or A q * , as in (4.2). Then, in view of (C.2), we now obtain

(C.4) φ * ( 2 ) ≡ 0 ⁢ in ⁢ ω , ∂ ν ⁡ ψ * | Γ ~ ≡ 0

(in place of (4.32)). As in the proof of Theorem 4.1, since the Φ i ⁢ j * are eigenvectors of A q , N * or A q * , so is the vector Φ * ≡ { φ * , ψ * } defined in (C.3). Thus, Φ * ≡ { φ * , ψ * } satisfies the PDE version (4.33a)–(4.33d) of the eigenproblem for the dual A q * , which is now augmented with the over-determined conditions in (C.4). The fact that now φ * | Γ = 0 by (4.33d) on the entire boundary Γ permits a fortiori the argument of [89, Theorems 6, 7] to hold true. Namely, invoke φ * ( 2 ) ≡ 0 in 𝜔 in (C.4) to obtain, as in the proof of Theorem 4.1, the over-determined problem (4.34) for ψ * on 𝜔, with the conclusion that

(C.5) ψ * ≡ 0 ⁢ in ⁢ ω , as in (4.35) .

Next, the divergence condition (4.33c) yields, in view of (C.4), div ⁡ φ * = φ x 1 * ( 1 ) + φ x 2 * ( 2 ) = φ x 1 * ( 1 ) = 0 in 𝜔. Hence φ * ( 1 ) ⁢ ( x 1 , x 2 ) ≡ c ⁢ ( x 2 ) in 𝜔, where c ⁢ ( x 2 ) is a function constant with respect to x 1 and depending only on x 2 in 𝜔. Next, let P = { x 1 ⁢ ( P ) , x 2 ⁢ ( P ) } be an arbitrary point of 𝜔. Consider the line ℓ passing through the point 𝑃 and parallel to the x 1 -axis. On such a line ℓ, the value φ * ( 1 ) ⁢ ( x 1 , x 2 ⁢ ( P ) ) ≡ c 2 ⁢ ( x 2 ⁢ ( P ) ) is constant with respect to x 1 , as long as ℓ intersects 𝜔. By definition of the small set 𝜔 supported by Γ ~ , there is a non-empty open subset ω ~ ⊂ ω , where the following happens: for all points 𝑃 in ω ~ , the line ℓ remains in ω ~ and hits the boundary Γ ~ , where condition (4.33d) applies for φ * ( 1 ) | Γ = 0 . Thus, φ * ( 1 ) ≡ 0 in ω ~ ⊂ ω . Recalling (C.4), we finally have φ * = { φ * ( 1 ) , φ * ( 2 ) } ≡ 0 in ω ~ ⊂ ω , along with ψ * ≡ 0 in ω ~ by (C.5). We can then apply [89, Theorem 5 for ω ~ ] and conclude that

φ * = { φ * ( 1 ) , φ * ( 2 ) } ≡ 0 ⁢ in ⁢ Ω , ψ * ≡ 0 ⁢ in ⁢ Ω , p ≡ const . in ⁢ Ω .

The rest of the proof proceeds as in Theorem 4.1 following (4.36). Theorem C.1 is established. ∎

Case d = 3

Now we express the 3-dimensional vectors u i and φ i ⁢ j * of Section 4 in terms of their components as

(C.6) u i = [ u i ( 1 ) , u i ( 2 ) , u i ( 3 ) ] , φ i ⁢ j * = [ φ i ⁢ j * ( 1 ) , φ i ⁢ j * ( 2 ) , φ i ⁢ j * ( 3 ) ] , i = 1 , … , M , j = 1 , … , ℓ i .

We now distinguish two sub-cases.

Sub-case { 1 , 3 } . Here, we extract only the first and third components, while we omit the second component. Accordingly, we introduce the following 2-dimensional vectors u i ( 1 , 3 ) and φ * ( 1 , 3 ) and the corresponding matrix U i ( 1 , 3 ) , (C.7)

u i ( 1 , 3 ) = [ u i ( 1 ) , u i ( 3 ) ] , φ i ⁢ j * ( 1 , 3 ) = [ φ i ⁢ j * ( 1 ) , φ i ⁢ j * ( 3 ) ] ,

U i ( 1 , 3 ) = [ ⟨ [ u 1 ( 1 ) u 1 ( 3 ) ] , [ φ i ⁢ 1 * ( 1 ) φ i ⁢ 1 * ( 3 ) ] ⟩ ω … ⟨ [ u ℓ i ( 1 ) u ℓ i ( 3 ) ] , [ φ i ⁢ 1 * ( 1 ) φ i ⁢ 1 * ( 3 ) ] ⟩ ω ⋮ ⋮ ⟨ [ u 1 ( 1 ) u 1 ( 3 ) ] , [ φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 1 ) φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 3 ) ] ⟩ ω … ⟨ [ u ℓ i ( 1 ) u ℓ i ( 3 ) ] , [ φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 1 ) φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 3 ) ] ⟩ ω ]

Sub-case { 2 , 3 } . Here, we extract only the second and third components, while we omit the first component. Accordingly, we introduce the following 2-dimensional vectors u i ( 2 , 3 ) and φ * ( 2 , 3 ) and the corresponding matrix U i ( 2 , 3 ) , (C.8)

u i ( 2 , 3 ) = [ u i ( 2 ) , u i ( 3 ) ] , φ i ⁢ j * ( 2 , 3 ) = [ φ i ⁢ j * ( 2 ) , φ i ⁢ j * ( 3 ) ] ,

U i ( 2 , 3 ) = [ ⟨ [ u 1 ( 2 ) u 1 ( 3 ) ] , [ φ i ⁢ 1 * ( 2 ) φ i ⁢ 1 * ( 3 ) ] ⟩ ω … ⟨ [ u ℓ i ( 2 ) u ℓ i ( 3 ) ] , [ φ i ⁢ 1 * ( 2 ) φ i ⁢ 1 * ( 3 ) ] ⟩ ω ⋮ ⋮ ⟨ [ u 1 ( 2 ) u 1 ( 3 ) ] , [ φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 2 ) φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 3 ) ] ⟩ ω … ⟨ [ u ℓ i ( 2 ) u ℓ i ( 3 ) ] , [ φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 2 ) φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 3 ) ] ⟩ ω ]

Next, for d = 3 , we shall establish the Kalman algebraic rank condition for the finite-dimensional, unstable, feedback problem (4.21) by replacing the matrix U i in (4.23) with either the matrix U i ( 1 , 3 ) in (C.7) (sub-case { 1 , 3 } ) or with the matrix U i 2 , 3 in (C.8) (sub-case { 2 , 3 } ). This way, the third (scalar) components u i ( 3 ) and φ i ⁢ j * ( 3 ) of the 3-dimensional vectors u i and φ i ⁢ j * in (C.6) are needed in both sub-cases. The counterpart of Theorem 4.1 (or Theorem C.1) is now the following theorem.

Theorem C.2

Let d = 3 . It is possible to select boundary vectors f 1 , … , f K in F ⊂ W 2 - 1 / q , q ⁢ ( Γ ~ ) with support on Γ ~ , and

either 2-dimensional vectors u i ( 1 , 3 ) = { u i ( 1 ) , u i ( 3 ) } as in (C.7)
or 2-dimensional vectors u i ( 2 , 3 ) = { u i ( 2 ) , u i ( 3 ) } as in (C.8)

such that

rank ⁡ [ W i , U i ( 1 , 3 ) ] = ℓ i , i , … , M , in case (i) ,

rank ⁡ [ W i , U i ( 2 , 3 ) ] = ℓ i , i , … , M , in case (ii) ,

respectively.

Proof

We shall only give a proof in the sub-case { 1 , 3 } , as the proof of the sub-case { 2 , 3 } is the same mutatis mutandis. As in the proof of Theorem 4.1 (or Theorem C.1), the crux is to establish that we cannot have simultaneously

(C.9) ∂ ν ⁡ ψ i ⁢ ℓ i * = ∑ j = 1 ℓ i - 1 α j ⁢ ∂ ν ⁡ ψ i ⁢ j * ⁢ in ⁢ L q ⁢ ( Γ ~ ) and φ i ⁢ ℓ i * ( 1 , 3 ) = ∑ j = 1 ℓ i - 1 α j ⁢ φ i ⁢ j * ( 1 , 3 ) ⁢ in ⁢ L σ q ⁢ ( ω )

with the same constants α , … , α ℓ i - 1 in both expressions. ∎

Claim

Statement (C.9) is false.

By contradiction, suppose that both linear combinations in (C.9) hold true. Next, define the ( d + 1 ) -vector Φ * ≡ { φ * , ψ * } as in (4.31) (or (C.3)). Then, in view of (C.9), we now obtain

(C.10) φ * ( 1 , 3 ) ≡ { φ * ( 1 ) , φ * ( 3 ) } ≡ 0 ⁢ in ⁢ ω , ∂ ν ⁡ ψ * | Γ ~ ≡ 0

(in place of (4.32) or (C.4)). As in Theorem 4.1 (or Theorem C.1), the Φ * ≡ { φ * , ψ * } is an eigenvector of A q * and thus satisfies the corresponding PDE version – that is, problem (4.33a)–(4.33d), augmented this time with the over-determined conditions in (C.10). Next, invoke φ * ( 3 ) ≡ 0 in 𝜔 from (C.10) to obtain, as in the proof of Theorem 4.1, the over-determined problem (4.34) for ψ * in 𝜔, with the conclusion that

(C.11) ψ * ≡ 0 ⁢ in ⁢ ω ,

as in (4.33) (or (C.5)). Next, the divergence condition (4.33c) yields, in view of (C.10),

div ⁡ φ * = φ x 1 * ( 1 ) + φ x 2 * ( 2 ) + φ x 3 * ( 3 ) = φ x 2 * ( 2 ) = 0 in ⁢ ω .

Hence φ * ( 2 ) ⁢ ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 ) ≡ c ⁢ ( x 1 , x 3 ) in 𝜔, where c ⁢ ( x 1 , x 3 ) is a function constant with respect to x 2 and depending only on x 1 and x 3 in 𝜔. Next, let P = { x 1 ⁢ ( P ) , x 2 ⁢ ( P ) , x 3 ⁢ ( P ) } be an arbitrary point of 𝜔. Consider the plane π P passing through the point 𝑃 and parallel to the { x 1 , x 3 } -coordinate plane. As the point { x 1 , x 2 ⁢ ( P ) , x 3 } of 𝜔 runs over the plane π P , the value φ * ( 2 ) ⁢ ( x 1 , x 2 ⁢ ( P ) , x 3 ) = c ⁢ ( x 1 , x 3 ) is independent of x 2 ⁢ ( P ) , as long as such plane π P intersects 𝜔. By definition of the small 𝜔 supported by Γ ~ , there is a non-empty open subset ω ~ ⊂ ω , where the following happens: for all points 𝑃 in ω ~ , the plane π P remains in ω ~ and hits the boundary Γ ~ , where condition (4.33d) applies for φ * ( 2 ) | Γ = 0 . Thus, φ * ( 2 ) ≡ 0 in ω ~ ⊂ ω . Recalling (C.10), we conclude that φ * = { φ * ( 1 ) , φ * ( 2 ) , φ * ( 3 ) } ≡ 0 in ω ~ ⊂ ω , along with ψ * ≡ 0 in ω ~ by (C.11). We can then apply [89, Theorem 5 for ω ~ ] and conclude that

φ * = { φ * ( 1 ) , φ * ( 2 ) , φ * ( 3 ) } ≡ 0 ⁢ in ⁢ Ω , ψ * ≡ 0 ⁢ in ⁢ Ω , p ≡ const . in ⁢ Ω .

The rest of the proof proceeds as in Theorem 4.1 following (4.36). Theorem C.2 is established.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the referee for much appreciated comments and suggestions.

References

[1] P. Acevedo, C. Amrouche and C. Conca, Boussinesq system with non-homogeneous boundary conditions, Appl. Math. Lett. 53 (2016), 39–44. 10.1016/j.aml.2015.09.015Search in Google Scholar

[2] P. Acevedo, C. Amrouche and C. Conca, L p theory for Boussinesq system with Dirichlet boundary conditions, Appl. Anal. 98 (2019), no. 1–2, 272–294. 10.1080/00036811.2018.1530762Search in Google Scholar

[3] P. Acevedo Tapia, L p - theory for the Boussinesq system, Ph.D thesis, Universidad de Chile, Santiago de Chile, 2015. Search in Google Scholar

[4] H. Amann, Linear and Quasilinear Parabolic Problems. Vol. I: Abstract Linear Theory, Monogr. Math. 89, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1995. 10.1007/978-3-0348-9221-6Search in Google Scholar

[5] H. Amann, On the strong solvability of the Navier–Stokes equations, J. Math. Fluid Mech. 2 (2000), no. 1, 16–98. 10.1007/s000210050018Search in Google Scholar

[6] A. V. Balakrishnan, Applied Functional Analysis, 2nd ed., Appl. Math. 3, Springer, New York, 1981. Search in Google Scholar

[7] V. Barbu, Stabilization of Navier–Stokes Flows, Comm. Control Engrg. Ser., Springer, London, 2011. 10.1007/978-0-85729-043-4Search in Google Scholar

[8] V. Barbu, I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani, Abstract settings for tangential boundary stabilization of Navier–Stokes equations by high- and low-gain feedback controllers, Nonlinear Anal. 64 (2006), no. 12, 2704–2746. 10.1016/j.na.2005.09.012Search in Google Scholar

[9] V. Barbu, I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani, Tangential boundary stabilization of Navier–Stokes equations, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 181 (2006), no. 852, 1–128. 10.1090/memo/0852Search in Google Scholar

[10] V. Barbu, I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani, Local exponential stabilization strategies of the Navier–Stokes equations, d = 2 , 3 , via feedback stabilization of its linearization, Control of Coupled Partial Differential Equations, Internat. Ser. Numer. Math. 155, Birkhäuser, Basel (2007), 13–46. 10.1007/978-3-7643-7721-2_2Search in Google Scholar

[11] V. Barbu and R. Triggiani, Internal stabilization of Navier–Stokes equations with finite-dimensional controllers, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 53 (2004), no. 5, 1443–1494. 10.1512/iumj.2004.53.2445Search in Google Scholar

[12] G. Basile and G. Marro, Controlled and Conditioned Invariants in Linear System Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1992. Search in Google Scholar

[13] A. L. Bukhgeĭm, Carleman estimates for Volterra operators and the uniqueness of inverse problems (in Russian), Nonclassical Problems of Mathematical Physics, Akad. Nauk SSSR, Novosibirsk (1981), 56–64. 10.1007/BF00969507Search in Google Scholar

[14] A. L. Bukhgeĭm and M. V. Klibanov, Uniqueness in the large of a class of multidimensional inverse problems, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 260 (1981), no. 2, 269–272. Search in Google Scholar

[15] J. A. Burns, X. He and W. Hu, Feedback stabilization of a thermal fluid system with mixed boundary control, Comput. Math. Appl. 71 (2016), no. 11, 2170–2191. 10.1016/j.camwa.2016.01.011Search in Google Scholar

[16] J. A. Burns and W. Hu, Approximation methods for boundary control of the Boussinesq equations, 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, IEEE Press, Piscataway (2013), 454–459. 10.1109/CDC.2013.6759923Search in Google Scholar

[17] T. Carleman, Sur un probleme d’unicite pour les systémes d’équations aux dérivées partielles & deux variables independentes, Ark. Mat 26 (1939), 1–9. Search in Google Scholar

[18] C. T. Chen, Linear Systems Theory and Design, Oxford University, Oxford, 1984. Search in Google Scholar

[19] P. Constantin and C. Foias, Navier–Stokes Equations, Chic. Lectures in Math., University of Chicago, Chicago, 1980. Search in Google Scholar

[20] J.-M. Coron and S. Guerrero, Null controllability of the 𝑁-dimensional Stokes system with N - 1 scalar controls, J. Differential Equations 246 (2009), no. 7, 2908–2921. 10.1016/j.jde.2008.10.019Search in Google Scholar

[21] J.-M. Coron and P. Lissy, Local null controllability of the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes system with a distributed control having two vanishing components, Invent. Math. 198 (2014), no. 3, 833–880. 10.1007/s00222-014-0512-5Search in Google Scholar

[22] L. de Simon, Un’applicazione della teoria degli integrali singolari allo studio delle equazioni differenziali lineari astratte del primo ordine, Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova 34 (1964), 205–223. Search in Google Scholar

[23] G. Dore, Maximal regularity in L p spaces for an abstract Cauchy problem, Adv. Differential Equations 5 (2000), no. 1–3, 293–322. 10.57262/ade/1356651386Search in Google Scholar

[24] E. Fabes, O. Mendez and M. Mitrea, Boundary layers on Sobolev–Besov spaces and Poisson’s equation for the Laplacian in Lipschitz domains, J. Funct. Anal. 159 (1998), no. 2, 323–368. 10.1006/jfan.1998.3316Search in Google Scholar

[25] E. Fernández-Cara, M. C. Santos and D. A. Souza, Boundary controllability of incompressible Euler fluids with Boussinesq heat effects, Math. Control Signals Systems 28 (2016), no. 1, Article ID 7. 10.1007/s00498-015-0158-xSearch in Google Scholar

[26] C. Foias and R. Temam, Determination of the solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations by a set of nodal values, Math. Comp. 43 (1984), no. 167, 117–133. 10.1090/S0025-5718-1984-0744927-9Search in Google Scholar

[27] A. V. Fursikov, Stabilization for the 3D Navier–Stokes system by feedback boundary control, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 10 (2004), 289–314. 10.3934/dcds.2004.10.289Search in Google Scholar

[28] G. P. Galdi, An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier–Stokes Equations. Vol. I: Nonlinear Steady Problems, Springer, New York, 1994. 10.1007/978-1-4612-5364-8Search in Google Scholar

[29] G. P. Galdi, An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier–Stokes Equations. Vol. II: Linearized Steady Problems, Springer, New York, 1994. 10.1007/978-1-4757-3866-7Search in Google Scholar

[30] G. P. Galdi, An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier–Stokes Equations, Springer, New York, 2011. 10.1007/978-0-387-09620-9Search in Google Scholar

[31] M. Geissert, K. Götze and M. Hieber, L p -theory for strong solutions to fluid-rigid body interaction in Newtonian and generalized Newtonian fluids, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 365 (2013), no. 3, 1393–1439. 10.1090/S0002-9947-2012-05652-2Search in Google Scholar

[32] Y. Giga, Analyticity of the semigroup generated by the Stokes operator in L r spaces, Math. Z. 178 (1981), no. 3, 297–329. 10.1007/BF01214869Search in Google Scholar

[33] Y. Giga, Domains of fractional powers of the Stokes operator in L r spaces, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 89 (1985), no. 3, 251–265. 10.1007/BF00276874Search in Google Scholar

[34] S. Guerrero, Local exact controllability to the trajectories of the Boussinesq system, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 23 (2006), no. 1, 29–61. 10.1016/j.anihpc.2005.01.002Search in Google Scholar

[35] M. Hieber and J. Saal, The Stokes equation in the L p -setting: Well-posedness and regularity properties, Handbook of Mathematical Analysis in Mechanics of Viscous Fluids, Springer, Cham (2018), 117–206. 10.1007/978-3-319-10151-4_3-1Search in Google Scholar

[36] L. Hörmander, The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators. III, Springer, Berlin, 1985. Search in Google Scholar

[37] V. Isakov, Inverse Problems for Partial Differential Equations, Appl. Math. Sci. 127, Springer, New York, 1998. 10.1007/978-1-4899-0030-2Search in Google Scholar

[38] L. Iskauriaza, G. A. Serëgin and V. Shverak, L 3 , ∞ -solutions of Navier–Stokes equations and backward uniqueness, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 58 (2003), no. 2(350), 3–44. 10.1070/RM2003v058n02ABEH000609Search in Google Scholar

[39] H. Jia and V. Šverák, Minimal L 3 -initial data for potential Navier–Stokes singularities, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 45 (2013), no. 3, 1448–1459. 10.1137/120880197Search in Google Scholar

[40] T. Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, Grundlehren Math. Wiss. 132, Springer, New York, 1966. 10.1007/978-3-642-53393-8Search in Google Scholar

[41] M. A. Kazemi and M. V. Klibanov, Stability estimates for ill-posed Cauchy problems involving hyperbolic equations and inequalities, Appl. Anal. 50 (1993), no. 1–2, 93–102. 10.1080/00036819308840186Search in Google Scholar

[42] S. Kesavan, Topics in Functional Analysis and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989. Search in Google Scholar

[43] V. A. Khoa, G. W. Bidney, M. V. Klibanov, L. H. Nguyen, L. H. Nguyen, A. J. Sullivan and V. N. Astratov, Convexification and experimental data for a 3D inverse scattering problem with the moving point source, Inverse Problems 36 (2020), no. 8, Article ID 085007. 10.1088/1361-6420/ab95aaSearch in Google Scholar

[44] V. A. Khoa, M. V. Klibanov and L. H. Nguyen, Convexification for a three-dimensional inverse scattering problem with the moving point source, SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 13 (2020), no. 2, 871–904. 10.1137/19M1303101Search in Google Scholar

[45] H. Kim, The existence and uniqueness of very weak solutions of the stationary Boussinesq system, Nonlinear Anal. 75 (2012), no. 1, 317–330. 10.1016/j.na.2011.08.035Search in Google Scholar

[46] M. V. Klibanov, Uniqueness of solutions in “the large” of some multidimensional inverse problems (in Russian), Nonclassical Problems of Mathematical Physics, Akad. Nauk SSSR, Novosibirsk (1981), 101–114. Search in Google Scholar

[47] M. V. Klibanov, A class of inverse problems, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 265 (1982), no. 6, 1306–1309. Search in Google Scholar

[48] M. V. Klibanov, Inverse problems in the “large” and Carleman estimates, Differ. Uravn. 20 (1984), no. 6, 1035–1041. Search in Google Scholar

[49] M. V. Klibanov, Carleman estimates for global uniqueness, stability and numerical methods for coefficient inverse problems, J. Inverse Ill-Posed Probl. 21 (2013), no. 4, 477–560. 10.1515/jip-2012-0072Search in Google Scholar

[50] M. V. Klibanov and A. Timonov, Carleman Estimates for Coefficient Inverse Problems and Numerical Applications, Inverse Ill-posed Probl. Ser., VSP, Utrecht, 2004. 10.1515/9783110915549Search in Google Scholar

[51] V. Komornik, Exact Controllability and Stabilization, Masson, Paris, 1994. Search in Google Scholar

[52] I. Kukavica and A. Tuffaha, Regularity of solutions to a free boundary problem of fluid-structure interaction, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 61 (2012), no. 5, 1817–1859. 10.1512/iumj.2012.61.4746Search in Google Scholar

[53] P. C. Kunstmann and L. Weis, Perturbation theorems for maximal L p -regularity, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 30 (2001), no. 2, 415–435. Search in Google Scholar

[54] P. C. Kunstmann and L. Weis, Maximal L p -regularity for parabolic equations, Fourier multiplier theorems and H ∞ -functional calculus, Functional Analytic Methods for Evolution Equations, Lecture Notes in Math. 1855, Springer, Berlin (2004), 65–311. 10.1007/978-3-540-44653-8_2Search in Google Scholar

[55] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya, The Mathematical Theory of Viscous Incompressible Flow, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1969. Search in Google Scholar

[56] I. Lasiecka, B. Priyasad and R. Triggiani, Uniform stabilization of Navier–Stokes equations in critical L q -based Sobolev and Besov spaces by finite dimensional interior localized feedback controls, Appl. Math Optim. (2019), 10.1007/s00245-019-09607-9. 10.1007/s00245-019-09607-9Search in Google Scholar

[57] I. Lasiecka, B. Priyasad and R. Triggiani, Uniform stabilization of Boussinesq systems in critical L q -based Sobolev and Besov spaces by finite dimensional interior localized feedback controls, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 25 (2020), no. 10, 4071–4117. Search in Google Scholar

[58] I. Lasiecka, B. Priyasad and R. Triggiani, Uniform stabilization of 3 ⁢ D Navier–Stokes Equations with finite dimensional tangential boundary, localized feedback controllers, preprint (2020), https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.03825. 10.1007/s00205-021-01677-wSearch in Google Scholar

[59] I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani, Control Theory for Partial Differential Equations: Continuous and Approximation Theories. I: Abstract Parabolic Equations, Encyclopedia Math. Appl. 74, Cambridge University, Cambridge, 2000. 10.1017/CBO9781107340848Search in Google Scholar

[60] I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani, Stabilization to an equilibrium of the Navier–Stokes equations with tangential action of feedback controllers, Nonlinear Anal. 121 (2015), 424–446. 10.1016/j.na.2015.03.012Search in Google Scholar

[61] I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani, Uniform stabilization with arbitrary decay rates of the Oseen equation by finite-dimensional tangential localized interior and boundary controls, Semigroups of Operators—Theory and Applications, Springer Proc. Math. Stat. 113, Springer, Cham (2015), 125–154. 10.1007/978-3-319-12145-1_8Search in Google Scholar

[62] M. M. Lavrent’ev, V. G. Romanov and S. P. Shishatskiĭ, Ill-Posed Problems of Mathematical Physics and Analysis, Transl. Math. Monogr. 64, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1986. 10.1090/mmono/064Search in Google Scholar

[63] A.-I. Lefter, On the feedback stabilization of Boussinesq equations, An. Ştiinţ. Univ. Al. I. Cuza Iaşi. Mat. (N. S.) 57 (2011), no. 2, 285–310. 10.2478/v10157-011-0027-ySearch in Google Scholar

[64] J.-L. Lions, Quelques méthodes de résolution des problèmes aux limites non linéaires, Dunod, Paris, 1969. Search in Google Scholar

[65] S. Liu and R. Triggiani, Boundary control and boundary inverse theory for non-homogeneous second-order hyperbolic equation, a common Carleman estimate approach, HCDTE Lecture Notes, Part I. Search in Google Scholar

[66] S. A. Lorca and J. L. Boldrini, Stationary solutions for generalized Boussinesq models, J. Differential Equations 124 (1996), no. 2, 389–406. 10.1006/jdeq.1996.0016Search in Google Scholar

[67] V. N. Maslennikova and M. E. Bogovskiĭ, Elliptic boundary value problems in unbounded domains with noncompact and nonsmooth boundaries, Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova 56 (1986),125–138. 10.1007/BF02925141Search in Google Scholar

[68] C. Miranda, Partial Differential Equations of Elliptic Type, Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb. 2, Springer, New York, 1970. 10.1007/978-3-662-35147-5Search in Google Scholar

[69] A. Pazy, Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications to Partial Differential Equations, Appl. Math. Sci. 44, Springer, New York, 1983. 10.1007/978-1-4612-5561-1Search in Google Scholar

[70] J. Prüss and R. Schnaubelt, Solvability and maximal regularity of parabolic evolution equations with coefficients continuous in time, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 256 (2001), no. 2, 405–430. 10.1006/jmaa.2000.7247Search in Google Scholar

[71] J. Prüss and G. Simonett, Moving Interfaces and Quasilinear Parabolic Evolution Equations, Monogr. Math. 105, Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 2016. 10.1007/978-3-319-27698-4Search in Google Scholar

[72] M. Ramaswamy, J.-P. Raymond and A. Roy, Boundary feedback stabilization of the Boussinesq system with mixed boundary conditions, J. Differential Equations 266 (2019), no. 7, 4268–4304. 10.1016/j.jde.2018.09.038Search in Google Scholar

[73] W. Rusin and V. Šverák, Minimal initial data for potential Navier–Stokes singularities, J. Funct. Anal. 260 (2011), no. 3, 879–891. 10.1016/j.jfa.2010.09.009Search in Google Scholar

[74] J. Saal, Maximal regularity for the Stokes system on noncylindrical space-time domains, J. Math. Soc. Japan 58 (2006), no. 3, 617–641. 10.2969/jmsj/1156342030Search in Google Scholar

[75] M. Santos da Rocha, M. A. Rojas-Medar and M. D. Rojas-Medar, On the existence and uniqueness of the stationary solution to equations of natural convection with boundary data in L 2 , R. Soc. Lond. Proc. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 459 (2003), no. 2031, 609–621. 10.1098/rspa.2002.1036Search in Google Scholar

[76] Y. Shibata and S. Shimizu, L p - L q maximal regularity of the Neumann problem for the Stokes equations in a bounded domain, Asymptotic Analysis and Singularities—Hyperbolic and Dispersive PDEs and Fluid Mechanics, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. 47, Mathematical Society of Japan, Tokyo (2007), 349–362. Search in Google Scholar

[77] V. A. Solonnikov, Estimates of the solutions of a nonstationary linearized system of Navier–Stokes equations, Am. Math. Soc. Transl. (2) 75 (1968), 1–116. 10.1090/trans2/075/01Search in Google Scholar

[78] V. A. Solonnikov, Estimates for solutions of non-stationary Navier–Stokes equations, J. Sov. Math. 8 (1977), 467–529. 10.1007/BF01084616Search in Google Scholar

[79] V. A. Solonnikov, On the solvability of boundary and initial-boundary value problems for the Navier–Stokes system in domains with noncompact boundaries, Pacific J. Math. 93 (1981), no. 2, 443–458. 10.2140/pjm.1981.93.443Search in Google Scholar

[80] V. A. Solonnikov, L p -estimates for solutions to the initial boundary-value problem for the generalized Stokes system in a bounded domain, J. Math. Sci. 105 (2001), 2448–2484. 10.1023/A:1011321430954Search in Google Scholar

[81] V. A. Solonnikov, Weighted Schauder estimates for evolution Stokes problem, Ann. Univ. Ferrara Sez. VII Sci. Mat. 52 (2006), no. 1, 137–172. 10.1007/s11565-006-0012-7Search in Google Scholar

[82] A. E. Taylor and D. C. Lay, Introduction to Functional Analysis, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980. Search in Google Scholar

[83] R. Temam, Navier–Stokes Equations, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979. Search in Google Scholar

[84] R. Triggiani, On the stabilizability problem in Banach space, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 52 (1975), no. 3, 383–403. 10.1016/0022-247X(75)90067-0Search in Google Scholar

[85] R. Triggiani, Boundary feedback stabilizability of parabolic equations, Appl. Math. Optim. 6 (1980), no. 3, 201–220. 10.1007/BF01442895Search in Google Scholar

[86] R. Triggiani, Linear independence of boundary traces of eigenfunctions of elliptic and Stokes operators and applications, Appl. Math. (Warsaw) 35 (2008), no. 4, 481–512. 10.4064/am35-4-6Search in Google Scholar

[87] R. Triggiani, Unique continuation from an arbitrary interior subdomain of the variable-coefficient Oseen equation, Nonlinear Anal. 71 (2009), no. 10, 4967–4976. 10.1016/j.na.2009.03.073Search in Google Scholar

[88] R. Triggiani, Unique continuation of boundary over-determined Stokes and Oseen eigenproblems, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 2 (2009), no. 3, 645–677. 10.3934/dcdss.2009.2.645Search in Google Scholar

[89] R. Triggiani and X. Wan, Unique continuation properties of over-determined static Boussinesq problems with applications to uniform stabilization of dynamic Boussinesq systems, Appl. Math. Optim. (2020), 10.1007/s00245-020-09705-z. 10.1007/s00245-020-09705-zSearch in Google Scholar

[90] W. von Whal, The Equations of Navier–Stokes and Abstract Parabolic Equations, Vieweg & Teubner, Wiesbaden, 1985. 10.1007/978-3-663-13911-9Search in Google Scholar

[91] E. J. Villamizar-Roa, M. A. Rodríguez-Bellido and M. A. Rojas-Medar, The Boussinesq system with mixed nonsmooth boundary data, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 343 (2006), no. 3, 191–196. 10.1016/j.crma.2006.06.011Search in Google Scholar

[92] G. Wang, Stabilization of the Boussinesq equation via internal feedback controls, Nonlinear Anal. 52 (2003), no. 2, 485–506. 10.1016/S0362-546X(02)00114-1Search in Google Scholar

[93] L. Weis, A new approach to maximal L p -regularity, Evolution Equations and Their Applications in Physical and Life Sciences (Bad Herrenalb 1998), Lecture Notes Pure Appl. Math. 215, Dekker, New York (2001), 195–214. 10.1201/9780429187810-16Search in Google Scholar

[94] J. Zabczyk, Mathematical Control Theory: An Introduction, Systems Control Found. Appl., Birkhäuser,Boston, 1992. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-09-23

Revised: 2020-12-27

Accepted: 2021-02-18

Published Online: 2021-04-02

Published in Print: 2022-02-01

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/jiip-2020-0132

Keywords for this article

Boussinesq system; boundary stabilization; Besov space; inverse theory