Bdul. Carol I 11, Ia¸Si, Romania
(2) Dipartimento di Matematica “F. Casorati”, Universit`a di Pavia
Abstract
In the present contribution the sliding mode control (SMC) problem for a phase- field model of Caginalp type is considered. First we prove the well-posedness and some regularity results for the phase-field type state systems modified by the state- feedback control laws. Then, we show that the chosen SMC laws force the system to reach within finite time the sliding manifold (that we chose in order that one of the physical variables or a combination of them remains constant in time). We study three different types of feedback control laws: the first one appears in the internal energy balance and forces a linear combination of the temperature and the phase to reach a given (space dependent) value, while the second and third ones are added in the phase relation and lead the phase onto a prescribed target. While the control law is non-local in space for the first two problems, it is local in the third one, i.e., its value at any point and any time just depends on the value of the state.
Key words: phase field system, nonlinear boundary value problems, phase transi- tion, sliding mode control, state-feedback control law. AMS (MOS) Subject Classification: 34B15, 82B26, 34H05, 93B52.
Ntroduction
Sliding mode control (SMC) has for many years been recognized as one of the fundamental approaches for the systematic design of robust controllers for nonlinear complex dynamic systems that operate under uncertainty. Moreover, SMC is nowadays considered a classical tool for the regulation of continuous - or discrete - time systems in finite-dimensional settings (cf., e.g., the monographs ).
The main advantage of sliding mode control is that it allows the separation of the motion of the overall system in independent partial components of lower dimensions, and consequently it reduces the complexity of the control problem. The design of feedback control systems with sliding modes implies the design of suitable control functions en- forcing motions along ad-hoc manifolds. Hence, the main idea behind this scheme is first to identify a manifold of lower dimension (called the sliding manifold) where the control goal is fulfilled and such that the original system restricted to this sliding manifold has a desired behavior, and then to act on the system through the control in order to constrain the evolution on it, that is, to design a SMC-law that forces the trajectories of the system to reach the sliding surface and maintains them on it.
Sliding mode controls, while being relatively easy to design, feature properties of both robustness with respect to unmodelled dynamics and insensitivity to external disturbances that are quite attractive in many applications. Hence, in the last years there has been a growing interest in the extension of the well developed methods for finite-dimensional systems described by ODEs (cf., e.g., ) to the control of infinite-dimensional dy- considered, the theoretical development in a general Hilbert space setting or for PDE sys- tems has gained attention only in the last ten years. In this respect, we can quote the papers , , and dealing with sliding modes control for semilinear PDEs. In par- ticular, in the stabilization problem of a one-dimensional unstable heat conduction system (rod) modeled by a parabolic partial differential equation, powered with a Dirich- let type actuator from one of the boundaries was considered. A delay-independent SMC strategy was proposed in to control a class of quasi-linear parabolic PDE systems with time-varying delay, while in the authors study a sliding mode control law for a class of parabolic systems where the control acts through a Neumann boundary condition and the control space is finite-dimensional.
In the present contribution we would like to employ – to the best of our knowledge for the first time in the literature – a SMC technique for a nonlinear PDE system of phase- field type. In particular, we consider the following rather simple version of the phase-field
(1.2)
where Ωis the three-dimensional domain in which the evolution takes place, T is some final time, ϑ denotes the relative temperature around some critical value that is taken to be 0 without loss of generality, and ϕ is the order parameter. Moreover, ℓ, κ, ν and γ are positive constants, f is a source term and F ′ represents the derivative of a double-well
(1.5)
where c0 > 1 in (1.4) in order to produce a double well, while c0 is an arbitrary positive number in (1.5), and the function I in (1.5) is the indicator function of [−1, 1], i.e., it takes the values 0 or +∞according to whether or not r belongs to [−1, 1]. The potential (1.3) and (1.4) are the usual classical regular potential and the so-called logarithmic potential, respectively. More generally, the potential F could be just the sum
F = Bβ + Bπ,
where bβ is a convex function that is allowed to take the value +∞, and bπ is a smooth perturbation (not necessarily concave). In such a case, bβ is supposed to be proper and lower semicontinuous so that its subdifferential is well-defined and can replace the deriva- tive which might not exist. This happens in the case (1.5) and equation (1.2) becomes a differential inclusion.
The above system is complemented by initial conditions like ϑ(0) = ϑ0 and ϕ(0) = ϕ0 and suitable boundary conditions.
Oncerning The Latter, As Very Usual We Take The
homogeneous Neumann condition for both ϑ and ϕ, that is,
On Σ := (0, T) × Γ
where Γ is the boundary of Ωand ∂n is the (say, outward) normal derivative. Equations (1.1)–(1.2) yield a system of phase field type.
Such Systems Have Been
introduced (cf. ) in order to include phase dissipation effects in the dynamics of moving interfaces arising in thermally induced phase transitions. In our case, we move from the
(1.6)
where c0 and γ stand for specific heat and latent heat coefficients, respectively, with a terminology motivated by earlier studies (see ) on the Stefan problem; we refer to the monography which deals with phase change models as well. In this connection, let
Δϑ
(−the variational derivative of F with respect to ϑ) that is e = c0ϑ + γϕ. Then, the governing balance and phase equations are given by
(1.8)
where q denotes the thermal flux vector, ˜f represents some heat source and the variational derivative of F with respect to ϕ appears in (1.8). Hence, (1.8) reduces exactly to (1.2)
Sliding Modes For A Phase-Field System
along with the homogeneous Neumann boundary condition for ϕ. Moreover, if we assume the classical Fourier law q = −˜κ ∇ϑ, then (1.7) is nothing but the usual energy balance equation of the Caginalp model . By setting ℓ:= γ/c0, κ := ˜κ/c0, f := ˜f/c0, we easily see that (1.1) follows from (1.7) and the Neumann boundary condition for ϑ is a consequence of the no-flux condition q · n = 0 on the boundary. We also point out that the above phase field system has received a good deal of attention in the last decades and it can be deduced as a special gradient-flow problem (cf., e.g., and references therein).
As already noticed, the well-posedness, the long-time behavior of solutions, and also the related optimal control problems have been widely studied in the literature. We refer, without any sake of completeness, e.g., to and references therein for the well-posedness and long time behavior results and to for the related optimal The present paper is also related to the control problems, but it goes in the direction of designing sliding mode controls for the above phase-field system.
Ndeed Our Main
objective is to find out some state-feedback control laws (ϑ, ϕ) 7→u(ϑ, ϕ) that can be inserted in one of the equations in order that the dynamics of the system modified in this way forces the value (ϑ(t), ϕ(t)) of the solution to reach some manifold of the phase space in a finite time and then lie there with a sliding mode.
The first analytical difficulty consists in deriving the equations governing the sliding modes and the conditions for this motion to exist. The problem needs the development of special methods, since the conventional theorems regarding existence and uniqueness of solutions are not directly applicable. Moreover, we need to manipulate the system through the control in order to constrain the evolution on the desired sliding manifold.
In particular, we study three cases. In the first one, a feedback control is added to the internal energy balance equation (1.1) in order to force a linear relationship between ϑ and ϕ; in the second case, a pre- scribed distribution ϕ∗of the order parameter is forced by means of a feedback control added to the phase dynamics (1.2). Notice that both these choices can be considered physically meaningful in the framework of phase transition processes, since in both cases the quantities we are forcing to reach time-independent values may have a physical mean- ing. In the first problem, we can take the internal energy as a particular case, while the target ϕ∗we force for the phase parameter in the second problem could represent one of the so called pure phases (e.g., pure water or pure ice in a water-ice phase change process). Moreover, in both cases we have reduced the problem to a simplified dynamics involving only the evolution of ϕ in the first case and only of ϑ in the second one (cf. also Remark 2.8).
In each of the above problems, the control law we introduce is non-local in space, i.e., the value at (t, x) of the control depends on the whole state (ϑ(t, · ), ϕ(t, · )) at the time t and not only on the value (ϑ(t, x), ϕ(t, x)). The objective of the third problem is to design a control law that reaches the same target as in the second one and is local at the same time. However, such a problem looks much more difficult and we can ensure the existence of the desired sliding mode only under a suitable compatibility condition on Ω.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we list our assumptions, state the problem in a precise form and present our results. The last two sections are devoted to the corresponding proofs. Section 3 deals with well-posedness and regularity, while the existence of the sliding modes is proved in Section 4.
Statement Of The Problem And Results
In this section, we describe the problem under study and present our results. As in the Introduction, Ωis the body where the evolution takes place. We assume
Ω⊂R3 To Be Open, Bounded, Connected, And Smooth
and write |Ω| for its Lebesgue measure. Moreover, Γ and ∂n still stand for the boundary of Ωand the outward normal derivative, respectively. Given a finite final time T > 0, we set for convenience Q := (0, T) × Ω. Now, we specify the assumptions on the structure of
Bβ : R →[0, +∞]
is convex, proper and l.s.c.
(2.4)
and denote by D(β) and D(bβ) the effective domains of β and bβ, respectively. Next, in
(2.5)
and endow the spaces V and H with their standard norms ∥· ∥V and ∥· ∥H.
On The
contrary, we write ∥· ∥W for the norm in W defined by
(2.6)
and we term CΩthe best constant realizing the inequality
(2.7)
The reason of this choice will be explained later on (see the forthcoming Remark 2.11). Now, we just notice that ∥· ∥W is equivalent to the norm induced on W by the standard one in H2(Ω) (thanks to the regularity theory of elliptic equations) and that the constant CΩactually exists due to the continuous embedding H2(Ω) ⊂C0(Ω) (since Ω⊂R3 is bounded and smooth) and only depends on Ω(see, e.g., ). Finally, for the norms both in L∞(Ω) and in L∞(Q) we use the same symbol ∥· ∥∞whenever no confusion can arise.
(2.9)
Sign 0 is the closed unit ball of H.
(2.10)
Thus, β and Sign are maximal monotone operators on R and H, respectively (see, e.g., [2, Thm. 2.8, p. 47]). In the sequel, we use the same symbol β to denote the maximal monotone operator induced on L2-spaces.
Sliding Modes For A Phase-Field System
Yosida regularizations of β and Sign.
Et Us Introduce The Yosida Regularization
βε : R →R and Signε : H →H at level ε > 0 (see, e.g., [2, formulas (2.26), p. 37]) as well as the Moreau regularization of ∥· ∥H (see, e.g., [2, formula (2.38), p. 48])
(2.11)
For the reader’s convenience, we sketch the justification of the last equality of (2.11). We write ∥· ∥instead of ∥· ∥H for simplicity. For w ∈H and y ≥0 we set
≤∥W −V∥Yields G(W) ≥G(∥W∥) For
every w ∈H. Now, from one side, one easily checks that
Y≥0 G(Y) = ∥V∥−Ε
if ∥v∥> ε. This means that miny≥0 g(y) coincides with the right-hand side of (2.11). On the other
= ∥V∥−Ε
if ∥v∥> ε. Thus, minw∈H G(w) = miny≥0 g(y) and (2.11) is proved. Next, we recall that βε and Signε are monotone and that (see, e.g., [2, Prop. 2.2 (ii), p. 38] and [2, Thm. 2.9, p. 48] for some
Of These Properties)
Signε v is the gradient at v of the C1 functional ∥· ∥H, ε
Where
β◦(r) is the element of β(r) having minimum modulus.
(2.15)
We point out that the Young inequality has been used to derive (2.14). At this point, we describe the state system modified by the state-feedback control law and we study two cases. In the first one, a feedback control is added to the first equation (1.1) in order to force a linear relationship between ϑ and ϕ; in the second case, a prescribed distribution of the order parameter is forced by means of a feedback control that is added to equation (1.2). In principle, for the data, we require that
(2.16)
Given ρ > 0 and some target that depends on the case we want to consider, we look for a quadruplet (ϑ, ϕ, ξ, σ) satisfying at least the regularity requirements
Barbu — Colli — Gilardi — Marinoschi — Rocca
and solving the related system we introduce at once. We notice that the homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions for both ϑ and ϕ are contained in (2.17) (see the definition (2.5) of W). The problems corresponding to the cases sketched above are the following.
(2.23)
In the sequel, we also term such problem Problem (A). The second problem, which we call Problem (B), depends on a given ϕ∗∈W and
(2.28)
The last case, termed Problem (C), is the same as the previous one with the following difference: the non-local operator Sign is replaced by the local sign : R →2R defined by
(2.29)
Notice that sign is the subdifferential of the real function r 7→|r| and thus is maximal monotone. For the sake of clarity, we write Problem (C), explicitly. Given ϕ∗∈W, we
(2.35)
Then, for every ρ > 0, Problem (A) has at least a solution (ϑ, ϕ, ξ, σ) satisfying (2.17)–
Sliding Modes For A Phase-Field System
where C1 and C2 depend only on the quantities involved in assumptions (2.1)–(2.3), (2.16) and (2.35). Moreover, the solution is unique if α = ℓ. Furthermore, if in addition
(2.40)
where C3 depends on the norms related to (2.38) as well. In particular, ϕ is bounded. Finally, the component ϑ of any solution satisfying all the above regularity requirements is bounded whenever ϑ0 ∈V ∩L∞(Ω) and f ∈L∞(0, T; H).
Theorem 2.2. Assume (2.1)–(2.3), (2.16), as well as
(2.41)
Then, for every ρ > 0, Problem (B) has at least a solution (ϑ, ϕ, ξ, σ) satisfying (2.17)–
(2.18) And The Estimates
∥ϑ∥L∞(0,T;H)∩L2(0,T;V ) + ∥ϕ∥L∞(0,T;H)∩L2(0,T;V ) + ∥σ∥L∞(0,T;H) ≤C4
(2.43)
where C4 and C5 depend only on the quantities involved in assumptions (2.1)–(2.3), (2.16) and (2.41). Furthermore, the components ϑ and ϕ of the solution are uniquely determined, and ξ and σ are uniquely determined as well if β is single-valued.
A similar result holds for Problem (C). We present the corresponding statement in a more accurate form for a reason that will be clear later on. Theorem 2.3. Assume (2.1)–(2.3), (2.16) and (2.41). Then, for every ρ > 0, Prob- lem (C) has at least a solution (ϑ, ϕ, ξ, σ) satisfying (2.17)–(2.18).
Furthermore, The
components ϑ and ϕ of the solution are uniquely determined, and ξ and σ are uniquely determined as well if β is single-valued. Finally, if the conditions
(2.44)
are assumed in addition, then (2.39) holds as well as ϑ ∈W 1,∞(0, T; H) ∩H1(0, T; V ) ∩L∞(0, T; W).
(2.45)
In particular, both ϕ and ϑ are bounded. Moreover, the estimates
(2.47)
hold true with a structural constant Cstr depending only on the physical parameters ℓ, κ, ν and γ, the constant CΩgiven by (2.7) and some constants C6 and C7 depending on the structure of the systems, Ω, T and on the norms of the data involved.
Barbu — Colli — Gilardi — Marinoschi — Rocca
Remark 2.4. The above results are quite general. In particular, both potentials (1.3) and (1.4) are certainly allowed and the multi-valued potential (1.5) has to be excluded just in the parts of Theorems 2.2 and 2.3 regarding uniqueness for the pair (ξ, σ), which might be not uniquely determined, in general. Concerning the constant Cstr of Theorem 2.3, we
(2.48)
However, no sharpness is guaranteed at all. For each of the first two problems, the existence of the desired sliding mode is ensured for ρ large enough. For every T > 0 we have indeed Theorem 2.5. Assume (2.1)–(2.3), (2.16), (2.35), (2.38) and f ∈L∞(0, T; H). Then, for some ρ∗> 0 and for every ρ > ρ∗, there exist a solution (ϑ, ϕ, ξ, σ) to problem (2.19)–
(2.49)
Theorem 2.6. Assume (2.1)–(2.3), (2.16) and (2.41).
Then, For Some Ρ∗> 0 And
for every ρ > ρ∗, there exist a solution (ϑ, ϕ, ξ, σ) to problem (2.24)–(2.28) and a time
(2.50)
Remark 2.7. In the proof we give in Section 4, we compute possible values of ρ∗and T ∗ that fit the conclusions of our results. For Problems (A) and (B), we can take respectively
Ρ −2Cb
where the constants CA and CB are constructed in the proofs of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 in
∥γϑ + ν∆ϕ∗−β◦(ϕ∗) −π(ϕ)∥L∞(0,T;H) ≤CB . More precisely, we refer to (4.6)–(4.8) and (4.11)–(4.13) and we notice that our starting point in those proofs is the validity of the analogous estimates for the solutions to the approximating problems obtained by replacing the monotone operators by their Yosida regularizations. It follows that the above values of ρ∗and T ∗depend continuously on the T ∗is roughly proportional to 1/ρ in both cases, whence it tends to zero as ρ tends to infinity, i.e., the sliding mode can be forced to start as soon as one desires by prescribing a sufficiently big factor ρ in front of the feedback control.
Remark 2.8. The minimal value of T ∗of the first statement (if it is positive) also satisfies the following property: the function t 7→∥ϑ(t) + αϕ(t) −η∗∥H is strictly decreasing on [0, T ∗].
A similar remark holds for the function t 7→∥ϕ(t) −ϕ∗∥H in the second
Sliding Modes For A Phase-Field System
statement (and in the next one, at least under some reinforcement of the assumptions, as shown in Remark 4.2). In each case, the dynamics of the system is simpler after the time T ∗, since one of the unknowns can be eliminated by using the sliding mode condition.
For instance, in the second situation, the evolution of ϑ after T ∗is ruled just by the heat equation. The situation for Problem (C) is different, since we can ensure the existence of the desired sliding mode for ρ large enough only if further conditions are fulfilled. Namely, we need a restriction involving the structure of the system and the domain Ω(that is why we have written the statement of Theorem 2.3 in that form). Our result only involves the component ϕ of the solution, and we recall that ϕ is uniquely determined.
Theorem 2.9. Assume (2.1)–(2.3), (2.16), (2.41), (2.44) and
(2.51)
Let Cstr and CΩbe the constants appearing in (2.47) and in (2.7), respectively, and assume
(2.52)
Then, for some ρ∗> 0 and for every ρ > ρ∗, the following is true: if (ϑ, ϕ, ξ, σ) is a solution to problem (2.30)–(2.34), there exists a time T ∗∈[0, T) such that
(2.53)
Remark 2.10. Assume that the constants Cstr, CΩand C7 realize the inequalities (2.47) and (2.52) (i.e., in contrast with the situation of Remark 2.7, just such inequalities are required as a starting point). Then, as shown in the proof we perform in the last section, possible values of ρ∗and T ∗that fit the conclusion of the above theorem are given by
+ Ν∥∆Φ∗∥∞+ ∥Ξ∗∥∞+ M∗
π . In particular, the last two sentences of Remark 2.7 also apply to the present case. Remark 2.11. In order to understand the meaning of (2.52), let us assume that the structure of the system is chosen, so that the physical constants are fixed, and let us think of a class of open sets having the same shape. Precisely, we fix an open set Ω0 of measure 1 and assume that Ω= x0 + λR Ω0 for some x0 ∈R3, λ > 0 and some rotation R ∈SO(3). Then λ = |Ω|1/3 and one easily checks that our definition (2.6) of ∥· ∥W yields CΩ= CΩ0 |Ω|−1/2, since the H-norms of v and of ∆v are properly balanced in the norm ∥v∥W under a rescaling of a function v. Then, the smallness condition (2.52) means that |Ω| is small enough. Indeed, the left-hand side of (2.52) becomes γCstrCΩ0|Ω|2/3 in the chosen class of domains.
In performing our a priori estimates in the remainder of the paper, we often account for the H¨older inequality and the elementary inequalities (for arbitrary a, b ≥0)
Barbu — Colli — Gilardi — Marinoschi — Rocca
where δ > 0 in the latter (Young’s inequality). Moreover, we repeatedly use the notation Qt := (0, t) × Ω.
(2.55)
For simplicity, we usually omit dx, ds, etc. in integrals. More precisely, we explicitly write, e.g., ds only if the variable s actually appears in the function under the integral sign. Finally, while a particular care is taken in computing some constants, we follow a general rule to denote less important ones, in order to avoid boring calculations. The small-case symbol c stands for different constants independent of ρ but depending on Ω, the final time T, the shape of the nonlinearities and on the constants and the norms of the functions involved in the assumptions of our statements. The dependence on ρ will be always written explicitly, indeed. Hence, the meaning of c might change from line to line and even in the same chain of equalities or inequalities. On the contrary, we mark precise constants which we can refer to by using different symbols, e.g., capital letters, mainly with indices, like in (2.7).
Proof Of The Well-Posedness Results
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorems 2.1–2.3. However, as far as existence is concerned, we confine ourselves to derive the formal a priori estimates that lead to the desired regularity and just sketch how a completely rigorous proof could be performed.
Proof Of Theorem 2.1
We start with problem (2.19)–(2.23) and transform it into an equivalent system in new unknown functions. In order to argue in terms of the variable which the operator Sign
(3.1)
then, η has to satisfy the analog of (2.17) and the new problem is the following
(3.6)
First a priori estimate. We multiply (3.2) and (3.3) by η and ∂tϕ, respectively, sum up and integrate over Qt with an arbitrary t ∈(0, T].
(Ν/2)
Ω(|ϕ(t)|2 −|ϕ0|2) to both sides. With the help of (2.16) and (2.8), we infer that
Qt
ϕ∂tϕ. Now, it is straightforward to use the linear growth of π that follows from Lipschitz con- tinuity, the Young and H¨older inequalities, (2.16), (2.35), and the Gronwall lemma to
Deduce That
∥η∥L∞(0,T;H)∩L2(0,T;V ) + ∥ϕ∥H1(0,T;H)∩L∞(0,T;V ) + ∥bβ(ϕ)∥L∞(0,T;L1(Ω)) ≤c .
For A.A. T ∈(0, T)
with an obvious meaning of g1 and treat t as a parameter. We formally multiply by ∆ϕ(t) (the correct proof deals with the regularized problem) and find ∥∆ϕ(t)∥H ≤∥g1(t)∥H for a.a. t ∈(0, T). Then, we use (3.7), (2.3), (2.35) (which imply ∥g1∥L2(0,T;H) ≤c), elliptic regularity and a comparison in the above equation, in order to conclude that ∥ϕ∥L2(0,T;W ) + ∥ξ∥L2(0,T;H) ≤c .
(3.9)
where we used (3.7)–(3.8), (2.16) and (2.35) once more. Then, we multiply by ∂tη and integrate over Qt. Thanks to the chain rule property (stated, e.g., in [3, Lemme 3.3,
−Κ∆Η(T) + Ρσ(T) = G3(T) := G2(T) −∂Tη(T)
for a.a. t ∈(0, T). Then, we formally multiply by −∆η(t) and notice that ∇σ(t) · ∇η(t) ≥0 a.e. in Ω(at least formally; the inequality we need if Sign were replaced by Signε would immediately
Barbu — Colli — Gilardi — Marinoschi — Rocca
follow from (2.13)). Hence, we get κ1/2∥∆η(t)∥H ≤∥g3(t)∥H for a.a. t ∈(0, T). By owing to (3.9), (3.10) and elliptic regularity, we deduce that
(3.11)
Consequence. Estimates (3.7)–(3.11) and assumption (2.35) imply for ϑ = η −αϕ+η∗
(3.12)
Existence for Problem (A). The above a priori estimates are rigorous for the solution to the approximating problem obtained by replacing β and Sign by the corresponding
(3.13)
in place of (3.4)–(3.5). The approximating problem is more regular and has a solution (ηε, ϕε, ξε, σε). To see that, one can rewrite the approximating problem by eliminating the time derivative ∂tϕ in (3.2) on accout of (3.3). One obtains the Cauchy problem for
∂T(Η, Φ) + A(Η, Φ) + Bε(Η, Φ) = F
where A is an unbounded operator in H := H ×H, Bε : H →H is a Lipschitz continuous perturbation and F is a source term. Namely, A acts as follows
Where
λ := κα + (ℓ−α)ν. Now, let us introduce the following inner product in H
Ω
|∇ϕ|2. This shows that A is monotone in H with respect to that inner product. Then, maximal monotonicy follows since the range of A + IdH is the whole of H due to the Lax-Milgram theorem and elliptic regularity.
Therefore, the approximating problem has a solution (see, e.g., [31, Cor. 4.1 p. 181]). So, by starting from the analogs of the above formal a priori estimates (that is, from the rigorous ones, for which properties (2.12)–(2.14) have to be used) and owing to standard weak, weakstar and strong compactness results (see, e.g., [32, Sect. 8, Cor. 4]), we have for a subsequence at least
Ηε →Η
weakly star in H1(0, T; H) ∩L∞(0, T; V ) ∩L2(0, T; W)
Σε →Σ
weakly star in L∞(0, T; H).
Sliding Modes For A Phase-Field System
We stress that ξε := βε(ϕε) and σε := Signε(ηε), i.e., the same as in (3.13), where the subscripts ε were omitted for convenience. Here, ξ and σ have the meaning given by (3.16)–(3.17). Clearly, the limits ϕ, ξ and σ and the function ϑ computed from (3.1) satisfy the regularity requirements and the estimates of the statement (see also (3.12)).
Moreover, it follows that π(ϕε) converges to π(ϕ) strongly in L2(Q) and that ξ and σ satisfy (3.4)–(3.5) (because β and Sign induce maximal monotone operators on L2(Q) and L2(0, T; H), respectively, and then they are weakly-strongly closed; see, e.g., [2, Cor. 2.4, p. 41]). Hence, (η, ϕ, ξ, σ) solves the original problem (3.2)–(3.6).
Uniqueness for Problem (A). We assume α = ℓand show that the solution is unique. Let (ηi, ϕi, ξi, σi), i = 1, 2, be two solutions. We write equations (3.2)–(3.3) for both of them and take the differences. If we set η := η1 −η2 and analogously define ϕ, ξ and σ,
(3.18)
∂tϕ −ν∆ϕ + ξ = γ(η −ℓϕ) + π(ϕ2) −π(ϕ1).
(3.19)
Now, we multiply these equations by η and (κℓ2/ν)ϕ, respectively, sum up and integrate