2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00526-021-02159-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mixed boundary valued problems for linear and nonlinear wave equations in domains with fractal boundaries

Abstract: The weak well-posedness, with the mixed boundary conditions, of the strongly damped linear wave equation and of the non linear Westervelt equation is proved in the largest natural class of Sobolev admissible non-smooth domains. In the framework of uniform domains in R 2 or R 3 we also validate the approximation of the solution of the Westervelt equation on a fractal domain by the solutions on the prefractals using the Mosco convergence of the corresponding variational forms.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Theorem 10 follows similarly as [42, Theorem 3.2] by a variational convergence argument: Theorem 3 for the domains and Banach-Alaoglu and Proposition 3 for the measures µ Γ imply the existence of a subsequential limit (Ω * , µ * ) ∈ Ûad for a minimizing sequence (Ω m , µ m ) m ⊂ Ûad . The simultaneous validity of Poincaré inequalities with the same constant for all Ω m (which follows as in [20,Theorem 6] or, alternatively, by modification of the standard proof as in [22,Proposition 7.1] or [23,Section 5.8] together with the convergence the sense of characteristic functions) implies that the extensions Ext Ωm u m of the unique solutions u m on the Ω m are uniformly bounded in W 1,2 (D) and therefore have a subsequential weak limit u * . Using a variational convergence argument based on (32) and an application of Lemma 5 similarly as in the proof of Theorem 8 one can identify u * | Ω * as the unique weak solution on (Ω * , µ * ).…”
Section: γ γmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Theorem 10 follows similarly as [42, Theorem 3.2] by a variational convergence argument: Theorem 3 for the domains and Banach-Alaoglu and Proposition 3 for the measures µ Γ imply the existence of a subsequential limit (Ω * , µ * ) ∈ Ûad for a minimizing sequence (Ω m , µ m ) m ⊂ Ûad . The simultaneous validity of Poincaré inequalities with the same constant for all Ω m (which follows as in [20,Theorem 6] or, alternatively, by modification of the standard proof as in [22,Proposition 7.1] or [23,Section 5.8] together with the convergence the sense of characteristic functions) implies that the extensions Ext Ωm u m of the unique solutions u m on the Ω m are uniformly bounded in W 1,2 (D) and therefore have a subsequential weak limit u * . Using a variational convergence argument based on (32) and an application of Lemma 5 similarly as in the proof of Theorem 8 one can identify u * | Ω * as the unique weak solution on (Ω * , µ * ).…”
Section: γ γmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Theorem 7 (iii) and [3,Definition 7] motivate to define a class of domains suitable to discuss different types of boundary value problems (see also [20,49]).…”
Section: W 12 -Admissible Domainsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Remark 7 For simplicity, and because it is sufficient for many practical purposes, Γ Dir is assumed to be fixed in the above setup. It would actually be sufficient to keep the set Γ Dir ∩Γ n fixed, see [11,Theorem 10].…”
Section: Lipschitz Optimal Shapes Realizing the Infimum Of The Energymentioning
confidence: 99%