1: \documentclass[12pt,aps,tightenlines]{revtex4}

2: \pdfoutput=1

3: 

4: %\usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}

5: \usepackage[letterpaper]{geometry}

6: \usepackage{amsmath}

7: \usepackage{amsfonts}

8: \usepackage{bm}

9: %\usepackage{euscript}

10: %\usepackage{wasysym}

11: %\usepackage{psfrag}

12: \usepackage{graphicx}

13: \usepackage{subfigure}

14: \usepackage{color}

15: 

16: \graphicspath{{figs_pdf/}}

17: 

18: \newcommand{\Sobo}{W}

19: \newcommand{\needcitn}{$^{\left[\text{citation needed}\right]}$}

20: \newcommand{\Cst}{\kappa}

21: \newcommand{\Small}{\delta}

22: \newcommand{\Stresstensor}{T}

23: \newcommand{\eye}{i}

24: 

25: \newcommand{\pairing}[2]{\left(\!\left(#1\,,\,#2\right)\!\right)}

26: 

27: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

28: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

29: 

30: \begin{document}

31: %+Title

32: \title{Nonlinear dynamics of phase separation in ultra-thin films}

33: %

34: \author{Lennon \'O N\'araigh}

35: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, Imperial College

36:   London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom}

37: \author{Jean-Luc Thiffeault}

38: \email{jeanluc@mailaps.org}

39: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison,

40: WI 53706, USA}

41: \date{7 May 2008}

42: %-Title

43: %

44: \begin{abstract}

45:   We present a long-wavelength approximation to the Navier--Stokes

46:   Cahn--Hilliard equations to describe phase separation in thin films.

47:   The equations we derive underscore the coupled behaviour of

48:   free-surface variations and phase separation.  Since we are

49:   interested in the long-time behaviour of the phase-separating fluid,

50:   we restrict our attention to films that do not rupture.  To do this,

51:   we introduce a regularising Van der Waals potential.  We analyse the

52:   resulting fourth-order equations by constructing a solution as the

53:   limit of a Galerkin approximation, and obtain existence and

54:   regularity results.  In our analysis, we find a nonzero lower bound

55:   for the height of the film, which precludes the possibility of

56:   rupture.  The lower bound depends on the parameters of the problem,

57:   and we compare this dependence with numerical simulations.  We find

58:   that while the theoretical lower bound is crucial to the

59:   construction of a smooth, unique solution to the PDEs, it is

60:   not sufficiently sharp to represent accurately the parametric

61:   dependence of the observed dips in free-surface height.

62: %

63: %

64: \end{abstract}

65: 

66: \maketitle

67: \section{Introduction}

68: \label{sec:intro} 

69: 

70: \noindent Below a certain critical temperature, a well-mixed binary

71: fluid spontaneously separates into its component parts, forming

72: domains of pure liquid.  This process can be characterised by the

73: Cahn--Hilliard equation, and numerous studies describe the physics and

74: mathematics of phase separation.  In this paper we study phase

75: separation in a thin layer, in which the the varying free surface and

76: concentration fields are coupled through a pair of nonlinear evolution

77: equations.

78: 

79: Cahn and Hilliard introduced their eponymous equation

80: in~\cite{CH_orig} to model phase separation in a binary alloy.  Since

81: then, the model has been used in diverse applications: to describe

82: polymeric fluids~\cite{Aarts2005}, fluids with interfacial

83: tension~\cite{LowenTrus}, and self-segregating populations in

84: biology~\cite{Murray1981}.

85: %

86: Analysis of the Cahn--Hilliard (CH) equation was given by Elliott and

87: Zheng in~\cite{Elliott_Zheng}, where they prove the existence,

88: uniqueness, and regularity of solutions: given sufficiently smooth

89: initial data, solutions to the CH equation are bounded for almost all

90: time in the Sobolev space $\Sobo^{4,2}$.  Several authors have

91: developed generalisations of the CH equation: a variable-mobility

92: model was introduced by Elliott and Garcke~\cite{Elliott_varmob},

93: while nonlocal effects were considered by Gajweski and

94: Zacharias~\cite{Gajewski_nonlocal}.  These additional features do not

95: qualitatively change the phase separation, and we therefore turn to

96: one mechanism that does: the coupling of a flow field to the

97: Cahn--Hilliard equation~\cite{Bray_advphys}.

98: % 

99: In this case, the Cahn--Hilliard concentration equation is modified by an

100: advection term, and the flow field is either prescribed or evolves according

101: to some fluid equation.  Ding and co-workers~\cite{Spelt2007} provide

102: a derivation of coupled Navier--Stokes Cahn--Hilliard (NSCH) equations in

103: which the velocity advects the phase-separating concentration field, while

104: concentration gradients modify the velocity through an additional stress

105: term in the momentum equation.  Such models have formed the basis of numerical

106: studies of binary fluids~\cite{Berti2005}, while other studies without

107: this feedback term highlight different regimes of phase separation under

108: flow~\cite{chaos_Berthier, ONaraigh2006, Lacasta1995}.  In this paper, the

109: NSCH equations form the starting point for our asymptotic analysis.

110: 

111: As in other applications involving the Navier--Stokes equations, the

112: complexity of the problem is reduced when the fluid is spread thinly

113: on a substrate, and the upper vertical boundary forms a free

114: surface~\cite{Oron1997}.  Then, provided vertical gradients are small

115: compared to lateral gradients, a long-wavelength approximation is

116: possible, in which the full equations with a moving boundary at the

117: free surface are reduced to a single equation for the free-surface

118: height.  In the present case, the reduction yields two equations: one

119: for the free surface, and one for the Cahn--Hilliard concentration.

120: The resulting thin-film Stokes Cahn--Hilliard equations have already

121: been introduced by the authors in~\cite{ONaraigh2007}, although the

122: focus there was on control of phase separation and numerical

123: simulations in three dimensions.  Here we confine ourselves to the

124: two-dimensional case: we derive the thin-film equations from first

125: principles, present analysis of the resulting equations, and highlight

126: the impossibility of film rupture.

127:  

128: Along with the simplification of the problem that thin-film theory

129: provides, there are many practical reasons for studying phase

130: separation in thin layers.  Thin polymer films are used in the

131: fabrication of semiconductor devices, for which detailed knowledge of

132: film morphology is required~\cite{Karim2002}.  Other industrial

133: applications of polymer films include paints and coatings, which are

134: typically mixtures of polymers.  One potential application of the

135: thin-film Cahn--Hilliard theory is in

136: self-assembly~\cite{Putkaradze2005,Xia2004, Krausch1994}.  Here

137: molecules (usually residing in a thin layer) respond to an

138: energy-minimisation requirement by spontaneously forming large-scale

139: structures.  Equations of Cahn--Hilliard type have been proposed to

140: explain the qualitative features of

141: self-assembly~\cite{Putkaradze2005,Holm2005}, and knowledge of

142: variations in the film height could enhance these models.  Indeed

143: in~\cite{ONaraigh2007} the authors use the present thin-film

144: Cahn--Hilliard model in three dimensions to control phase separation,

145: a useful tool in applications where it is necessary for the molecules

146: in the film to form a given structure.

147: 

148:  

149: The analysis of thin-film equations was given great impetus by Bernis

150: and Friedman in~\cite{Friedman1990}.  They focus 

151: on the basic thin-film equation,

152: %

153: %

154: %

155: \begin{equation}

156: \frac{\partial h}{\partial t}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(h^n\frac{\partial^3{h}}{\partial{x^3}}\right),

157: \label{eq:basic_h}

158: \end{equation}

159: %

160: %

161: %

162: with no-flux boundary conditions on a line segment, and smooth

163: nonnegative initial conditions.  For $n=1$ this equation describes a

164: thin bridge between two masses of fluid in a Hele--Shaw cell, for

165: $n<3$ it is used in slip models as $h\rightarrow0$~\cite{Myers1998},

166: while for $n=3$ it gives the evolution of the free surface of a thin

167: film experiencing capillary forces~\cite{Oron1997}.

168: % 

169: Using a decaying free-energy functional, they prove the existence of

170: nonnegative solutions to Eq.~\eqref{eq:basic_h} for $n\geq1$, while

171: for $n\geq 4$, and for strictly positive initial conditions, the solution

172: is unique, strictly positive, and is almost

173: always bounded in the $\Sobo^{3,2}$ norm.  This paper has inspired

174: other work on the subject~\cite{Bertozzi1996,

175:   Bertozzi1998,Laugesen2002}, in which the effect of a Van der Waals

176: term on Eq.~\eqref{eq:basic_h} is investigated.  These works provide

177: results concerning regularity, long-time behaviour, and film rupture

178: in the presence of an attractive Van der Waals force.

179: %

180: More relevant to the present work is the paper by Wieland and

181: Garcke~\cite{Wieland2006}, in which a pair of partial differential

182: equations describes the coupled evolution of free-surface variations

183: and surfactant concentration.  The authors derive the relevant

184: equations using the long-wavelength theory, obtain a decaying energy

185: functional, and prove results concerning the existence and

186: nonnegativity of solutions.  We shall take a similar approach in this

187: paper.

188: 

189: 

190: When the binary fluid forms a thin film on a substrate, we shall show

191: in Sec.~\ref{sec:model} that a long-wave approximation simplifies the

192: Navier--Stokes Cahn--Hilliard equations, which reduce to a pair of

193: coupled evolution equations for the free surface and concentration.

194: If $h(x,t)$ is the scaled free-surface height, and

195: $c(x,t)$ is the binary fluid concentration, then the

196: dimensionless equations take the form

197: %

198: %

199: \begin{subequations}

200: \begin{equation}

201: \frac{\partial h}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial J}{\partial x}=0,\qquad

202: %

203: %

204: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(h c\right)+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(Jc\right)=\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left(h\frac{\partial\mu}{\partial{x}}\right),

205: \end{equation}

206: %

207: %

208: where

209: \begin{equation}

210: J = \tfrac{1}{2} h^2 \frac{\partial\sigma}{\partial{x}}

211: - \tfrac{1}{3} h^3 \bigg\{

212:            \frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}

213:            \left(-\frac{1}{C}\frac{\partial^2{h}}{\partial{x}^2}

214:              + \phi\right) + \frac{r}{h} \frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}

215:            \left[h{\left(\frac{\partial{c}}{\partial{x}}

216:              \right)}^2\right]\bigg\},

217: \end{equation}

218: %

219: %

220: %

221: %

222: \begin{equation}

223: \mu=c^3-c-\frac{C_{\mathrm{n}}^2}{h}\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left(h\frac{\partial{c}}{\partial{x}}\right).

224: \end{equation}%

225: \label{eq:model_intro}%

226: \end{subequations}%

227: %

228: %

229: %

230: Here $C$ is the capillary number, $r$ measures the strength of

231: coupling between the concentration and free-surface variations

232: (backreaction), and $C_{\mathrm{n}}$ is the scaled interfacial

233: thickness.  Additionally, $\sigma$ is the dimensionless,

234: spatially-varying surface tension, and $\phi$ is the body-force

235: potential acting on the film.  In this paper we take

236: $\phi=-|A|h^{-3}$, the repulsive Van der Waals

237: potential~\cite{Book_Parsegian2006}.  This choice stabilises the film

238: and prevents rupture.  Although rupture is in itself an important

239: feature in thin-film equations~\cite{Oron1997, Bertozzi1996,

240:   Bertozzi1998}, in this paper we are interested in late-time phase

241: separation and it is therefore undesirable.

242: 

243: We present the asymptotic analysis that converts the NSCH equations

244: into Eq.~\eqref{eq:model_intro} and prove that the model equations

245: possess smooth solutions that are bounded for almost all time in the

246: $\Sobo^{4,2}$ norm.  The principal tool in this analysis is the

247: construction of a free-energy functional for

248: Eq.~\eqref{eq:model_intro} that is a decaying function of time.  We

249: prove that $h(x,t)>0$ for all time, which is the no-rupture condition.

250: 

251: The paper is organised as follows.  In Sec.~\ref{sec:model} we discuss

252: the Navier--Stokes Cahn--Hilliard equation and the scaling laws that

253: facilitate the passage to the long-wavelength equations, and we derive

254: Eq.~\eqref{eq:model_intro}.  In Sec.~\ref{sec:existence} we analyse

255: these equations by constructing a decaying free-energy functional.  We

256: prove the existence of solutions to Eq.~\eqref{eq:model_intro} and

257: provide regularity results.  We obtain a condition on the minimum

258: value of the free-surface height, and show that this is never zero.  Using

259: numerical studies, we discuss the

260: dependence of the minimum free-surface height on the problem

261: parameters in Sec.~\ref{sec:height_dip}, and compare with the analytic

262: results.  Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions} we present our

263: conclusions.

264: 

265: \section{The Model Equations}

266: \label{sec:model}

267: %

268: \noindent 

269: %

270: In this section we introduce the two-dimensional Navier--Stokes

271: Cahn--Hilliard (NSCH) equation set.

272: %

273: We discuss the assumptions underlying the long-wavelength

274: approximation.

275: %

276: We enumerate the scaling rules necessary to obtain the simplified

277: equations.  

278: %

279: Finally, we arrive at a set of equations that describe phase separation in

280: a thin film subject to arbitrary body forces.

281: 

282: The full NSCH equations describe the coupled effects of phase separation

283: and flow in a binary fluid.  If $\bm{v}$ is the fluid velocity and $c$ is

284: the concentration of the mixture, where $c=\pm1$ indicates total segregation,

285: then these fields evolve as

286: %

287: %

288: \begin{subequations}

289: \begin{gather}

290:         \frac{\partial \bm{v}}{\partial t}+\bm{v}\cdot\nabla\bm{v}=\nabla\cdot\Stresstensor-\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla\phi,\\

291:         \frac{\partial c}{\partial t}+\bm{v}\cdot\nabla c=D \nabla^2\left(c^3-c-\gamma\nabla^2 c\right),\\

292:         \nabla\cdot\bm{v}=0,

293: %

294: \end{gather}%

295: \label{eq:NSCH}%

296: \end{subequations}%

297: %

298: %

299: where

300: \begin{equation}

301:         \Stresstensor_{ij} =-\frac{p}{\rho}\delta_{ij}+\nu\left(\frac{\partial

302:         v_i}{\partial

303:         x_j}+\frac{\partial

304:         v_j}{\partial x_i}\right)-\beta\gamma\frac{\partial c}{\partial x_i}\frac{\partial

305:         c}{\partial x_j}

306: \label{eq:NSCH_tensor}%

307: \end{equation}%

308: %

309: %

310: is the stress tensor, $p$ is the fluid pressure, $\phi$ is the body

311: potential and $\rho$ is the constant density.  The constant $\nu$ is

312: the kinematic viscosity, $\nu=\eta/\rho$, where $\eta$ is the dynamic

313: viscosity.  Additionally, $\beta$ is a constant with units of

314: $[\mathrm{Energy}][\mathrm{Mass}]^{-1}$, $\sqrt{\gamma}$ is a constant

315: that gives the typical width of interdomain transitions, and $D$ a

316: diffusion coefficient with dimensions

317: $[\mathrm{Length}]^2[\mathrm{Time}]^{-1}$.

318: 

319: 

320: If the system has a free surface in the vertical or $z$-direction and has

321: infinite or periodic boundary conditions (BCs) in the lateral or $x$-direction,

322: then the vertical BCs we impose are 

323: %

324: %

325: \begin{subequations}

326: \begin{equation}

327: u = w = c_z = c_{zzz}\text{ on }z=0,

328: \end{equation}

329: %

330: %

331: while on the free surface $z=h(x,t)$ they are

332: %

333: %

334: \begin{equation}

335: \hat{n}_i \hat{n}_j \Stresstensor_{ij} = -\sigma\kappa,\qquad \hat{n}_i \hat{t}_j

336: \Stresstensor_{ij} = -\frac{\partial\sigma}{\partial

337: s},

338: \label{eq:BC_stress}

339: \end{equation}

340: %

341: \begin{equation}

342: w=\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}+u\frac{\partial h}{\partial x},

343: \label{eq:BC_height}

344: \end{equation}

345: %

346: \begin{equation}

347: \hat{n}_i \partial_i c = 0, \qquad \hat{n}_i \partial_i \nabla^2 c = 0,

348: \label{eq:BC_c}

349: \end{equation}%

350: \label{eq:BCs}%

351: \end{subequations}%

352: %

353: %

354: %

355: where $\hat{\bm{n}} =

356: (-\partial_x{h}\,,\,1)/{[{1+(\partial_x{h})^2}]^{1/2}}$ is the unit

357: normal to the surface, $\hat{\bm{t}}$, is the unit vector tangent to

358: the surface, $s$ is the surface coordinate, $\sigma$ is the surface

359: tension, and $\kappa$ is the mean curvature,

360: %

361: %

362: %

363: \begin{equation*}

364: \kappa=\nabla\cdot\hat{\bm{n}}

365: %=\left(\partial_x,\partial_z\right)\cdot\left(\frac{-\partial_x{h}}{\sqrt{1+\left(\partial_x{h}\right)^2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\left(\partial_x{h}\right)^2}}\right)

366: =\frac{\partial_{xx}h}{\left[1+\left(\partial_x{h}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}.

367: \end{equation*}

368: %

369: %

370: %

371: %

372: %

373: This choice of BCs guarantees the conservation of the total mass and volume,

374: %

375: %

376: %

377: %

378: \begin{equation}

379: \text{Mass} = \int_{\text{Dom}(t)} c(\bm{x},t)d^2x,\qquad

380: \text{Volume} = \int_{\text{Dom}(t)}d^2x.

381: \label{eq:integral_quantities}

382: \end{equation}

383: %

384: %

385: %

386: Here 

387: $\text{Dom}(t)%=\{\left(x,y\right)|x\in\left[0,L\right],z\in\left[0,h(x,t)\right]\}

388: $

389: represents the time-dependent domain of integration, owing to the

390: variability of the free surface height.  Note that in view of the

391: concentration BC~\eqref{eq:BC_c}, the stress BC~\eqref{eq:BC_stress}

392: and does not contain $c(\bm{x},t)$ or its derivatives.

393: 

394: These equations simplify considerably if the fluid forms a thin layer

395: of mean thickness $h_0$, for then the scale of lateral variations

396: $\lambda$ is large compared with the scale of vertical variations

397: $h_0$.  Specifically, the parameter $\Small = h_0/\lambda$ is small,

398: and after nondimensionalisation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:NSCH} we expand its

399: solution in terms of this parameter, keeping only the lowest-order

400: terms.  For a review of this method and its applications,

401: see~\cite{Oron1997}.  For simplicity, we shall work in two dimensions,

402: but the generalisation to three dimensions is easily

403: effected~\cite{ONaraigh2007}.

404: 

405: In terms of the small parameter $\Small$, the equations

406: nondimensionalise as follows.  The diffusion time scale is $t_0 =

407: \lambda^2 / D = h_0^2 / \left(\Small^2 D\right)$ and we choose this to

408: be the unit of time.  Then the unit of horizontal velocity is $u_0 =

409: \lambda/ t_0 = \Small D / h_0$ so that $u = \left(\Small D /

410:   h_0\right)U$, where variables in upper case denote dimensionless

411: quantities.  Similarly the vertical velocity is $w = \left(\Small^2 D

412:   / h_0\right)W$.  For the equations of motion to be half-Poiseuille

413: at $O\left(1\right)$ (in the absence of the backreaction) we choose $p

414: = \left(\eta D / h_0^2\right)P$ and $\phi = \left(\eta D /

415:   h_0^2\right)\Phi$.  Using these scaling rules, the dimensionless

416: momentum equations are

417: %

418: %

419: %

420: %

421: %

422: \begin{multline}

423: %

424: %

425: \Small Re \left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial T} + U\frac{\partial

426: U}{\partial X}+ W\frac{\partial U}{\partial Z}\right) 

427: %

428: %

429: = -\frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left(P+\Phi\right)+\Small^2\frac{\partial^2

430: U}{\partial X^2}+\frac{\partial^2 U}{\partial Z^2} \\

431: %

432: %

433: -\tfrac{1}{2}\frac{\beta\gamma}{\nu D}\frac{\partial}{\partial

434: X}\bigg[\Small^2\left(\frac{\partial c}{\partial X}\right)^2

435: %

436: %

437: +\left(\frac{\partial c}{\partial Z}\right)^2\bigg]-\frac{\beta\gamma}{\nu

438: D}\frac{\partial c}{\partial X}\bigg[\Small^2\frac{\partial^2 c}{\partial X^2}+\frac{\partial^2 c}{\partial Z^2}\bigg],

439: %

440: %

441: %

442: %

443: \label{eq:thin_film1}

444: \end{multline}

445: %

446: %

447: %

448: %

449: %

450: %

451: %

452: \begin{multline}

453: %

454: \Small^3 Re \left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial T} + U\frac{\partial

455: W}{\partial X} + W\frac{\partial W}{\partial Z}\right) 

456: %

457: %

458: = -\frac{\partial}{\partial Z}\left(P+\Phi\right)+\Small^4\frac{\partial^2

459: W}{\partial X^2}+\Small^2\frac{\partial^2 W}{\partial Z^2}  \\

460: %

461: %

462: -\tfrac{1}{2}\frac{\beta\gamma}{\nu D}\frac{\partial}{\partial

463: Z}\bigg[\Small^2\left(\frac{\partial c}{\partial X}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\partial

464: c}{\partial Z}\right)^2\bigg]

465: %

466: %

467: -\frac{\beta\gamma}{\nu D}\frac{\partial c}{\partial Z}\bigg[\Small^2\frac{\partial^2

468: c}{\partial X^2}+\frac{\partial^2 c}{\partial Z^2}\bigg],

469: %

470: %

471: %

472: \label{eq:thin_film2}

473: \end{multline}

474: %

475: %

476: where

477: %

478: %

479: \begin{equation}

480: Re = \frac{\Small D}{\nu} = \frac{\left(\Small D / h_0\right)h_0}{\nu} =

481: O\left(1\right).

482: \end{equation}

483: %

484: The choice of ordering for the Reynolds number $Re$ allows us to recover

485: half-Poiseuille flow at $O\left(1\right)$.  We delay choosing the ordering

486: of the dimensionless group $\beta\gamma/D\nu$ until we have examined the

487: concentration equation, which in nondimensional form is

488: %

489: %

490: %

491: %

492: \begin{multline}

493: %

494: %

495: \Small^2 \left(\frac{\partial c}{\partial T} + U\frac{\partial c}{\partial

496: X} + W\frac{\partial c}{\partial Z}\right)\\

497: %

498: %

499: = \Small^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial X^2}\left(c^3-c\right)+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial Z^2}\left(c^3-c\right)

500: %

501: %

502: -\Small^4 C_{\mathrm{n}}^2\frac{\partial^4c}{\partial X^4}-C_{\mathrm{n}}^2\frac{\partial^4

503: c}{\partial Z^4}

504: %

505: %

506: -2\Small^2 C_{\mathrm{n}}^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial X^2}\frac{\partial

507: c}{\partial Z^2},

508: %

509: %

510: \label{eq:conc0}

511: \end{multline}

512: %

513: %

514: %

515: %

516: where $C_{\mathrm{n}}^2=\gamma/h_0^2$.  By switching off the

517: backreaction in the momentum equations (corresponding to

518: $\beta\gamma/D\nu\rightarrow\infty$), we find the trivial solution to

519: the momentum equations, $U = W = \partial_X\left(P+\Phi\right)

520: = \partial_Z\left(P+\Phi\right) = 0$, $H = 1$.  The concentration

521: boundary conditions are then $c_Z = c_{ZZZ} = 0$ on $Z = 0,1$ which

522: forces $c_Z\equiv0$ so that the Cahn--Hilliard equation is simply

523: %

524: %

525: \[

526: \frac{\partial c}{\partial T} = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial X^2}\left(c^3-c\right)-\Small^2 C_{\mathrm{n}}^2\frac{\partial^4c}{\partial

527: X^4}.

528: \]

529: %

530: To make the lubrication approximation consistent, we take 

531: %

532: \begin{equation}

533: \Small C_{\mathrm{n}}= \tilde{C}_{\mathrm{n}}= \Small\sqrt{\gamma} /

534: h_0 = O\left(1\right).

535: \label{eq:gamma_h}

536: \end{equation}

537: %

538: %

539: %

540: %

541: We now carry out a long-wavelength approximation to

542: Eq.~\eqref{eq:conc0}, writing $U=U_0+O\left(\Small\right)$,

543: $W=W_0+O\left(\Small\right)$, $c=c_0+\Small c_1+\Small^2 c_2+\ldots$.

544: We examine the boundary conditions on $c(\bm{x},t)$ first.

545: They are $\hat{\bm{n}}\cdot\nabla c =

546: \hat{\bm{n}}\cdot\nabla\nabla^2c=0$ on $Z=0,H$; on $Z=0$ these

547: conditions are simply $\partial_Z c = \partial_{ZZZ} c=0$, while on

548: $Z=H$ the surface derivatives are determined by the relations

549: %

550: %

551: \[

552: \hat{\bm{n}}\cdot\nabla\ \propto\ -\Small^2 H_X\partial_X+\partial_Z,

553: \]

554: %

555: %

556: \[

557: \hat{\bm{n}}\cdot\nabla\nabla^2\ \propto\ -\Small^4

558: H_X\partial_{XXX}-\Small^2H_X\partial_X\partial_{ZZ}+\Small^2\partial_{XX}\partial_Z+\partial_{ZZZ}.

559: \]

560: Thus, the BCs on $c_0$ are simply $\partial_Z c_0 = \partial_{ZZZ} c_0=0$

561: on $Z=0,H$, which forces $c_0=c_0\left(X,T\right)$.  Similarly, we

562: find  $c_1=c_1\left(X,T\right)$, and

563: %

564: %

565: \[

566: \frac{\partial c_2}{\partial Z}=Z\frac{H_X}{H}\frac{\partial

567: c_0}{\partial X},\qquad

568: %

569: %

570: \frac{\partial^2 c_2}{\partial Z^2}=\frac{H_X}{H}\frac{\partial

571: c_0}{\partial X}, \qquad \text{for any }Z\in \left[0,H\right].

572: \]

573: %

574: %

575: %

576: In the same manner, we derive the results $\partial_{ZZZZ}c_2=\partial_{ZZZZ}c_3=0$.

577: Using these facts, Eq.~\eqref{eq:conc0} becomes

578: %

579: %

580: %

581: \begin{multline*}

582: %

583: %

584: \frac{\partial c_0}{\partial T} + U_0\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial

585: X} =

586: %

587: %

588: \\

589: \frac{\partial^2}{\partial X^2}\left(c_0^3-c_0\right)

590: %

591: %

592: -\tilde{C}_{\mathrm{n}}^2\frac{\partial^4c}{\partial X^4}

593: %

594: %

595: +\left(3c_0^2-1\right)\frac{H_X}{H}\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial X}

596: %

597: %

598: -2\tilde{C}_{\mathrm{n}}^2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial X^2}\frac{H_X}{H}\frac{\partial

599: c_0}{\partial X}

600: %

601: %

602: -{\tilde{C}_{\mathrm{n}}^2}\frac{\partial^4 c_4}{\partial Z^4}.

603: %

604: %

605: %

606: %

607: %

608: \end{multline*}

609: %

610: %

611: %

612: %

613: We now integrate this equation from $Z=0$ to $H$ and use the boundary conditions

614: %

615: %

616: %

617: \[

618: \frac{\partial^3 c_4}{\partial Z^3}=0\quad\text{on}\quad Z=0,

619: \]

620: %

621: %

622: %

623: \begin{equation*}

624: %

625: %

626: \frac{\partial^3 c_4}{\partial Z^3}=

627: %

628: %

629: H_X\frac{\partial^3 c_0}{\partial X^3}+

630: %

631: %

632: H_X\frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left(\frac{H_X}{H}\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial

633: X}\right)

634: %

635: %

636: -H\frac{\partial^2}{\partial X^2}\left(\frac{H_X}{H}\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial

637: X}\right)\quad\text{on}\quad Z=H.

638: \end{equation*}

639: %

640: %

641: %

642: %

643: After rearrangement, the concentration equation becomes

644: %

645: %

646: %

647: %

648: \begin{multline*}

649: %

650: %

651: H\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial T}+H\langle U_0\rangle\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial

652: X} = 

653: %

654: %

655: \\

656: H\frac{\partial^2}{\partial X^2}\left[c_0^3-c_0-\tilde{C}_{\mathrm{n}}^2\frac{\partial^2

657: c_0}{\partial X^2}-\tilde{C}_{\mathrm{n}}^2\frac{H_X}{H}\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial

658: X}\right]

659: %

660: %

661: +\frac{\partial H}{\partial X}\frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left[c_0^3-c_0-\tilde{C}_{\mathrm{n}}^2\frac{\partial^2

662: c_0}{\partial X^2}-\tilde{C}_{\mathrm{n}}^2\frac{H_X}{H}\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial

663: X}\right],

664: \end{multline*}

665: %

666: %

667: %

668: where

669: %

670: %

671: \[

672: \langle U_0\rangle = \frac{1}{H}\int_0^H U_0\left(X,Z,T\right)dZ

673: \]

674: %

675: %

676: is the vertically-averaged velocity.  Introducing

677: %

678: \[

679: \mu = c_0^3-c_0-\frac{\tilde{C}_{\mathrm{n}}^2}{H}\frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left(H\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial

680: X}\right),

681: \]

682: %

683: %

684: %

685: the thin-film Cahn--Hilliard equation becomes

686: %

687: %

688: %

689: \begin{equation}

690: \frac{\partial c_0}{\partial T}+\langle U_0\rangle\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial

691: X} = \frac{1}{H}\frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left(H\frac{\partial\mu}{\partial

692: X}\right).

693: \label{eq:conc_eqn_ornament}

694: \end{equation}

695: 

696: We are now able to perform the long-wavelength approximation to Eqs.~\eqref{eq:thin_film1}

697: and~\eqref{eq:thin_film2}.  At lowest order, Eq.~\eqref{eq:thin_film2} is~$\partial_ Z\left(P+\Phi\right)=0$,

698: since~$c_0=c_0(X,T)$, and hence

699: %

700: %

701: \[

702: P+\Phi = P_{\mathrm{surf}}+\Phi_{\mathrm{surf}}\equiv P\left(X,h(x,t),T\right)+\Phi\left(X,h(x,t),T\right).

703: \]

704: %

705: %

706: %

707: By introducing the backreaction strength

708: %

709: %

710: \begin{equation}

711: r=\frac{\Small^2\beta\gamma}{D\nu}=O\left(1\right),

712: \end{equation}

713: %

714: %

715: equation~\eqref{eq:thin_film1} becomes

716: %

717: %

718: %

719: \[

720: \frac{\partial^2 U_0}{\partial Z^2}=\frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left(P_{\mathrm{surf}}+\Phi_{\mathrm{surf}}\right)+r\frac{\partial}{\partial

721: X}\left(\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial X}\right)^2+r\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial

722: X}\frac{\partial^2 c_2}{\partial Z^2}.

723: \]

724: %

725: %

726: %

727: Using $\partial_{ZZ}c_2=\left(H_X/H\right)\left(\partial c_0/\partial

728: X\right)$ this becomes

729: %

730: %

731: %

732: \begin{equation}

733: \frac{\partial^2 U_0}{\partial Z^2}=\frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left(P_{\mathrm{surf}}+\Phi_{\mathrm{surf}}\right)+\frac{r}{H}\frac{\partial}{\partial

734: X}\left[H\left(\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial X}\right)^2\right].

735: \label{eq:d2U}

736: \end{equation}

737: %

738: %

739: %

740: At lowest order, the BC~\eqref{eq:BC_stress} reduces to

741: %

742: %

743: \[

744: \frac{\partial U_0}{\partial

745:   Z}=\frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial{X}}\quad\text{on}\quad Z=H,

746: \]

747: %

748: %

749: %

750: which combined with Eq.~\eqref{eq:d2U} yields the relation

751: %

752: %

753: %

754: \[

755: \frac{\partial U_0}{\partial Z}=\frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial X}+\left(Z-H\right)\bigg\{

756: %

757: %

758: \frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left(P_{\mathrm{surf}}+\Phi_{\mathrm{surf}}\right)+\frac{r}{H}\frac{\partial}{\partial

759: X}\left[H\left(\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial X}\right)^2\right]

760: \bigg\}.

761: %

762: %

763: \]

764: %

765: %

766: %

767: Here $\Sigma$ is the dimensionless, spatially-varying surface tension.  Making

768: use of the BC $U_0=0$ on $Z=0$ and integrating again, we obtain the result

769: %

770: %

771: %

772: \begin{equation}

773: U_0\left(X,Z,T\right)=Z\frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial X}+\left(\tfrac{1}{2}Z^2-HZ\right)\bigg\{

774: %

775: %

776: \frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left(P_{\mathrm{surf}}+\Phi_{\mathrm{surf}}\right)+\frac{r}{H}\frac{\partial}{\partial

777: X}\left[H\left(\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial X}\right)^2\right]

778: \bigg\}.

779: %

780: %

781: \label{eq:U_0}

782: \end{equation}

783: %

784: %

785: %

786: The vertically-averaged velocity is therefore

787: %

788: %

789: \[

790: \langle U_0\rangle = \tfrac{1}{2}H\frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial X}-\tfrac{1}{3}H^2\bigg\{

791: %

792: %

793: \frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left(-\frac{1}{C}\frac{\partial^2 H}{\partial X^2}+\Phi_{\mathrm{surf}}\right)+\frac{r}{H}\frac{\partial}{\partial

794: X}\left[H\left(\frac{\partial c_0}{\partial X}\right)^2\right]

795: \bigg\},

796: \]

797: %

798: %

799: where we used the standard Laplace--Young free-surface boundary

800: condition to eliminate the pressure, and

801: %

802: %

803: \begin{equation}

804: C = \frac{\nu\rho D}{h_0\sigma_0\Small^2}=O\left(1\right).

805: \label{eq:C}

806: \end{equation}

807: %

808: %

809: Finally, by integrating the continuity equation in the $Z$-direction, we

810: obtain, in a standard manner, an equation for free-surface variations,

811: %

812: %

813: \begin{equation}

814: \frac{\partial H}{\partial X}+\frac{\partial}{\partial X}\left(H\langle U_0\rangle\right)=0.

815: \label{eq:h_eqn_ornament}

816: \end{equation}

817: %

818: %

819: 

820: 

821: Let us assemble our results, restoring the lower-case fonts and omitting

822: ornamentation over the constants.  The height equation~\eqref{eq:h_eqn_ornament}

823: becomes

824: %

825: %

826: \begin{subequations}

827: %\begin{gather}

828: \begin{equation}

829: \frac{\partial h}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial J}{\partial x}=0,

830: \end{equation}

831: %

832: %

833: %

834: while the concentration equation~\eqref{eq:conc_eqn_ornament} becomes

835: %

836: %

837: %

838: \begin{equation}

839: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(c h\right)+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(Jc\right)=\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left(h\frac{\partial\mu}{\partial{x}}\right),

840: \end{equation}

841: %

842: %

843: %

844: where

845: %

846: %

847: %

848: \begin{equation}

849: J=\tfrac{1}{2}h^2\frac{\partial\sigma}{\partial{x}}-\tfrac{1}{3}h^3\bigg\{\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left(-\frac{1}{C}\frac{\partial^2{h}}{\partial{x}^2}

850: +\phi\right)+\frac{r}{h}\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left[h\left(\frac{\partial{c}}{\partial{x}}\right)^2\right]\bigg\},

851: \end{equation}

852: %

853: %

854: and

855: %

856: %

857: \begin{equation}

858: \mu=c^3-c-C_{\mathrm{n}}^2\frac{1}{h}\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left(h\frac{\partial{c}}{\partial{x}}\right),

859: \end{equation}%

860: \label{eq:model}%

861: \end{subequations}%

862: %

863: %

864: %

865: and where we have the nondimensional constants

866: %

867: %

868: %

869: \begin{equation}

870: r=\frac{\Small^2\beta\gamma}{D\nu},\qquad C_{\mathrm{n}}=\frac{\Small\sqrt{\gamma}}{h_0},\qquad

871: C=\frac{\nu\rho D}{h_0\sigma_0\Small^2}.

872: \end{equation}

873: %

874: %

875: %

876: %

877: These are the thin-film NSCH equations.  The integral quantities defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:integral_quantities} are manifestly conserved,

878: while the free surface and concentration are coupled.

879: 

880: 

881: We note that the relation

882: $C_{\mathrm{n}}=\delta\sqrt{\gamma}/h_0=O\left(1\right)$ is the

883: condition that the mean thickness of the film be much smaller than the

884: transition layer thickness.  In experiments involving the smallest

885: film thicknesses attainable ($10^{-8}$ m)~\cite{Sung1996}, this

886: condition is automatically satisfied.  The condition is also realised

887: in ordinary thin films when external effects such as the air-fluid and

888: fluid-substrate interactions do not prefer one binary fluid component

889: or another.  In this case, the vertical extent of the domains becomes

890: comparable to the film thickness at late times, the thin film behaves

891: in a quasi two-dimensional way, and the model equations are

892: applicable.

893: 

894: 

895: The choice of potential $\phi$ determines the behaviour of solutions.

896: If interactions between the fluid and the substrate and air interfaces

897: are important, the potential should take account of the Van der Waals

898: forces present.  A simple model potential is thus

899: \[

900: \phi = Ah^{-n},

901: \]

902: where $A$ is the dimensionless Hamakar constant and typically

903: $n=3$~\cite{Oron1997}.  Here $A$ can be positive or negative, with

904: positivity indicating a net attraction between the fluid and the

905: substrate and negativity indicating a net repulsion.  This choice of

906: potential can also have a regularising effect, preventing a

907: singularity or rupture from occurring in Eq.~\eqref{eq:model}.

908:   

909: For $\phi=-|A|/h^3$ (repulsive Van der Waals interactions), the system of

910: equations~\eqref{eq:model} has a Lyapunov functional $F=F_1+F_2$, where

911: %

912: %

913: \[

914: F_1=\int{dx}\, \left[\frac{1}{2C}\left(\frac{\partial{h}}{\partial{x}}\right)^2+\frac{|A|}{2h^2}\right],\qquad

915: %

916: F_2 = \frac{r}{C_{\mathrm{n}}^2}\int{dx}\,  h\left[\tfrac{1}{4}\left(c^2-1\right)^2+\frac{C_{\mathrm{n}}^2}{2}\left(\frac{\partial{c}}{\partial{x}}\right)^2\right].

917: \]  

918: %

919: %

920: %

921: By differentiating these expressions with respect to time, we obtain

922: the relation

923: %

924: %

925: %

926: \begin{multline}

927: \dot{F}_1+\dot{F}_2

928: %

929: %

930: \\

931: %

932: %

933: =-\tfrac{1}{3} \int{dx}\,  h^3\bigg\{\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(\frac{1}{C}\frac{\partial^2h}{\partial

934: x^2}+\frac{|A|}{h^3}\right)-\frac{r}{h}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[h\left(\frac{\partial

935: c}{\partial x}\right)^2\right]  \bigg\}^2

936: %

937: -\int{dx}\,  h\left(\frac{\partial\mu}{\partial x}\right)^2,

938: %

939: %

940: \label{eq:fe_decay}

941: \end{multline}

942: %

943: %

944: which is nonpositive for nonnegative $h$.  This fact is the key to

945: the analytic results of the next section. 

946: 

947: \section{Existence of solutions to the model equations}

948: \label{sec:existence}

949: 

950: \noindent In this section we prove that solutions to the model equations

951: do indeed exist.  We set $C=\tfrac{1}{3}, r=|A|=1$ in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:model}

952: and focus on the resulting equation set

953: %

954: %

955: %

956: %

957: \begin{subequations}

958: \begin{equation}

959: %

960: \frac{\partial h}{\partial t}=

961: %

962: -\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[f(h)\frac{\partial^{3}h}{\partial{x^3}}\right]+

963: %

964: \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[\frac{1}{g(h)}\frac{\partial h}{\partial{x}}\right]+

965: %

966: \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\bigg\{\frac{f(h)}{g(h)}\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left[g(h)\left(\frac{\partial{c}}{\partial{x}}\right)^2\right]\bigg\},

967: \end{equation}

968: %

969: %

970: %\vskip -0.2in

971: \begin{multline}

972: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(c g(h)\right)=

973: %

974: -\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[cf(h)\frac{\partial^{3}h}{\partial{x^3}}\right]+

975: %

976: \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[\frac{c}{g(h)}\frac{\partial h}{\partial{x}}\right]+

977: %

978: \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\bigg\{c\frac{f(h)}{g(h)}\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left[g(h)\left(\frac{\partial{c}}{\partial{x}}\right)^2\right]\bigg\}

979: \\

980: +\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\bigg\{g(h)\frac{\partial}{\partial

981: x}\left[c^3-c-\frac{1}{g(h)}\frac{\partial}{\partial

982: x}\left(g(h)\frac{\partial c}{\partial x}\right)\right]\bigg\},

983: \label{eq:model_proof_c}%

984: \end{multline}%

985: \label{eq:model_proof}%

986: \end{subequations}%

987: %

988: %

989: %

990: where

991: %

992: %

993: %

994: \[

995: f(h)=h^3,\qquad g(h)=h.

996: \]

997: %

998: %

999: %

1000: The equations are defined on a periodic domain $\Omega=[0,L]$, while

1001: the initial conditions are

1002: %

1003: %

1004: \begin{equation}

1005: h(x,0)=h_0(x)>0,\qquad c(x,0)=c_0(x),\qquad

1006: h_0(x),\,c_0(x)\in \Sobo^{2,2}(\Omega),

1007: \label{eq:initial_data}

1008: \end{equation}

1009: %

1010: %

1011: We shall prove that the solutions to this equation pair exist in the strong

1012: sense; however, we shall need the definition of weak solutions:

1013: %

1014: %

1015: %

1016: \begin{quote}

1017: A pair $\left(h,c\right)$ is a \emph{weak solution} 

1018: of Eq.~\eqref{eq:model_proof} if the following integral relations hold:

1019: %

1020: %

1021: %

1022: \begin{multline*}

1023: \int_0^{T_0}dt\int_\Omega dx\,\varphi_t h=

1024: \\

1025: \int_0^{T_0}dt\int_\Omega dx\,\varphi_x\bigg\{-f(h)\frac{\partial^{3}h}{\partial{x^3}}+

1026: %

1027: \frac{1}{g(h)}\frac{\partial h}{\partial{x}}+

1028: %

1029: \frac{f(h)}{g(h)}\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left[g(h)\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left(\frac{\partial{c}}{\partial{x}}\right)^2\right]\bigg\},

1030: \end{multline*}

1031: %

1032: and

1033: %

1034: %

1035: \begin{multline}

1036: \int_0^{T_0}dt\int_\Omega dx\,\psi_t cg(h)=

1037: \\

1038: \int_0^{T_0}dt\int_\Omega dx\,\psi_x\bigg\{-cf(h)\frac{\partial^{3}h}{\partial{x^3}}+

1039: %

1040: \frac{c}{g(h)}\frac{\partial h}{\partial{x}}+

1041: %

1042: %

1043: c\frac{f(h)}{g(h)}\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left[g(h)\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left(\frac{\partial{c}}{\partial{x}}\right)^2\right]\bigg\}

1044: %

1045: \\

1046: %

1047: +\int_0^{T_0}dt\int_\Omega dx\,\psi_x \bigg\{g(h)\frac{\partial}{\partial

1048: x}\left[c^3-c-\frac{1}{g(h)}\frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}\left(g(h)\frac{\partial{c}}{\partial{x}}\right)\right]\bigg\},

1049: \label{eq:weak_sln}

1050: \end{multline}

1051: %

1052: %

1053: %

1054: where $T_0>0$ is any time, and $\varphi\left(x,t\right)$ and $\psi\left(x,t\right)$

1055: are arbitrary differentiable test functions that are periodic on $\Omega$

1056: and vanish at $t=0$ and $t=T_0$.  

1057: \end{quote}

1058: %

1059: %

1060: %

1061: In a series of steps in Secs.~\ref{sec:regularization}--\ref{sec:uniqueness},

1062: we prove this result:

1063: %

1064: %

1065: \begin{quote}

1066: %

1067:   \emph{Given the initial data in Eq.~\eqref{eq:initial_data},

1068:     Eqs.~\eqref{eq:model_proof} possess a strong solution endowed with

1069:     the following regularity properties:

1070: %

1071: %

1072: %

1073: \[

1074: \left(h,c\right)\in L^{\infty}\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{2,2}(\Omega)\right)

1075: \cap L^2\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{4,2}(\Omega)\right)

1076: \cap C^{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{8}}\left(\Omega\times\left[0,T_0\right]\right).

1077: \]

1078: %

1079: %

1080: }

1081: \end{quote}

1082: %

1083: The outline of the proof is as follows: In

1084: Sec.~\ref{sec:regularization} we introduce a regularised version of

1085: Eqs.~\eqref{eq:model_proof}, whose solution we approximate by a

1086: Galerkin sum in Sec.~\ref{sec:galerkin}.  In

1087: Sec.~\ref{sec:a_priori_bds}, we obtain \emph{a priori} bounds on

1088: various norms of the approximate solution.  Crucially, we show that

1089: the free-surface height is always positive.  This enables us to

1090: continue the approximate solution in the time interval

1091: $\left[0,T_0\right]$.  In Secs.~\ref{sec:equicontinuity}

1092: and~\ref{sec:convergence} we show that the Galerkin sum converges to a

1093: solution of the unapproximated equations, in the appropriate limit.

1094: Finally, in Secs.~\ref{sec:regularity} and~\ref{sec:uniqueness} we

1095: discuss the regularity and uniqueness properties of the solution.

1096: 

1097: 

1098: 

1099: \subsection{Regularisation of the problem}

1100: \label{sec:regularization}

1101: 

1102: \noindent We introduce regularised functions

1103: $f_\varepsilon(s)$ and $g_\varepsilon(s)$ such

1104: that $\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}f_\varepsilon(s)=

1105: f(s)$, and

1106: $\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0,s\geq0}g_\varepsilon(s)={g}(s)$.

1107: For now we do not specify $f_\varepsilon(s)$, although we

1108: mention that a suitable choice of $f_\varepsilon(s)$ will

1109: cure the degeneracy of the fourth-order term in the height equation.

1110: On the other hand, we require that~$g_\varepsilon(s)$ have the properties:

1111: (i) $g_\varepsilon(s)=s+\varepsilon$, for $s\geq0$;

1112: (ii) $g_\varepsilon(s)>0$, for $s<0$;

1113: (iii) $\lim_{s\rightarrow-\infty}g_\varepsilon(s)=\tfrac{1}{2}\varepsilon$;

1114: and (iv) $g_\varepsilon(s)$ is at least $C^3$.

1115: 

1116: From Eqs.~\eqref{eq:model_proof}, the regularised PDEs we study are

1117: %

1118: %

1119: \begin{subequations}

1120: \begin{align}

1121: %\begin{split}

1122: h_t&=-J_{\varepsilon,x}\,,

1123: \\

1124: %

1125: %

1126: \left(cg_\varepsilon(h)\right)_t&=-\left(c J_\varepsilon\right)_x-\left(g_\varepsilon(h)\mu_{\varepsilon,x}\right)_x,

1127: \label{eq:reg_pde_c}%

1128: %\end{split}%

1129: \end{align}%

1130: \label{eq:reg_pde}%

1131: \end{subequations}%

1132: %

1133: %

1134: %

1135: where

1136: %

1137: %

1138: \[

1139: \mu_\varepsilon=c^3-c-\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h)}\left(g_\varepsilon(h)c_x\right)_x

1140: \]

1141: and

1142: \[

1143: J_\varepsilon=f_\varepsilon(h)h_{xxx}-\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h)}h_x-\frac{f_\varepsilon(h)}{g_\varepsilon(h)}\left(g_\varepsilon(h)c_{x}^2\right)_x\,.

1144: \]

1145: %

1146: %

1147: Equation~\eqref{eq:reg_pde_c} can also be written as 

1148: %

1149: %

1150: \begin{equation}

1151: c_t=-\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h)}J_\varepsilon c_x-\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h)}\left(g_\varepsilon(h)\mu_{\varepsilon,x}\right)_x-\frac{c}{g_\varepsilon(h)}\left[J_{\varepsilon,x}+g_\varepsilon'(h)h_t\right];

1152: \label{eq:conc_no_flux}

1153: \end{equation}

1154: %

1155: %

1156: this form of the concentration equation will be useful in

1157: Sec.~\ref{sec:uniqueness}.

1158: 

1159: 

1160: \subsection{The Galerkin approximation}

1161: \label{sec:galerkin}

1162: 

1163: \noindent We choose a complete orthonormal basis on the interval

1164: $\Omega$, with periodic boundary conditions.  Let us denote the basis

1165: by $\{\phi_i(x)\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}_0}$.  We consider the

1166: finite vector space $\text{Span}\{\phi_0,\ldots,\phi_n\}$.  For

1167: convenience, let us take the $\phi_i(x)$'s to be the

1168: eigenfunctions of the Laplacian on $\left[0,L\right]$ with periodic

1169: boundary conditions, and corresponding eigenvalues $-\lambda_i^2$.

1170: Let $\phi_0$ be the constant eigenfunction.  We construct

1171: approximate solutions to the PDEs~\eqref{eq:reg_pde} as finite sums,

1172: %

1173: %

1174: \[

1175: h_n(x,t)=\sum_{i=0}^n\eta_{n,i}(t)\phi_i(x),

1176: \qquad c_n(x,t)=\sum_{i=0}^n\gamma_{n,i}(t)\phi_i(x).

1177: \]

1178: %

1179: %

1180: If the (smooth) initial data are given as

1181: %

1182: %

1183: \[

1184: h(x,0)=h_0(x)=\sum_{i=0}^\infty\eta_i^0\phi_i(x)>0,\qquad

1185: c(x,0)=c_0(x)=\sum_{i=0}^\infty\gamma_i^0\phi_i(x),

1186: \]

1187: %

1188: %

1189: %

1190: then the initial data for the Galerkin approximation are

1191: %

1192: %

1193: \[

1194: h_n(x,0)=h_n^0(x)=\sum_{i=0}^n\eta_{i}^0\phi_i(x),\qquad

1195: c_n(x,0)=c_n^0(x)=\sum_{i=0}^n\gamma_{i}^0\phi_i(x),

1196: \]

1197: %

1198: %

1199: %

1200: and the initial data of the Galerkin approximation converge strongly in the

1201: $L^2(\Omega)$ norm to the initial data of the unapproximated problem.

1202: Thus, there is a $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $h_n^0(x)>0$, everywhere

1203: in $\Omega$, for all $n>n_0$.  Henceforth we work with Galerkin approximations

1204: with $n>n_0$. 

1205: 

1206: Substitution of $h_n=\sum_{i=0}^n\eta_{n,i}\phi_i$  into a weak form of the

1207: $h$-equation yields

1208: %

1209: %

1210: \begin{equation}

1211: \frac{d}{dt}\pairing{h_n}{\phi_j}=\pairing{J_{\varepsilon,n}}{\phi_{j,x}},

1212: \label{eq:weak_h}

1213: \end{equation}

1214: %

1215: %

1216: where

1217: %

1218: %

1219: \[

1220: J_\varepsilon\left(h_n,c_n\right)=f_\varepsilon(h_n)h_{n,xxx}-\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h_n)}h_{n,x}-\frac{f_\varepsilon(h_n)}{g_\varepsilon(h_n)}\left(g_\varepsilon\left(h_{n}\right)c_{n,x}^2\right)_x,

1221: \]

1222: is the flux for the regularised $h$-equation, and $\pairing{\varphi(x)}{\psi(x)}$

1223: is the pairing $\int_\Omega\varphi\psi\,{dx}$.

1224: %

1225: %

1226: We recast Eq.~\eqref{eq:weak_h} as

1227: %

1228: %

1229: \[

1230: \frac{d\eta_{n,j}}{dt}=\pairing{J_{\varepsilon,n}}{\phi_{j,x}}=\Phi_{n,j}\left(\eta_n,\gamma_n\right),

1231: \]

1232: %

1233: %

1234: %

1235: where the function $\Phi_n\left(\eta_n,\gamma_n\right)$ depends on

1236: $\eta_n=\left(\eta_{n,0},\ldots,\eta_{n,n}\right)$ and

1237: $\gamma_n=\left(\gamma_{n,0},\ldots,\gamma_{n,n}\right)$, and is

1238: locally Lipschitz in its variables.  This Lipschitz property arises

1239: from the fact that the regularised flux, evaluated at the Galerkin

1240: approximation, is a composition of Lipschitz continuous functions, and

1241: therefore, is itself Lipschitz continuous.

1242: 

1243: Similarly, substitution of $c_n=\sum_{i=0}^n\gamma_{n,i}\phi_i$ into the

1244: weak form of the $c$-equation~\eqref{eq:reg_pde_c} yields

1245: %

1246: %

1247: \begin{equation}

1248: \frac{d}{dt}\pairing{g (h_n)c_n}{\phi_j}=\pairing{K_{\varepsilon,n}}{\phi_{j,x}},

1249: \label{eq:weak_c}

1250: \end{equation}

1251: %

1252: %

1253: where

1254: %

1255: %

1256: \begin{align*}

1257:   K_\varepsilon\left(h_n,c_n\right) &=

1258:   c_nf_\varepsilon(h_n)h_{n,xxx} -

1259:   \frac{c_n}{g_\varepsilon(h_n)}h_x-c_{n}

1260:   \frac{f_\varepsilon(h_n)} {g_\varepsilon(h_n)}

1261:   \left(g_\varepsilon(h_n)

1262:     c_{n,x}^2\right)_x - g (h_n)\mu_{\varepsilon,n,x}\,,\\

1263:   &=

1264:   c_nJ_{\varepsilon,n}-g_\varepsilon(h_n)\mu_{\varepsilon,n,x}\,,

1265: \end{align*}

1266: %

1267: %

1268: %

1269: is the flux for the regularised

1270: $c$-equation~\eqref{eq:reg_pde_c}. 

1271: Rearranging gives

1272: %

1273: %

1274: \[

1275: \pairing{g (h_n)c_{n,t}}{\phi_j}=\pairing{K_{\varepsilon,n}}{\phi_{j,x}}-\pairing{g' (h_n)c_{n}h_{n,t}}{\phi_j},

1276: \]

1277: %

1278: %

1279: %

1280: and the left-hand side can be recast in matrix form as

1281: $\sum_{\eye=0}^nM_{\eye{j}}\dot{\gamma}_{n,\eye}$,

1282: where

1283: %

1284: %

1285: \[

1286: M_{\eye j}=\int_\Omega{dx}\,  g_\varepsilon\left(\sum_\ell \eta_{n,\ell}\phi_\ell\right)\phi_\eye\phi_j,

1287: \] 

1288: %

1289: %

1290: which is manifestly symmetric.  It is positive

1291: definite because given a vector $\left(\xi_0,\ldots,\xi_n\right)$, we

1292: have the relation

1293: %

1294: %

1295: \begin{equation*}

1296: \sum_{\eye,j}\xi_\eye M_{\eye j}\xi_j=\int_\Omega{dx}\,  g_\varepsilon\left(\sum_\ell\eta_{n,\ell}\phi_\ell\right)\sum_{\eye,j}\left(\phi_\eye\xi_\eye\right)\left(\phi_j\xi_j\right)

1297: >0,\quad\text{for }\left(\xi_0,\ldots,\xi_n\right)\neq0,

1298: \end{equation*}

1299: %

1300: %

1301: which follows from the positivity of the regularised function $g_\varepsilon(s)$.

1302:  We therefore have the following equation for $\gamma_{n,j}(t)$,

1303: %

1304: %

1305: %

1306: \begin{equation}

1307: \frac{d\gamma_{n,j}}{dt}=\sum_{\eye=0}^n M_{\eye j}^{-1}\Big[\pairing{K_{\varepsilon,n}}{\phi_{\eye,x}}-\pairing{g_\varepsilon' (h_n)c_{n}h_{n,t}}{\phi_\eye}

1308: \Big].

1309: \label{eq:gamma_dot}

1310: \end{equation}

1311: %

1312: Inspecting the expression for $M_{\eye j}$, $g (h_n)$, and

1313: $K_{\varepsilon,n}$, we see that $\eta_n$ and $\gamma_n$ appear in a

1314: Lipschitz-continuous way in the expression $\sum_{\eye=0}^n M_{\eye

1315:   j}^{-1}\pairing{K_{\varepsilon,n}}{\phi_{\eye,x}}$, while owing to

1316: the imposed smoothness of $g_\varepsilon(s)$, the variables

1317: $\eta_n$, $\gamma_n$ and

1318: $\dot{\eta}_n=\left(\dot{\eta}_{n,0},\ldots,\dot{\eta}_{n,n}\right)$

1319: appear in a Lipschitz-continuous way in the quantity $\sum_{\eye=0}^n

1320: M_{\eye  j}^{-1}\pairing{g_\varepsilon' (h_n)c_{n}h_{n,t}}{\phi_\eye}$.

1321: The vector $\dot{\eta}_n$ can be replaced by the function

1322: $\Phi_n\left(\eta_n,\gamma_n\right)$ and thus we obtain a relation

1323: %

1324: %

1325: \[

1326: \frac{d\gamma_{n,j}}{dt}=\Psi_{n,j}\left(\eta_n,\gamma_n\right),

1327: \]

1328: %

1329: %

1330: %

1331:  in place of Eq.~\eqref{eq:gamma_dot}, where $\Psi_{n,j}\left(\eta_n,\gamma_n\right)$

1332:  is Lipschitz.  We therefore have a system of Lipschitz-continuous equations

1333: %

1334: %

1335: \[

1336: \frac{d\eta_{n,j}}{dt}=\Phi_{n,j}\left(\eta_n,\gamma_n\right),\qquad\frac{d\gamma_{n,j}}{dt}=\Psi_{n,j}\left(\eta_n,\gamma_n\right),

1337: \]

1338: %

1339: %

1340: and thus local existence theory~\cite{DoeringGibbon} guarantees

1341: a solution

1342: for the $\eta_{n,i}$'s

1343: and $\gamma_{n,i}$'s for all times $t$ in a finite interval $0<t<\sigma$.

1344:  This solution is, moreover, unique and continuous.  To continue this approximate

1345:  solution to the PDE problem in Eq.~\eqref{eq:model_proof}

1346:  up to an an arbitrary time $T_0>0$, it is necessary to find \emph{a priori}

1347:  bounds on the approximate local-in-time solution.

1348: 

1349: 

1350: \subsection{\emph{A priori} bounds on the Galerkin approximation}

1351: \label{sec:a_priori_bds}

1352: 

1353: \noindent We identify the free energy

1354: %

1355: %

1356: \[

1357: F = \int_{\Omega}{dx}\,

1358: \left[\tfrac{3}{2}h_x^2+G_\varepsilon(h)\right]

1359: + \int_{\Omega}{dx}\,

1360: g_\varepsilon(h) \left[\tfrac{1}{4} \left(c^2-1\right)^2+\tfrac{1}{2}c_x^2\right],

1361: \]

1362: %

1363: %

1364: where $G_{\varepsilon}''(s)=1/\left[f_\varepsilon(s)g_\varepsilon(s)\right]$.

1365:  Since the Galerkin approximation satisfies the weak form of the PDEs given

1366:  in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:weak_h} and~\eqref{eq:weak_c}, it is possible to obtain

1367:  the free-energy decay law

1368: %

1369: %

1370: \begin{multline}

1371: \frac{dF}{dt}(t)=

1372: -\int_{\Omega-\Omega_-}{dx}\,  f_\varepsilon(h_n)

1373:    \left[-h_{n,xxx}+\frac{h_{n,x}}{g_\varepsilon(h_n)

1374:        h_\varepsilon(h_n)} + \frac{1}{g_\varepsilon

1375:         (h_n)} \left(g_\varepsilon  (h_n)

1376:        c_{n,x}^2\right)_x \right]^2dx \\- \int_\Omega{dx}\,

1377:    g_\varepsilon  (h_n) \mu_{\varepsilon,n,x}^2%\\

1378: + \int_{\Omega_-}{dx}\,[\dots],\qquad

1379:    0\leq t<\sigma,

1380: \label{eq:free_energy_decay}

1381: \end{multline}

1382: %

1383: %

1384: where $\Omega_-(t)=\{x\in\Omega|h_n(x,t)<0\}$.

1385: Now given the time-continuity of $h_n(x,t)$ in

1386: $(0,\sigma)$, and the initial condition $h_n^0(x)>0$ (since

1387: $n>n_0$), there is a time $\sigma_1>0$ such that

1388: $h_n(x,t)>0$ for all $x\in\Omega$ and all

1389: $t\in\left(0,\sigma_1\right)$.  Therefore,

1390: $\Omega_-(t)=\emptyset$ for $t\in\left(0,\sigma_1\right)$, the last

1391: integral in~\eqref{eq:free_energy_decay} vanishes, and hence

1392: %

1393: %

1394: \[

1395: F\left[c_n(x,t),h_n(x,t)\right] \leq

1396: F\left[c_n(x,0),h_n(x,0)\right] \leq

1397: \sup_{\varepsilon,n}F\left[c_n(x,0),h_n(x,0)\right]<\infty,

1398: \]

1399: %

1400: %

1401: for $0< t<\sigma_1$.  Consequently, we obtain the bound $\|h_{n,x}\|_2\leq

1402: k_1$, where $0<t<\sigma_1$, and where $k_1$ depends only on the initial

1403: conditions.  We have Poincar\'e's inequality for $h_{n,x}$,

1404: %

1405: %

1406: %

1407: \[

1408: \|h_n\|_2^2\leq\left[\int_\Omega {dx}\, h_n(x)\right]^2+\left(\frac{L}{2\pi}\right)^2\|h_{n,x}\|_2^2.

1409: \]

1410: %

1411: %

1412: %

1413: Now $\int_\Omega{dx}h_n(x,t)=L\eta_{n,0}(t)$.  Inspection

1414: of Eq.~\eqref{eq:weak_h} shows that $\eta_{n,0}(t)=\eta_{n,0}\left(0\right)=\eta_{0}^0$.

1415:  Thus,

1416: %

1417: %

1418: \[

1419: \|h_n\|_2^2\leq

1420: L^2|\eta_{0}^0|^2+\left(\frac{L}{2\pi}\right)^2k_1\equiv k_2<\infty.

1421: \] 

1422: %

1423: %

1424: Using result~\eqref{eq:result1} from Appendix~\ref{apx:A},

1425: we obtain the bound

1426: %

1427: %

1428: \[

1429: \|h_n\|_\infty\leq\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\|h_n\|_2+\sqrt{L}\|h_{n,x}\|_2

1430: \equiv k_3\,.

1431: \]

1432: %

1433: %

1434: %

1435: %

1436: %

1437: Additionally, the following properties hold:

1438: %

1439: %

1440: %

1441: \begin{itemize}

1442: \item The function $h_{n}$ is H\"older continuous in space, with exponent

1443: $\tfrac{1}{2}$\,;

1444: \item $\int_\Omega {dx}\, G_{\varepsilon} (h_n)\leq k_4$\,.

1445: \end{itemize}

1446: %

1447: %

1448: %

1449: These results hold in $0<t<\sigma_1$, and the constants $k_1$,

1450: $k_2$, $k_3$, and $k_4$ are independent of $\varepsilon$, $n$, $\sigma$,

1451: and $\sigma_1$, and in fact depend only on the functions $h_0(x)$

1452: and $c_0(x)$.

1453: 

1454: To continue the estimates to the whole interval

1455: $\left(0,\sigma\right)$, we need to prove that

1456: $h_n\left(\cdot,\sigma_1\right)>0$ almost everywhere (a.e.).  If this

1457: is true, there is a new interval $[\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$,

1458: $\sigma_1<\sigma_2\leq\sigma$, on which $h_n(\cdot,t)>0$

1459: a.e., and we can then provide \emph{a priori} bounds on

1460: $h_n(\cdot,t)$ and $c_n(\cdot,t)$ on the

1461: interval $\left[\sigma_1,\sigma_2\right)$.  It is then possible to

1462: show that $h_n\left(\cdot.,\sigma_2\right)>0$ a.e.\ and thus, by

1463: iteration, we extend the proof to the whole interval

1464: $\left(0,\sigma\right)$, and find that $h_n\left(.,t\right)>0$ a.e.\

1465: on $\left(0,\sigma\right)$.

1466: 

1467: We have the bound

1468: %

1469: %

1470: \begin{equation}

1471: \int_\Omega {dx}\, G_{\varepsilon}(h_n(\cdot,t))\leq k_4,

1472: \label{eq:sigma_1_bound}

1473: \end{equation}

1474: %

1475: %

1476: where $k_4$ depends

1477: only on the initial conditions, and where $0<t<\sigma_1$.  We now

1478: specify $G_\varepsilon(s)$ in more detail.  This function

1479: satisfies the condition

1480: %

1481: %

1482: \[

1483: G_\varepsilon''(s)=\frac{1}{f_\varepsilon(s)\,g_\varepsilon(s)}.

1484: \]

1485: %

1486: %

1487: We take $g_\varepsilon(s)$ to be as defined previously, and we choose a simple

1488: regularisation for $f(s)$:

1489: %

1490: %

1491: \[

1492: f_\varepsilon(s)=g_\varepsilon(s)^3,

1493: \]

1494: %

1495: %

1496: %

1497: which is Lipschitz continuous.

1498: %

1499: %

1500: By defining

1501: %

1502: %

1503: \[

1504: \tilde{G}_\varepsilon(s)=-\int_s^\infty\frac{dr}{f_\varepsilon(r)g_\varepsilon(r)},\qquad

1505: G_\varepsilon(s)=-\int_s^{\infty}{dr}\, \tilde{G}_\varepsilon(r),

1506: \]

1507: %

1508: %

1509: we obtain a function $G_\varepsilon(s)$ that is positive for all

1510: $s\in\left(-\infty,\infty\right)$, and

1511: %

1512: %

1513: %

1514: \[

1515: G_{\varepsilon}(s)=\tfrac{1}{6}\frac{1}{\left(s+\varepsilon\right)^2}\,,

1516: \qquad s\geq0.

1517: \]

1518: %

1519: %

1520: %

1521: Using the boundedness of $G_{\varepsilon}(s)$, and the time-continuity

1522: of $h_n(\cdot,t)$, we apply the Dominated Convergence Theorem,

1523: %

1524: %

1525: \[

1526: \lim_{t\rightarrow\sigma_1}\int_\Omega {dx}\, G_{\varepsilon}(h_n(\cdot,t))=\int_\Omega{dx}\,

1527: \lim_{t\rightarrow\sigma_1}G_{\varepsilon}(h_n(\cdot,t))=\int_{\Omega}{dx}\,

1528: G_{\varepsilon}\left(h_n\left(\cdot,\sigma_1\right)\right)\leq

1529: k_4.

1530: \] 

1531: %

1532: %

1533: Similarly, since the constant $k_1$ in the inequality $\|h_{n,x}\|_2\leq

1534: k_1$, $0\leq t<\sigma_1$ depends

1535: only on the initial data, we extend this last inequality to $t=\sigma_1$,

1536: and thus $h_n(x,\sigma_1)$ is H\"older continuous in space.  

1537: 

1538: In the worst-case scenario, the time $\sigma_1$ is the first time at which

1539: $h_n(x,t)$

1540: touches down to zero, and and we therefore assume for contradiction that $h_n\left(x_0,\sigma_1\right)=0$,

1541: and that $h_n(x,\sigma_1)\geq0$ elsewhere.

1542:  Then, by H\"older continuity, for any $x\in\Omega$ we have the bound

1543:  $0\leq h_n(x,\sigma_1)\leq k_1\left|x-x_0\right|^{\frac{1}{2}}$, and

1544:  thus

1545: %

1546: %

1547: %

1548: \[

1549: \int_\Omega {dx}\, G_{\varepsilon}\left(h_n\left(\cdot,\sigma_1\right)\right)

1550: \geq\frac{k_1}{6}\int_0^L\frac{dx}{|x-x_0|+\varepsilon (2\sqrt{L}+\varepsilon)}.

1551: \]

1552: %

1553: %

1554: Hence,

1555: %

1556: %

1557: %

1558: \begin{multline*}

1559: \frac{6}{k_1}\int_\Omega {dx}\, G_{\varepsilon}\left(h_n\left(\cdot,\sigma_1\right)\right)

1560: \\

1561: \geq-2\log\left[\varepsilon\left(2\sqrt{L}+\varepsilon\right)\right]+\log\bigg\{\left[L-x_0+\left(2\sqrt{L}+\varepsilon\right)\varepsilon\right]\left[x_0+\left(2\sqrt{L}+\varepsilon\right)\varepsilon\right]\bigg\}.

1562: \end{multline*}

1563: %

1564: %

1565: %

1566: %

1567: Thus, the integral $\int_\Omega G_\varepsilon(h_n(x,\sigma_1))dx$ can

1568: be made arbitrarily large, which contradicts the

1569: $\varepsilon$-independent bound for this quantity, obtained in

1570: Eq.~\eqref{eq:sigma_1_bound}.  We therefore have the strong condition

1571: that the set on which $h_n\left(\cdot,\sigma_1\right)\leq0$ is empty.

1572: Iterating the argument, we have the important result

1573: %

1574: %

1575: %

1576: \begin{quote}

1577: The set on which $h_n(\cdot,t)\leq0$ is empty, for $0<t<\sigma$.

1578: \end{quote}

1579: %

1580: %

1581: %

1582: Using the same argument, we have an estimate on the minimum value of

1583: $h_n(x,t)$,

1584: %

1585: %

1586: \[

1587: h_{\mathrm{min}}=\min_{x\in\Omega,t\in\left(0,\sigma\right]}h_n(x,t),

1588: \]

1589: %

1590: %

1591: namely,

1592: %

1593: %

1594: %

1595: \[

1596: h_{\mathrm{min}}+\varepsilon\geq -k_1\sqrt{L}+\sqrt{k_1^2L+\frac{k_1^2L}{e^{k_4k_1^2}-1}},

1597: \]

1598: %

1599: %

1600: for all small positive $\varepsilon$.  Thus,

1601: %

1602: %

1603: %

1604: \begin{equation}

1605: h_{\mathrm{min}}\geq M :=-k_1\sqrt{L}+\sqrt{k_1^2L+\frac{k_1^2L}{e^{k_4k_1^2}-1}},

1606: \label{eq:min_h}

1607: \end{equation}

1608: %

1609: %

1610: a lower bound that depends only on the initial data $c_0(x)$ and $h_0(x)$.

1611:  Note

1612: that this result depends on the intimate relationship between the H\"older

1613: continuity of a function and its boundedness in the $W^2$ norm, a relationship

1614: that is true only in one dimension.  Thus, generalisation of this lower bound,

1615: and by extension, long-time existence and uniqueness of solutions, does not

1616: necessarily hold in higher dimensions.

1617: 

1618: 

1619: 

1620: Now, using Eq.~\eqref{eq:min_h} and the boundedness result 

1621: %

1622: %

1623: \[

1624: \int_\Omega{dx}\,

1625: g_\varepsilon(h_n)

1626: \left[\tfrac{1}{4}\left(c_n^2-1\right)^2+\tfrac{1}{2}c_{n,x}^2\right]

1627: \leq k_5\,,

1628: \]

1629: %

1630: %

1631: %

1632: where $k_5$ depends only on the initial data, we obtain an \emph{a priori}

1633: bound on $\|c_{n,x}\|_2^2$,

1634: %

1635: %

1636: \[

1637: \int_\Omega{dx}\,  c_{n,x}^2 \leq \frac{2k_5}{M}\,.

1638: \]

1639: %

1640: %

1641: It is also possible to derive a bound on $\|c_n\|_2^2$.  We have the relation

1642: %

1643: %

1644: \[

1645: \int_\Omega{dx}\,\tfrac{1}{4}\left(c_n^2-1\right)^2\leq \frac{k_5}{M},

1646: \]

1647: %

1648: %

1649: which gives the inequality

1650: %

1651: %

1652: $

1653: \|c_n\|_4^4\leq 2\|c\|_2^2+\left({4k_5}/{M}\right).

1654: $

1655: %

1656: %

1657: Using the H\"older relation $\|c\|_2\leq |\Omega|^{\frac{1}{4}}\|c\|_4$,

1658: we obtain a quadratic inequality in $\|c\|_2^2$,

1659: %

1660: %

1661: %

1662: \[

1663: \|c\|_2^4\leq 2|\Omega|\|c\|_2^2+\frac{4|\Omega|k_5}{M},

1664: \]

1665: %

1666: %

1667: %

1668: with solution

1669: %

1670: %

1671: \[

1672: \|c\|_2^2\leq |\Omega|+\frac{4|\Omega|k_5}{M},

1673: \]

1674: %

1675: %

1676: as required.  From the boundedness of $\|c_{n,x}\|_2$ and $\|c_{n}\|_2$ follows

1677: the relation $\|c_n\|_\infty \leq k_6<\infty$, a result that depends only

1678: on the initial conditions.

1679: %

1680: %

1681: %

1682: Let us recapitulate these results:

1683: %

1684: %

1685: %

1686: \begin{itemize}

1687: \item $\|h_{n,x}\|_2$ is uniformly bounded;

1688: \item $\|h_{n}\|_\infty$ is uniformly bounded;

1689: \item The function $h_{n}$ is H\"older continuous in space, with exponent

1690: $\tfrac{1}{2}$;

1691: \item The function $h_{n}$ is nonzero everywhere and never decreases below

1692: a certain value $M>0$, independent of $n$, $\varepsilon$, and $\sigma$.

1693: \item $\|c_{n,x}\|_2$ is uniformly bounded;

1694: \item $\|c_{n}\|_\infty$ is uniformly bounded;

1695: \item The function $c_{n}$ is H\"older continuous in space, with exponent

1696: $\tfrac{1}{2}$\,.

1697: \end{itemize}

1698: %

1699: %

1700: %

1701: These results are independent of $n$, $\varepsilon$ and $\sigma$, and

1702: hold for $0<t<\sigma$.

1703: %

1704: %

1705: %

1706: %

1707: %

1708: %

1709: \subsection{Equicontinuity and convergence of the Galerkin approximation}

1710: \label{sec:equicontinuity}

1711: 

1712: \noindent  Using Eq.~\eqref{eq:free_energy_decay}, we obtain the bound

1713: %

1714: %

1715: \begin{multline*}

1716: \int_0^t{dt'}\int_\Omega{dx}\, \bigg\{f_\varepsilon(h_n)\left[-h_{n,xxx}+\frac{h_{n,x}}{g_\varepsilon(h_n)f_\varepsilon(h_n)}+\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h_n)}\left(g_\varepsilon(h_n)c_{n,x}^2\right)_x\right]^2+g_\varepsilon(h_n)\mu_{\varepsilon,n,x}^2\bigg\}

1717: \\

1718: \leq F\left(0\right),\qquad 0<t<\sigma,

1719: \end{multline*}

1720: %

1721: %

1722: a bound that is independent of $n$, $\sigma$, and $\varepsilon$.  Since the

1723: quantity $\|f_\varepsilon(h_n)\|_\infty=\left(\|h_n\|_\infty+\varepsilon\right)^3$

1724: is bounded above by a constant $A_1$ independent of $n$, $\varepsilon$,

1725: and $\sigma$, we have

1726: %

1727: %

1728: \begin{multline*}

1729: \int_0^tdt'\int_\Omega {dx}\,  J_{\varepsilon,n}^2\\

1730: %

1731: %

1732: \leq A_1\int_0^t{dt'}\int_\Omega{dx}\, 

1733: \bigg\{f_\varepsilon(h_n) \left[-h_{n,xxx} +

1734:   \frac{h_{n,x}}{g_\varepsilon

1735:      (h_n)f_\varepsilon(h_n)} +

1736:   \frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h_n)}

1737:   \left(g_\varepsilon(h_n) c_{n,x}^2\right)_x\right]^2\bigg\}

1738: %

1739: %

1740: \\

1741: \leq A_1 F\left(0\right)\equiv A_2,

1742: \end{multline*}

1743: %

1744: %

1745: %

1746: and thus

1747: %

1748: %

1749: %

1750: \[

1751: \int_0^tdt'\,\|J_{\varepsilon,n}\|_2^2\leq A_2,\qquad 0< t<\sigma,

1752: \]

1753: %

1754: %

1755: where $A_2$ is independent of $n$, $\varepsilon$, and $\sigma$.  Similarly,

1756: %

1757: %

1758: \[

1759: \int_0^tdt'\,\|g_\varepsilon(h_n)\mu_{\varepsilon,n,x}\|_2^2\leq

1760: A_3,\qquad 0<{t}<\sigma,

1761: \]

1762: %

1763: %

1764: %

1765: and

1766: \[

1767: \int_0^tdt'\,\|c_n J_{\varepsilon,n}\|_2^2\leq A_2\|c_n\|_\infty^2\leq

1768: A_2k_6^2,\qquad 0<t<\sigma,

1769: \]

1770: %

1771: %

1772: %

1773: where $A_2$ and $A_3$ are independent of $n$, $\varepsilon$, and $\sigma$.

1774:  By rewriting the evolution equations as

1775: %

1776: %

1777: \[

1778: h_{n,t}=-J_{\varepsilon,n,x},\qquad \left(g_\varepsilon(h)c\right)_t=-K_{\varepsilon,n,x},

1779: \]

1780: %

1781: %

1782: where $K_{\varepsilon,n}=c_n J_{\varepsilon,n}-g_\varepsilon(h_n)\mu_{\varepsilon,n,x}$,

1783: we see that there are uniform bounds for $\int_0^tdt'\,\|J_{\varepsilon,n}\|_2^2$

1784: and $\int_0^tdt'\,\|K_{\varepsilon,n}\|_2^2$, which depend only on the initial

1785: data $c_0(x)$ and $h_0(x)$.

1786: 

1787: Bernis and Friedman~\cite{Friedman1990} proved the following claim:

1788: %

1789: %

1790: %

1791: \begin{quote}

1792: %

1793: %

1794: %

1795: \emph{Let $\varphi_i\left(x,t\right)$ be a sequence of functions, each of

1796: which weakly satisfies the equation

1797: %

1798: %

1799: \[

1800: \varphi_{i,t}=-J_{i,x},\qquad J_i=J\left(\varphi_i\right).

1801: \]

1802: %

1803: %

1804: If $\varphi_i\left(x,\cdot\right)$ is H\"older continuous (exponent $\tfrac{1}{2}$),

1805: and if the fluxes $J_i$ satisfy

1806: %

1807: %

1808: \[

1809: \int_0^t dt'\,\|J_i\|_2^2\leq B_1,\qquad 0<t<\sigma,

1810: \]

1811: %

1812: %

1813: where $B_1$ is a number independent of the index $i$ and the time $\sigma$,

1814: then there is a constant $B_2$, independent of $i$ and $\sigma$, such that

1815: %

1816: %

1817: \[

1818: \left|\varphi_i\left(\cdot,t_2\right)-\varphi_i\left(\cdot,t_1\right)\right|\leq

1819: B_2\left|t_2-t_1\right|^{\frac{1}{8}},

1820: \]

1821: %

1822: %

1823: for all $t_1$ and $t_2$ in $\left(0,\sigma\right)$.  

1824: }

1825: \end{quote}

1826: %

1827: %

1828: %

1829: We now observe that the fluxes $J_{\varepsilon,n}$, and $K_{\varepsilon,n}$

1830: satisfy the conditions of this theorem, and thus

1831: %

1832: %

1833: \begin{quote}

1834: The functions $h_{n}(\cdot,t)$ and $c_n(\cdot,t)$

1835: are H\"older continuous (exponent $\tfrac{1}{8}$), for $0<t<\sigma$.

1836: \end{quote}

1837: %

1838: %

1839: We therefore have a uniformly bounded and equicontinuous family of

1840: functions $\{\left(h_n,c_n\right)\}_{n=n_0+1}^\infty$.  We also have a

1841: recipe for constructing a uniformly bounded and equicontinuous

1842: approximate solution

1843: $\left(h_n(x,t),c_n(x,t)\right)$, in a small

1844: interval $\left(0,\sigma\right)$.  The recipe can be iterated

1845: step-by-step, and we obtain a uniformly bounded and equicontinuous

1846: family of approximate solutions

1847: $\{\left(h_n,c_n\right)\}_{n=n_0+1}^\infty$, on

1848: $\left(0,T_0\right)\times\Omega$, for an arbitrary time $T_0$.  Then,

1849: using the Arzel\`a--Ascoli theorem, we obtain the convergence result:

1850: %

1851: %

1852: \begin{quote}

1853: There is a subsequence of the family $\{\left(h_n,c_n\right)\}_{n=n_0+1}^\infty$

1854: that converges uniformly to a limit $\left(h,c\right)$, in $\left[0,T_0\right]\times\Omega$.

1855: \end{quote}

1856: %

1857: %

1858: %

1859: %

1860: %

1861: %

1862: We prove several facts about the pair $\left(h,c\right)$.

1863: %

1864: %

1865: %

1866: %

1867: %

1868: \begin{quote}

1869: \emph{Let $\left(h,c\right)$ be the limit of the family of functions

1870: $\{\left(h_n,c_n\right)\}_{n=n_0+1}^\infty$

1871: constructed in Secs.~\ref{sec:regularization}--\ref{sec:equicontinuity}.

1872: Then the following properties hold for this limit:

1873: %

1874: %

1875: %

1876: \begin{enumerate}

1877: \item The functions $h(x,t)$ and $c(x,t)$ are uniformly

1878: H\"older continuous in space (exponent $\tfrac{1}{2}$), and uniformly H\"older

1879: continuous in time (exponent $\tfrac{1}{8}$);

1880: \item The initial condition $\left(h,c\right)\left(x,0\right)=\left(h_0,c_0\right)(x)$

1881: holds;

1882: \item $\left(h,c\right)$ satisfy the boundary conditions of the original

1883: problem (periodic boundary conditions);

1884: \item The derivatives $\left(h,c\right)_t$, $\left(h,c\right)_x$, $\left(h,c\right)_{xx}$,

1885: $\left(h,c\right)_{xxx}$, and $\left(h,c\right)_{xxxx}$ are continuous in

1886: space and time;

1887: \item The function pair $\left(h,c\right)$ satisfy the weak form

1888: of the PDEs,

1889: %

1890: %

1891: \begin{multline*}

1892: \int\int_{Q_{T_0}}dtdx\, h\varphi_t+\int\int_{Q_{T_0}}dtdx\,J_\varepsilon\varphi_x=0,\\

1893: J_\varepsilon=f_\varepsilon(h)h_{xxx}-\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h)}h_x-\frac{f_\varepsilon(h)}{g_\varepsilon(h)}\left(g_\varepsilon(h)c_{x}^2\right)_x,

1894: \end{multline*}

1895: %

1896: %

1897: %

1898: \begin{multline*}

1899: \int\int_{Q_{T_0}}dtdx\, g_\varepsilon(h)c\psi_t+\int\int_{Q_{T_0}}dtdx\,K_\varepsilon\psi_x=0,\\

1900: K_\varepsilon= cJ_\varepsilon-g_\varepsilon(h)\left[c^3-c-\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h)}\left(g_\varepsilon(h)c_x\right)_x\right],

1901: \end{multline*}

1902: %

1903: %

1904: where $\varphi\left(x,t\right)$ and $\psi\left(x,t\right)$ are suitable test

1905: functions.

1906: %

1907: \label{page:claims45}

1908: \end{enumerate}

1909: }

1910: %

1911: \end{quote}

1912: %

1913: %

1914: %

1915: %

1916: The statements~1,~2, and~3 are obvious.  Now, any pair

1917: $\left(h_n(x,t),c_n(x,t)\right)$ satisfies the

1918: equation set

1919: %

1920: %

1921: \begin{multline*}

1922: \int\int_{Q_{T_0}}dtdx\, h_n\phi_t+\int\int_{Q_{T_0}}dtdx\,J_{\varepsilon,n}\phi_x=0,

1923: \\

1924: J_{\varepsilon,n}=f_{\varepsilon} (h_n)h_{n,xxx}-\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h_n)}h_x-\frac{f_\varepsilon(h_n)}{g_\varepsilon(h_n)}\left(g_\varepsilon(h_n)c_{n,x}^2\right)_x,

1925: \end{multline*}

1926: %

1927: %

1928: %

1929: \begin{multline*}

1930: %\hskip -0.2in

1931: \int\int_{Q_{T_0}}dtdx\, g_\varepsilon(h_n)c_n\psi_t+\int\int_{Q_{T_0}}dtdx\,

1932: K_{\varepsilon,n}\psi_x=0,\\

1933: K_{\varepsilon,n}= c_nJ_{\varepsilon,n}-g_\varepsilon

1934: (h_n)\left[c_n^3-c_n-\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h_n)}\left(g_\varepsilon

1935:     (h_n) c_{n,x}\right)_x\right],

1936: \end{multline*}

1937: %

1938: %

1939: %

1940: and from the boundedness of the fluxes $J_{\varepsilon,n}$ and $K_{\varepsilon,n}$

1941: in $L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$, it follows that

1942: %

1943: %

1944: \[

1945: \left(J_{\varepsilon,n}\,,\,K_{\varepsilon,n}\right)\rightharpoonup\left(J_\varepsilon\,,\,K_\varepsilon\right),

1946: \qquad\text{weakly in }L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right),

1947: \]

1948: %

1949: %

1950: for a subsequence.  Using the regularity

1951: theory for uniformly parabolic equations and the uniform H\"older continuity

1952: of the $\left(h_n,c_n\right)$'s, it follows that

1953: %

1954: %

1955: \begin{quote}

1956: The derivatives $\left(h_n,c_n\right)_t$, $\left(h_n,c_n\right)_x$,

1957: $\left(h_n,c_n\right)_{xx}$, $\left(h_n,c_n\right)_{xxx}$, and $\left(h_n,c_n\right)_{xxxx}$

1958: are uniformly convergent in any compact subset of $\left(0,T_0\right]\times\Omega$.

1959: \end{quote}

1960: %

1961: %

1962: Thus,

1963: %

1964: %

1965: \[

1966: J_\varepsilon = f_\varepsilon(h)h_{xxx} -

1967: \frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h)} h_x -

1968: \frac{f_\varepsilon(h)}{g_\varepsilon(h)} \left(g_\varepsilon(h)c_{x}^2\right)_x,

1969: \]

1970: %

1971: %

1972: %

1973: \[

1974: K_\varepsilon=cJ_\varepsilon-g_\varepsilon(h)\left[c^3-c-\frac{1}{g_\varepsilon(h)}\left(g_\varepsilon(h)c_x\right)_x\right],

1975: \]

1976: %

1977: %

1978: %

1979: on $\left(0,T_0\right]\times\Omega$, and therefore, claims~4 and~5 on

1980: p.~\pageref{page:claims45} follow.

1981: 

1982: 

1983: \subsection{Convergence of regularised problem, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$}

1984: \label{sec:convergence}

1985: 

1986: \noindent The result in Sec.~\ref{sec:equicontinuity} produced a solution

1987: $\left(h_\varepsilon,c_\varepsilon\right)$ to the regularised problem.  Due

1988: to the result

1989: %

1990: %

1991: %

1992: \begin{equation}

1993: h_{\varepsilon}\left(x,t\right)\geq h_{\mathrm{min}}\geq M=-k_1\sqrt{L}+\sqrt{k_1^2L+\frac{k_1^2L}{e^{k_4k_1^2}-1}}>0,\\

1994: \label{eq:no_rupture}

1995: \end{equation}

1996: %

1997: %

1998: independent of $\varepsilon$, the argument of

1999: Sec.~\ref{sec:equicontinuity} can be recycled to produce a solution

2000: $\left(h,c\right)$ to the unregularised problem.  This solution is

2001: constructed as the limit of a convergent subsequence, formally written as

2002: $\left(h,c\right)=\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}\left(h_\varepsilon,c_\varepsilon\right)$,

2003: and the results of the theorem in Sec.~\ref{sec:equicontinuity}

2004: apply again to $\left(h,c\right)$.  The result~\eqref{eq:no_rupture}

2005: applies to $h$ constructed as

2006: $h=\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}h_\varepsilon$, and thus all the

2007: derivatives $\left(h,c\right)_t$, $\left(h,c\right)_x$,

2008: $\left(h,c\right)_{xx}$, $\left(h,c\right)_{xxx}$, and

2009: $\left(h,c\right)_{xxxx}$ are continuous on the whole space

2010: $\left(0,T_0\right]\times\Omega$ and therefore, the weak solution

2011: $\left(h,c\right)$ is in fact a strong one.

2012:  

2013: \subsection{Regularity properties of the solution $\left(h,c\right)$}

2014: \label{sec:regularity}

2015: 

2016: \noindent 

2017: Using a bootstrap argument, we show that the solution $\left(h,c\right)$ belongs to the regularity

2018: classes $L^{\infty}\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{2,2}(\Omega)\right)$ and $L^2\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{4,2}(\Omega)\right)$.

2019:  From Sec.~\ref{sec:a_priori_bds} it follows immediately that

2020: %

2021: %

2022: \[

2023: \|h_x\|_2\,,\ \|c_x\|_2 < \infty,

2024: \]

2025: %

2026: %

2027: with time-independent bounds.  Thus, using Poincar\'e's inequality, it follows

2028: that $h,c\in \Sobo^{1,2}(\Omega)$ and, moreover, 

2029: %

2030: %

2031: \[

2032: \sup_{\left[0,T_0\right]}\|h_x\|_2\,,\ \sup_{\left[0,T_0\right]}\|c_x\|_2 <

2033: \infty.

2034: \]

2035: %

2036: % 

2037: From Sec.~\ref{sec:equicontinuity},

2038: it follows that $J$ and $\mu_x$ belong to the regularity class $L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$,

2039: and hence $J$, $\mu_x\in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^1(\Omega)\right)$. 

2040: The functions $J$, $\mu$, and $\mu_x$ take the form

2041: %

2042: %

2043: \[

2044: J=h^3 h_{xxx}-h_xh^{-1}-h^2\left(h_x c_x^2+2h c_x c_{xx}\right),

2045: \]

2046: %

2047: % 

2048: %

2049: %

2050: \[

2051: \mu = c^3-c - h^{-1}\left(h_x c_x + hc_{xx}\right),

2052: \]

2053: %

2054: %

2055: and

2056: %

2057: %

2058: %

2059: \[

2060: \mu_x= \left(3c^2-1\right)c_x + h^{-2}h_x^2 c_x - h^{-1}h_{xx}c_x - h^{-1}h_xc_{xx}

2061: -c_{xxx},

2062: \]

2063: %

2064: %

2065: respectively.

2066: %

2067: %

2068: We make use of the following observations:

2069: %The following results will help us in our demonstration,

2070: %

2071: %

2072: \begin{itemize}

2073: \item The function $h(x,t)$ is bounded from above and below,

2074: %

2075: %

2076: \[

2077: 0< h_{\mathrm{min}}\leq h(x,t)\leq h_{\mathrm{max}}<\infty;

2078: \]

2079: %

2080: %

2081: %

2082: we also have the boundedness of $c(x,t)$, $\|c\|_\infty

2083: <\infty$. 

2084: \item Since $\mu_x\in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$, it follows

2085: that $\mu\in L^2\left(0,T_0; L^2(\Omega)\right)$, by Poincar\'e's

2086: inequality.

2087: \item From this it follows that $c_x h_x + hc_{xx}$ is in the class $L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.

2088: \item  Given the inequality 

2089: %

2090: %

2091: \[

2092: \|h\mu c_x\|_2^2\leq h_{\mathrm{max}}\|\mu\|_\infty^2\|c_x\|_2^2\leq

2093: h_{\mathrm{max}}\|c_x\|_2^2\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\|\mu\|_2+\sqrt{L}\|\mu_x\|_2\right]^2,

2094: \]

2095: %

2096: we have the result $h_x c_x^2 + h c_x c_{xx}\in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.

2097: %

2098: %

2099: \item Similarly, since $\int_0^{T_0}\|h\mu h_x\|_2^2dt<\infty$, we have the

2100: bound

2101: $h_x^2c_x +hh_x c_{xx}\in  L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.

2102: \end{itemize}

2103: %

2104: %

2105: %

2106: Using these facts, and relegating the details to Appendix~\ref{apx:B},

2107: it is possible to show that $c_{xx}$ is in

2108: $L^2\left(0,T_0;L^1(\Omega)\right)$, from which follows the result

2109: $h_{xxx},c_{xxx}\in L^1\left(0,T_0;L^1(\Omega)\right)$.  These results

2110: give rise to further bounds, namely $c_{xx}\in

2111: L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$, and

2112: $\int_0^{T_0}dt\,\|h_x^2c_x\|_2<\infty$, whence $h_{xx}\in

2113: L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.  Using this collection of bounds,

2114: we obtain

2115: %

2116: %

2117: %

2118: %

2119: \[

2120: h,c\in L^1\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{3,1}(\Omega)\right),

2121: \]

2122: %

2123: %

2124: and hence finally, 

2125: %

2126: %

2127: %

2128: %

2129: \[

2130: h,c\in L^2\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{3,2}(\Omega)\right).

2131: \]

2132: %

2133: %

2134: Thus, the solution $\left(h,c\right)$ belongs to the following regularity

2135: class:

2136: %

2137: %

2138: \begin{equation}

2139: \left(h,c\right)\in L^{\infty}\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{1,2}(\Omega)\right)

2140: \cap L^2\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{3,2}(\Omega)\right)

2141: \cap C^{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{8}}\left(\Omega\times\left[0,T_0\right]\right).

2142: \label{eq:regularity0}

2143: \end{equation}

2144: %

2145: 

2146: Extra regularity is obtained by writing the equation pair as

2147: %

2148: %

2149: %

2150: \begin{align*}

2151: \frac{\partial h}{\partial t}+h^3h_{xxxx}&=-3h^2h_xh_{xxx}+\varphi_1+\varphi_2\equiv

2152: \varphi\left(x,t\right),\\

2153: %

2154: %

2155: \frac{\partial c}{\partial t}+c_{xxxx}&=-\frac{2}{h}h_xc_{xxx}+\psi_1+\psi_2\equiv

2156: \psi\left(x,t\right),

2157: \end{align*}

2158: %

2159: %

2160: where 

2161: %

2162: %

2163: %

2164: \begin{align*}

2165: \int_0^{\tau}{dt}\,\|\varphi_1\|_2&\leq \sup_{\left[0,\tau\right]}\|c_{xx}\|_2\int_0^{\tau}{dt}\,|\nu_1|,\qquad

2166: \nu_1\in L^2\left(\left[0,\tau\right]\right),\\

2167: %

2168: %

2169: \int_0^{\tau}{dt}\,\|\psi_1\|_2&\leq \sup_{\left[0,\tau\right]}\|c_{xx}\|_2\int_0^{\tau}{dt}\,|\nu_2|,\qquad

2170: \nu_2\in L^2\left(\left[0,\tau\right]\right),

2171: %

2172: %

2173: \end{align*}

2174: %

2175: %

2176: %

2177: for any $\tau\in \left(0,T_0\right]$, and where $\varphi_2$ and $\psi_2$

2178: belong to

2179: the class $L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.  Here we have used

2180: the form of the concentration equation given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:conc_no_flux}.

2181:  By multiplying

2182: the height and concentration equations by $h_{xxxx}$ and $c_{xxxx}$ respectively,

2183: and by integrating over space and time, it is readily shown that

2184: %

2185: %

2186: %

2187: \[

2188: \left(h,c\right)\in L^\infty\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{2,2}(\Omega)\right),

2189: \]

2190: %

2191: %

2192: and hence

2193: %

2194: %

2195: \[

2196: \left(\varphi,\psi\right)\in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^{2}(\Omega)\right),

2197: \]

2198: %

2199: %

2200: from which follows the regularity result

2201: %

2202: %

2203: %

2204: \begin{equation}

2205: \left(h,c\right)\in L^{\infty}\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{2,2}(\Omega)\right)

2206: \cap L^2\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{4,2}(\Omega)\right)

2207: \cap C^{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{8}}\left(\Omega\times\left[0,T_0\right]\right).

2208: \label{eq:regularity}

2209: \end{equation}

2210: 

2211: 

2212: 

2213: \subsection{Uniqueness of solutions}

2214: \label{sec:uniqueness}

2215: %

2216: %

2217: %

2218: %

2219: Let us consider two solution pairs $\left(h,c\right)$ and $\left(h',c'\right)$

2220: and form the difference $\left(\delta h,\delta c\right)=\left(h-h',c-c'\right)$.

2221:  Given the initial conditions $\left(\delta c(x,0),\delta h(x,0)\right)=\left(0,0\right)$,

2222:  we show that $\left(\delta h,\delta c \right)=\left(0,0\right)$ for all

2223:  time, that is, that the solution we have constructed is unique.

2224: %

2225: %

2226: %

2227: We observe that that the equation for the difference $\delta c$ can be written

2228: in the form

2229: %

2230: %

2231: \begin{equation}

2232: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\delta{c}+\frac{\partial^4}{\partial{x}^4}\delta{c}=\delta

2233: \varphi\left(x,t\right),

2234: \label{eq:delta_c_unique}

2235: \end{equation}

2236: %

2237: %

2238: %

2239: where 

2240: %

2241: %

2242: $\delta \varphi\left(x,t\right) \in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$,

2243: and where $\delta \varphi\left(\delta c=0\right)=0$.

2244: %

2245: %

2246: %

2247: %

2248: %

2249: Using semigroup theory~\cite{TaylorPDEbook},

2250: we find that Eq.~\eqref{eq:delta_c_unique} has a unique solution.

2251: %

2252: %

2253: Since $\delta{c}=0$ satisfies Eq.~\eqref{eq:delta_c_unique}, and since $\delta{c}\left(x,0\right)=0$,

2254: it follows that $\delta{c}=0$ for all times $t\in\left[0,T_0\right]$.

2255: 

2256: 

2257: 

2258: It is now possible to formulate an equation for the difference $\delta{h}$

2259: by subtracting the evolution equations of $h$ and $h'$ from one another,

2260: mindful that $\delta c=0$.  We multiply the resulting equation by

2261: $\delta{h}_{xx}$, integrate over space, and obtain after using

2262: inequalities (see Appendix~\ref{apx:C})

2263: %

2264: %

2265: \begin{multline*}

2266: 2\kappa\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}_x\|_2^2\left(\tau\right)

2267: %

2268: %

2269: \leq\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}_x\|_2^2\left(\tau\right)\int_0^T{dt}\,\|h^{-1}+h'^2c_x^2\|_\infty^2\\

2270: %

2271: %

2272: +\kappa_P^2\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}_x\|_2^2\left(\tau\right)\int_0^T{dt}\left(\|h'_{xxx}+4c_xc_{xx}\|_2^2+\|h_x'+h_xc_x^2\|_2^2\right),

2273: \end{multline*}

2274: %

2275: %

2276: where $\kappa$ and $\kappa_P$ are numerical constants.

2277: Using the results of Sec.~\ref{sec:regularity}, it is

2278: readily shown that $h^{-1}+h'^2c_x^2\in L^2\left(0,T;L^{\infty}(\Omega)\right)$,

2279: and that the functions $h'_{xxx}+4c_xc_{xx}$ and $h_x'+h_xc_x^2$ belong to

2280: the class $L^2\left(0,T;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.  By choosing $T$

2281: sufficiently small, it is possible to impose the inequality

2282: %

2283: %

2284: %

2285: \[

2286: \frac{1}{2\kappa}\left[\int_0^T{dt}\,\|h^{-1}+h'^2c_x^2\|_\infty^2+\kappa_P^2\int_0^T{dt}\left(\|h'_{xxx}+4c_xc_{xx}\|_2^2+\|h_x'+h_xc_x^2\|_2^2\right)\right]<1,

2287: \]

2288: %

2289: %

2290: which in turn forces $\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}_x\|_2^2=0$,

2291: and hence the solution is unique.

2292: 

2293: 

2294: \section{Parametric dependence of the height dip}

2295: \label{sec:height_dip}

2296: 

2297: \noindent 

2298: In this section we perform numerical simulations of the equations~\eqref{eq:model}

2299: and focus on one feature of the equations: the drop in the free-surface height

2300: at the boundary between binary fluid domains.  Our results in Sec.~\ref{sec:existence}

2301: gave a rigorous upper bound for the magnitude of this height dip, as a function

2302: of the problem parameters, and we compare this estimate with numerical solutions.

2303: 

2304: We perform numerical simulations of the full equations~\eqref{eq:model},

2305: with initial data comprising a perturbation away from the unstable steady

2306: state $\left(h,c\right)=\left(1,0\right)$.

2307: The free surface and concentration evolve to an equilibrium state where the

2308: salient feature is the formation of domains (intervals where $c\approx\pm1$)

2309: that are separated by smooth transition regions, across which the free surface

2310: dips below its average value.  Since we are interested in this characteristic

2311: asymptotic feature of phase separation, we shift our focus instead to the

2312: steady version from Eq.~\eqref{eq:model} obtained by setting $\partial_t=J=\mu_x=0$.

2313:  For this reason also, we consider only the repulsive Van der Waals force,

2314:  for

2315:  which the interaction potential is given by $\phi=-|A|h^{-3}$.

2316: % 

2317: % 

2318: % 

2319: We then solve the boundary-value problem

2320: % 

2321: %

2322: % 

2323: \begin{subequations}

2324: \begin{equation}

2325: \frac{1}{C}\frac{\partial^2 h}{\partial x^2}=|A| C_{\mathrm{n}}^2\left(1-\frac{1}{h^3}\right)

2326: %

2327: +r\left[\tfrac{1}{4}\left(c^2-1\right)^2+\tfrac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial

2328: c}{\partial x}\right)^2\right],

2329: \end{equation}

2330: %

2331: \begin{equation}

2332: \frac{\partial^2 c}{\partial x^2}=c^3-c-\frac{1}{h}\frac{\partial

2333: h}{\partial

2334: x}\frac{\partial c}{\partial x},

2335: %

2336: \end{equation}%

2337: \label{eq:eqm}%

2338: \end{subequations}%

2339: %

2340: %

2341: %

2342: % 

2343: where now the domain is infinite and the boundary conditions are $h\left(\pm\infty\right)=1$,

2344: and

2345: $\mu\left(\pm\infty\right)=0$.  We have rescaled lengths by $C_{\mathrm{n}}$.

2346: In Fig.~\ref{fig:hc} we present numerical solutions

2347: %

2348: %

2349: %

2350: %

2351: \begin{figure}[htb]

2352: \subfigure[]{

2353:  \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{h_bvp}

2354: }\hspace{1em}

2355: \subfigure[]{

2356:  \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{c_bvp}

2357: }

2358: \caption{%(Color online)  

2359: Equilibrium solutions of Eq.~\eqref{eq:eqm}

2360: for $C=C_{\mathrm{n}}^2|A|=1$ and $r=0.1,1,10,50$.  In (a) the valley deepens

2361: with increasing $r$ although the film never ruptures, while in (b) the front

2362: steepens with increasing $r$. (From \'O N\'araigh and

2363: Thiffeault~\cite{ONaraigh2007}.)

2364: }

2365: \label{fig:hc}

2366: \end{figure}

2367: %

2368: %

2369: %

2370: %

2371: exhibiting the dependence of the solutions on the parameters in Eq.~\eqref{eq:eqm}.

2372: As before,

2373: the free-surface height possesses peaks and valleys, where the valleys occur

2374: in the concentration field's transition zone.  These profiles are qualitatively

2375: similar to the results obtained in experiments on thin binary films~\cite{WangW2003,

2376: WangH2000, ChungH2004}.  While the valley increases in depth

2377: %

2378: %

2379: %

2380: %

2381: \begin{figure}[htb]

2382: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{force_balance}

2383: \caption{The forces $F_{\mathrm{cap}}$ and $F_{\mathrm{VdW}}$

2384: for $C=C_{\mathrm{n}}^2=|A|=1$ and $r=50$ are shown to have opposite sign.}

2385: \label{fig:vdw_cap}

2386: \end{figure}

2387: %

2388: %

2389: %

2390: %

2391: %

2392: for large $r$, rupture never takes place, in agreement with the theory in

2393: Sec.~\ref{sec:existence}.  Similar results are obtained by varying $|A|$, with

2394: smaller $|A|$ leading to larger dips.  This behaviour is underlined by the

2395: results in Fig.~\ref{fig:vdw_cap}, where we plot the sign and magnitude of

2396: the backreaction or capillary force $F_{\mathrm{cap}}=-rh^{-1}\left(hc_x^2\right)_x$

2397: and the Van der Waals force $F_{\mathrm{VdW}}=|A|\left(h^{-3}\right)_x$.

2398:  These forces have opposite sign: the Van der Waals force inhibits film rupture,

2399:  while the backreaction promotes film thinning.    The thinning of binary

2400:  films due to capillary or backreaction effects has been documented in experiments~\cite{WangH2000}.

2401:  

2402: We are interested in the magnitude of the dip in the free-surface height,

2403: as a function of the problem parameters, and we plot the dependence of $h_{\mathrm{min}}$

2404: as a function of $|A|$ and $r$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_r_A}.

2405: %

2406: %

2407: %

2408: \begin{figure}[htb]

2409:         \subfigure[]{

2410:         \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{h_A_aug2}

2411: }\hspace{1em}

2412:         \subfigure[]{

2413:         \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{h_r_aug1}

2414: }

2415: \caption{Dependence of dip magnitude $h_{\mathrm{min}}$ on (a) the parameter

2416: $|A|$; (b) the parameter $r$.  We have set $C=C_{\mathrm{n}}=1$.  In (a) the

2417: dip decreases in magnitude with increasing $|A|$, demonstrating the tendency

2418: of the Van der Waals force to flatten the free surface, while in (b) the

2419: dip increases with increasing $r$, which shows how the backreaction thins

2420: the film across transition zones.}

2421: \label{fig:scaling_r_A}

2422: \end{figure}

2423: %

2424: %

2425: %

2426: We compare these results with the estimate for $h_{\mathrm{min}}$ found in

2427: Sec.~\ref{sec:existence}.  In terms of the physical parameters of the

2428: system, this estimate is

2429: %

2430: %

2431: %

2432: \[

2433: h_{\mathrm{min}}\geq M\equiv\sqrt{2CL(F_0+F_1|A|)}\left(\sqrt{\frac{e^{4C|A|^{-1}\left(F_0+F_1|A|\right)^2}}{e^{4C|A|^{-1}\left(F_0+F_1|A|\right)^2}-1}}-1\right),

2434: \]

2435: %

2436: %

2437: %

2438: where $F_1=\tfrac{1}{2}\int_\Omega{dx}\,\left[h(x,0)\right]^{-2}\neq0$, and

2439: $F_0=F\left(0\right)-F_1$. 

2440: The function $M(|A|,C)$ has no explicit $r$-dependence: although

2441: $F_0$ depends on $r$, it is possible to find initial data to remove this

2442: dependence.

2443: % 

2444: We show a representative plot of $M(|A|,C)$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:M_A}.

2445: Although a comparison between Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_r_A} and Fig.~\ref{fig:M_A}

2446: is not exact, since the boundary conditions and domains are different in

2447: both cases, we see that the shape of the bound in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_r_A}

2448: is different from that in Fig.~\ref{fig:M_A}.  Since the bound in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_r_A}

2449: is obtained from numerical simulations, and is intuitively correct, we conclude

2450: that it has the correct shape and that the bound of Fig.~\ref{fig:M_A}, while

2451: mathematically indispensable, is not sharp enough to be useful in determining

2452: the parametric dependence of the dip in free-surface height.

2453: %

2454: %

2455: %

2456: %

2457: \begin{figure}[htb]

2458: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{M_A}

2459: \caption{A typical plot of $M(|A|,C)$ for $F_0=F_1=\tfrac{1}{2}$

2460: and $C=1$.

2461:  This theoretical lower bound has a different shape from those in Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_r_A},

2462:  which suggests that while $M(|A|,C)$ plays an important role in

2463:  the analysis of the model equations, it does not capture the physics of

2464:  film thinning.}

2465: \label{fig:M_A}

2466: \end{figure}

2467: %

2468: %

2469: %

2470: %

2471: 

2472: \section{Conclusions}

2473: \label{sec:conclusions}

2474: 

2475: \noindent Starting from the Navier--Stokes Cahn--Hilliard equations, we have

2476: derived a pair of nonlinear parabolic PDEs that describe the coupled 

2477: effects of phase separation and free-surface variations in a thin film of

2478: binary liquid.  Since we are interested in the long-time outcome of the phase

2479: separation, we focused on liquids that experience a repulsive Van der Waals

2480: force, which tends to inhibit film rupture.  Using physical intuition, we

2481: identified a decaying energy functional that facilitated analysis of the

2482: equations.

2483: %

2484: We have shown that given sufficiently smooth initial data, solutions to the

2485: model equations~\eqref{eq:model} exist in a strong sense, and

2486: have certain regularity properties.  Our proof follows the method developed

2487: in~\cite{Friedman1990}.  Central to the analysis is the decaying free energy,

2488: and the derivation of a no-rupture condition, which prevents the film from

2489: touching down to zero.  The no-rupture condition is valid in one spatial

2490: dimension only, and thus existence and uniqueness results will not necessarily

2491: be obtainable in higher dimensions.

2492: 

2493: 

2494: We carried out one-dimensional numerical simulations of the full

2495: equations and found that the free-surface height and concentration

2496: tend to an equilibrium state.  The concentration forms domains; that

2497: is, extended regions where $c\approx\pm1$.  The domains are separated

2498: by narrow zones where the concentration smoothly transitions between

2499: the limiting values $\pm1$.  At the transition zones, the free surface

2500: dips below its mean value, a feature of binary thin-film behaviour

2501: that is observed in experiments.  To study the magnitude of this dip

2502: as a function of the problem parameters, we focused on solving the

2503: equilibrium version of Eq.~\eqref{eq:model} as a boundary-value

2504: problem.  This simplification is carried out without loss of

2505: generality, since we have shown that the system tends asymptotically

2506: to such a state.  We have shown that the magnitude of the dip

2507: decreases by increasing the strength of the repulsive Van der Waals

2508: force, while the dip depth actually increases by increasing the

2509: strength of the backreaction.  Thus, in the absence of the Van der

2510: Waals force, the film would rupture, preventing the occurrence of the

2511: phase separation so characteristic of long-time Cahn--Hilliard

2512: dynamics.  The film-thinning tendency of the backreaction has been

2513: observed experimentally~\cite{WangH2000, WangW2003, ChungH2004}.

2514: %  

2515: Simulations involving two lateral directions have elsewhere been carried

2516: out by the authors~\cite{ONaraigh2007}, and the qualitative features are

2517: similar to those obtained here.

2518: 

2519: \emph{Acknowledgements.} We thank G.~A.~Pavliotis for helpful discussions.

2520: L.\'O.N. was supported by the Irish government and the UK Engineering

2521: and Physical Sciences Research Council. J.-L.T. was supported in part

2522: by the UK EPSRC Grant No. GR/S72931/01.

2523: 

2524: 

2525: \appendix

2526: 

2527: \section{}

2528: \label{apx:A}

2529: % 

2530: % 

2531: \noindent In this appendix we give a list of nonstandard inequalities used in

2532: the paper and provide proofs.

2533: 

2534: 

2535: \begin{enumerate}

2536: \item Let $\phi:\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ belong

2537: to the class $\Sobo^{1,2}(\Omega)$.  Then the following string of inequalities

2538: holds,

2539: %the following inequality holds,

2540: %

2541: %

2542: %

2543: \begin{equation}

2544: \sup_\Omega |\phi|\leq \frac{1}{L}\|\phi\|_1 + \|\phi_x\|_1

2545: \leq\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\,\|\phi\|_2+\sqrt{L}\,\|\phi_x\|_2,

2546: \label{eq:result1}

2547: \end{equation}

2548: %

2549: %

2550: \emph{Proof:} Using the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we have

2551: %

2552: %

2553: \[

2554: \phi\left(x\right)=\phi\left(a\right)

2555: + \int_a^x{ds}\,\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial s},

2556: \]

2557: %

2558: %

2559: for any distinct points $x$ and $a$ in $\Omega$.

2560: %

2561: %

2562: Since the function $|\phi(x)|$ is continuous on $\Omega$, it has a maximum

2563: value in $\Omega$, attained at the point $x_{\mathrm{max}}$.

2564: Thus,

2565: \[

2566: |\phi\left(x_{\mathrm{max}}\right)|\equiv\sup_{\Omega}|\phi|\leq |\phi\left(a\right)|+\int_a^{x_{\mathrm{max}}}{ds}\left|\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial

2567: s}\right|\leq  |\phi\left(a\right)|+\int_\Omega{ds}\left|\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial

2568: s}\right|.

2569: \]

2570: %

2571: %

2572: %

2573: Since this is true for any $a\in\Omega$, by integrating over $a$, we obtain

2574: the inequality

2575: %

2576: %

2577: \[

2578: \sup_\Omega|\phi|\leq\frac{1}{L}\|\phi\|_1+\|\phi_x\|_1

2579: \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\,\|\phi\|_2+\sqrt{L}\,\|\phi_x\|_2,

2580: \]

2581: %

2582: %

2583: %

2584: where the last inequality follows from the monotonicity of norms.

2585: %

2586: %

2587: %

2588: \item Let $\phi:\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ belong

2589: to the class $\Sobo^{2,1}(\Omega)$.  Then

2590: %

2591: %

2592: \begin{equation}

2593: \|\phi_{x}\|_2^2\leq L\|\phi_{xx}\|_1^2 + \frac{4}{L}\|u\|_1\|\phi_{xx}\|_1.

2594: \label{eq:result2}

2595: \end{equation}

2596: %

2597: %

2598: %

2599: \emph{Proof:}  We have the identity $\int \phi_x^2{dx}\,=-\int \phi\phi_{xx}$,

2600: true

2601: for any function $\phi$ with periodic boundary conditions.  Using H\"older's

2602: inequality, this becomes

2603: %

2604: %

2605: \[

2606: \|\phi_x\|_2^2\leq \|\phi\|_\infty\|\phi_{xx}\|_1.

2607: \]

2608: %

2609: %

2610: %

2611: Using the relation~\eqref{eq:result1}, this becomes

2612: %

2613: %

2614: \begin{align*}

2615: \|\phi_x\|_2^2&\leq\Bigl(\frac{1}{L}\|\phi\|_1+\|\phi_x\|_1\Bigr)\|\phi_{xx}\|_1,\\

2616: &\leq\Bigl(\frac{1}{L}\|\phi\|_1+\sqrt{L}\,\|\phi_x\|_2\Bigr)\|\phi_{xx}\|_1,

2617: \end{align*}

2618: %

2619: %

2620: which is a quadratic inequality in $\|\phi_x\|_2^2$, with solution

2621: %

2622: %

2623: \[

2624: \|\phi_x\|_2\leq\tfrac{1}{2}\Bigl(\sqrt{L}\,\|\phi_{xx}\|_1+\sqrt{L\|\phi_{xx}\|_1^2+4L^{-1}\|\phi\|_1\|\phi_{xx}\|_1}\Bigr).

2625: \]

2626: %

2627: %

2628: By sacrificing the sharpness of the bound, we obtain a simpler one,

2629: %

2630: %

2631: \[

2632: \|\phi_x\|_2^2\leq {L}\|\phi_{xx}\|_1^2 + \frac{4}{L}\|\phi\|_1\|\phi_{xx}\|_1,

2633: \]

2634: %

2635: %

2636: as required.

2637: \end{enumerate}

2638: 

2639: 

2640: \section{}

2641: \label{apx:B}

2642: % 

2643: % 

2644: 

2645: 

2646: \noindent In this appendix, we fill in the details missing from the discussion

2647: of the regularity of solutions in Sec.~\ref{sec:regularity}

2648: and prove the result

2649: %

2650: %

2651: \[

2652: h,c\in L^2\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{3,2}(\Omega)\right).

2653: \]

2654: %

2655: %

2656: %

2657: To begin, we notice that Sec.~\ref{sec:a_priori_bds} gives rise to

2658: the result

2659: %

2660: %

2661: \[

2662: \|h_x\|_2,\ \|c_x\|_2 < \infty,

2663: \]

2664: %

2665: %

2666: with time-independent bounds.  Thus, using Poincar\'e's inequality, it follows

2667: that $h,c\in \Sobo^{1,2}(\Omega)$ and, moreover, 

2668: %

2669: %

2670: \[

2671: \sup_{\left[0,T_0\right]}\|h_x\|_2,\ \sup_{\left[0,T_0\right]}\|c_x\|_2 <

2672: \infty.

2673: \]

2674: %

2675: % 

2676: From Sec.~\ref{sec:equicontinuity},

2677: it follows that $J$ and $\mu_x$ belong to the regularity class $L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$,

2678: and hence $J$, $\mu_x\in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^1(\Omega)\right)$. 

2679: The functions $J$, $\mu$, and $\mu_x$ take the form

2680: %

2681: %

2682: \[

2683: J=h^3 h_{xxx}-h_xh^{-1}-h^2\left(h_x c_x^2+2h c_x c_{xx}\right),

2684: \]

2685: %

2686: % 

2687: %

2688: %

2689: \[

2690: \mu = c^3-c - h^{-1}\left(h_x c_x + hc_{xx}\right),

2691: \]

2692: %

2693: %

2694: and

2695: %

2696: %

2697: %

2698: \begin{equation}

2699: \mu_x= \left(3c^2-1\right)c_x + h^{-2}h_x^2 c_x - h^{-1}h_{xx}c_x - h^{-1}h_xc_{xx}

2700: -c_{xxx},

2701: \label{eq:mux}

2702: \end{equation}

2703: %

2704: %

2705: respectively.

2706: %

2707: %

2708: We make use of the following observations,

2709: %The following results will help us in our demonstration,

2710: %

2711: %

2712: \begin{itemize}

2713: \item The function $h(x,t)$ is bounded from above and below,

2714: %

2715: %

2716: \[

2717: 0< h_{\mathrm{min}}\leq h(x,t)\leq h_{\mathrm{max}}<\infty,

2718: \]

2719: %

2720: %

2721: %

2722: and the boundedness of $c(x,t)$, $\|c\|_\infty <\infty$. 

2723: \item Since $\mu_x\in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$, it follows

2724: that $\mu\in L^2\left(0,T_0; L^2(\Omega)\right)$, by Poincar\'e's

2725: inequality.

2726: \item From this it follows that $c_x h_x + hc_{xx}$ is in the class $L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.

2727: \item  Given the inequality 

2728: %

2729: %

2730: \[

2731: \|h\mu c_x\|_2^2\leq h_{\mathrm{max}}\|\mu\|_\infty^2\|c_x\|_2^2\leq

2732: h_{\mathrm{max}}\|c_x\|_2^2\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\,\|\mu\|_2+\sqrt{L}\,\|\mu_x\|_2\right]^2,

2733: \]

2734: %

2735: we have the result $h_x c_x^2 + h c_x c_{xx}\in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.

2736: %

2737: %

2738: \item Similarly, since $\int_0^{T_0}\|h\mu h_x\|_2^2dt<\infty$, we have the

2739: bound

2740: $h_x^2c_x +hh_x c_{xx}\in  L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.

2741: \end{itemize}

2742: 

2743: 

2744: Now inspection of $\mu$ shows that $c_{xx}$ is in $L^2\left(0,T_0;L^1(\Omega)\right)$,

2745: from which follows the result $h_{xxx},c_{xxx}\in L^1\left(0,T_0;L^1(\Omega)\right)$.

2746:  By repeating the same argument, we find that $c_{xx}\in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.

2747:   We also have the result that $\|h_x^2c_x\|_2$ is almost always bounded.

2748:    To show that $h_{xx}\in  L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$,

2749:    we take the evolution equation for $h(x,t)$, multiply it by

2750:    $h$, and integrate, obtaining

2751: %

2752: %

2753: %

2754: \[

2755: -\tfrac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int_\Omega{dx}\,h^2-3\int_\Omega{dx}\,h^2h_x^2h_{xx}-\int_\Omega{dx}\,h_xJ_0=\int_\Omega{dx}\,h^3h_{xx}^2,

2756: \]

2757: %

2758: %

2759: %

2760: where $J_0=h_xh^{-1}+2h^3c_xc_{xx}+h^2h_xc_x^2$.   The time-integral

2761: of the first term on the

2762: left-hand side of this equation is obviously bounded in time.  Let us examine

2763: the time-integral of the second term,

2764: %

2765: %

2766: \begin{align*}

2767: \int_0^{T_0}{dt}\int_\Omega{dx}\,h^2h_x^2h_{xx}&\leq h_{\mathrm{max}}^2\sup_{\left[0,T_0\right]}\|h_x\|_2^2\int_0^{T_0}{dt\,}\|h_{xx}\|_\infty\\

2768: &\leq h_{\mathrm{max}}^2\sup_{\left[0,T_0\right]}\|h_x\|_2^2\int_0^{T_0}{dt}\,\left(L^{-1}\|h_{xx}\|_1+\|h_{xxx}\|_1\right)<\infty.

2769: \end{align*}

2770: %

2771: %

2772: The third term on the left-hand side is dispatched in a similar

2773: way, so that $\int_0^{T_0}{dt}\,\|h_{xx}\|_2^2<\infty$.  We have now

2774: shown that~$h,c\in L^2\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{2,2}(\Omega)\right)$.  Using

2775: this result, together with the previous facts gathered together in

2776: this appendix, it is readily shown that~$h,c\in

2777: L^1\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{3,1}(\Omega)\right)$, and it follows that

2778: %

2779: %

2780: %

2781: %

2782: \[

2783: h,c\in L^2\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{3,2}(\Omega)\right).

2784: \]

2785: %

2786: %

2787: To see this more clearly, we show that~$c_{xxx}$ is in the above

2788: class.  For example, consider a typical term in~$\mu_x$,

2789: %

2790: %

2791: %

2792: \begin{align*}

2793: \int_0^{T_0}{dt}\,\int_\Omega{dx}\,h_x^2c_{xx}^2%&\leq \sup_{\left[0,T_0\right]}\|h_x\|_2^2\int_0^T{dt}\,\|c_{xx}\|_\infty^2\\

2794: &\leq \sup_{\left[0,T_0\right]}\|h_x\|_2^2\int_0^{T_0}{dt}\,\left(L^{-1}\|c_{xx}\|_1+\|c_{xxx}\|_1\right)^2<\infty,

2795: \end{align*}

2796: %

2797: %

2798: %

2799: which implies~$h_x c_{xx} \in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.

2800: This bound, together with $h\mu h_x\in

2801: L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$, implies $h_x^2 c_x \in

2802: L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.  Gathering all these results, we have

2803: \[

2804: \mu_x\,,\ h_xc_{xx}\,,\ h_x^2c_x\,,\ h_{xx}c_x \in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)

2805: \]

2806: From~\eqref{eq:mux}, it follows that $c_{xxx}$ is in this class as

2807: well.  A similar argument holds for $h_{xxx}$.  Thus, the solution

2808: $\left(h,c\right)$ belongs to the regularity class

2809: %

2810: %

2811: \begin{equation*}

2812: \left(h,c\right)\in L^{\infty}\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{1,2}(\Omega)\right)

2813: \cap L^2\left(0,T_0;\Sobo^{3,2}(\Omega)\right)

2814: \cap C^{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{8}}\left(\Omega\times\left[0,T_0\right]\right).

2815: \end{equation*}

2816: %

2817: 

2818: 

2819: \section{}

2820: \label{apx:C}

2821: % 

2822: % 

2823: \noindent

2824: %

2825: %

2826: In this appendix, we describe in full the proof of the

2827: the uniqueness of solutions sketched in Sec.~\ref{sec:uniqueness}.

2828: We consider two solution pairs $\left(h,c\right)$ and $\left(h',c'\right)$

2829: and form the difference $\left(\delta h,\delta c\right)=\left(h-h',c-c'\right)$.

2830:  Given the initial conditions $\left(\delta c(x,0),\delta h(x,0)\right)=\left(0,0\right)$,

2831:  we show that $\left(\delta h,\delta c \right)=\left(0,0\right)$ for all

2832:  time, that is, that the solution we have constructed is unique.

2833: %

2834: %

2835: %

2836: We observe that that the equation for the difference $\delta c$ can be written

2837: in the form

2838: %

2839: %

2840: \begin{equation}

2841: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\delta{c}+\frac{\partial^4}{\partial{x}^4}\delta{c}=\delta

2842: \varphi\left(x,t\right),

2843: \label{eq:delta_c_unique_appendix}

2844: \end{equation}

2845: %

2846: %

2847: %

2848: where 

2849: %

2850: %

2851: $\delta \varphi\left(x,t\right) \in L^2\left(0,T_0;L^2(\Omega)\right)$,

2852: and where $\delta \varphi\left(\delta c=0\right)=0$.

2853: %

2854: %

2855: %

2856: %

2857: %

2858: As discussed previously, this equation has a unique solution, given smooth

2859: initial data.

2860: %

2861: %

2862: Since $\delta{c}=0$ satisfies Eq.~\eqref{eq:delta_c_unique_appendix}, and

2863: since $\delta{c}\left(x,0\right)=0$, it follows that $\delta{c}=0$ for all

2864: times $t\in\left[0,T_0\right]$.

2865: 

2866: 

2867: 

2868: It is now possible to formulate an equation for the difference $\delta{h}$

2869: by subtracting the evolution equations of $h$ and $h'$ from one another,

2870: mindful that $\delta c=0$.  We multiply the resulting equation by $\delta{h}_{xx}$

2871: and integrate over space to obtain

2872: %

2873: %

2874: %

2875: \begin{multline*}

2876: \tfrac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta h_x^2 +\int_\Omega{dx}\,h^3\delta

2877: h_{xxx}^2=

2878: \int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta h_{xxx}^2\delta h_x\left(h^{-1}+h'^2c_x^2\right)\\

2879: -\int_\Omega{dx}\,\left(h^3-h'^3\right)\left(h'_{xxx}+4c_xc_{xx}\right)\delta

2880: h_{xxx}\\

2881: + \int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta h_{xxx}\left[h'_x\left(h^{-1}-h'^{-1}\right)+h_xc_x^2\left(h^2-h'^2\right)\right].

2882: \end{multline*}

2883: %

2884: %

2885: %

2886: Using the lower bound on $h(x,t)\geq h_{\mathrm{min}}>0$ and Young's

2887: first inequality, this equation is transformed into an inequality,

2888: %

2889: %

2890: %

2891: %

2892: %

2893: \begin{multline*}

2894: \tfrac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta h_x^2 +h_{\mathrm{min}}^3\int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta

2895: h_{xxx}^2\leq

2896: %

2897: %

2898: \kappa_1\int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta h_{xxx}^2+\frac{1}{4\kappa_1}\int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta{h}_x^2\left(h^{-1}+h'^2c_x^2\right)^2\\

2899: %

2900: %

2901: %

2902: %

2903: +\kappa_2\int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta{h}_{xxx}^2+\frac{1}{4\kappa_2}\int_\Omega{dx}\,\left(h^3-h'^3\right)^2\left(h'_{xxx}+4c_xc_{xx}\right)^2\\

2904: %

2905: %

2906: +

2907: \kappa_3\int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta h_{xxx}^2+\frac{1}{4\kappa_3}\int_\Omega{dx}\,\left[h'_x\left(h^{-1}-h'^{-1}\right)+h_xc_x^2\left(h^2-h'^2\right)\right]^2,

2908: \end{multline*}

2909: %

2910: %

2911: %

2912: where $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$, and $\kappa_3$ are arbitrary positive constants.

2913:  By choosing $\kappa_1+\kappa_2+\kappa_3=h_{\mathrm{min}}^3$, the inequality

2914:  simplifies to

2915: %

2916: %

2917: \begin{multline*}

2918: 2\kappa\frac{d}{dt}\int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta h_x^2\leq

2919: %

2920: %

2921: \int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta{h}_x^2\left(h^{-1}+h'^2c_x^2\right)^2\\+

2922: %

2923: \int_\Omega{dx}\,\delta{h}^2\left[\left(h'_{xxx}+4c_xc_{xx}\right)^2+\left(h_x'+h_xc_x^2\right)^2\right],

2924: %

2925: \end{multline*}

2926: %

2927: %

2928: %

2929: where $\kappa$ is another positive constant.  We integrate over the time

2930: interval $\left[0,T\right]$, and use the fact that $\|\delta{h}_x\|_2\left(0\right)=0$

2931: to obtain

2932: %

2933: %

2934: %

2935: \begin{multline*}

2936: 2\kappa\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}_x\|_2^2\left(\tau\right)

2937: \leq\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}_x\|_2^2\left(\tau\right)\int_0^T{dt}\,\|h^{-1}+h'^2c_x^2\|_\infty^2\\

2938: +\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}\|_\infty^2\left(\tau\right)\int_0^T{dt}\int_\Omega{dx}\,\left[\left(h'_{xxx}+4c_xc_{xx}\right)^2+\left(h_x'+h_xc_x^2\right)^2\right].

2939: \end{multline*}

2940: %

2941: %

2942: %

2943: %

2944: The Poincar\'e inequality can be combined with the one-dimensional differential

2945: inequalities discussed in Appendix A to yield the relation $\|f\|_\infty\leq

2946: \kappa_P\|f_x\|_2$, where $f$ is some mean-zero function and $\kappa_P$ is

2947: an $f$-independent constant.  We therefore arrive at

2948: %

2949: %

2950: %

2951: \begin{multline*}

2952: 2\kappa\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}_x\|_2^2\left(\tau\right)

2953: %

2954: %

2955: \leq\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}_x\|_2^2\left(\tau\right)\int_0^T{dt}\,\|h^{-1}+h'^2c_x^2\|_\infty^2\\

2956: %

2957: %

2958: +\kappa_P^2\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}_x\|_2^2\left(\tau\right)\int_0^T{dt}\left(\|h'_{xxx}+4c_xc_{xx}\|_2^2+\|h_x'+h_xc_x^2\|_2^2\right).

2959: \end{multline*}

2960: %

2961: %

2962: %

2963: %

2964: Using the results of Sec.~\ref{sec:regularity}, it is

2965: readily shown that $h^{-1}+h'^2c_x^2\in L^2\left(0,T;L^{\infty}(\Omega)\right)$,

2966: and that the functions $h'_{xxx}+4c_xc_{xx}$ and $h_x'+h_xc_x^2$ belong to

2967: the class $L^2\left(0,T;L^2(\Omega)\right)$.  By choosing $T$

2968: sufficiently small, it is possible to impose

2969: %

2970: %

2971: %

2972: \[

2973: \frac{1}{2\kappa}\left[\int_0^T{dt}\,\|h^{-1}+h'^2c_x^2\|_\infty^2+\kappa_P^2\int_0^T{dt}\left(\|h'_{xxx}+4c_xc_{xx}\|_2^2+\|h_x'+h_xc_x^2\|_2^2\right)\right]<1,

2974: \]

2975: %

2976: %

2977: which in turn forces $\sup_{\tau\in\left[0,T\right]}\|\delta{h}_x\|_2^2=0$,

2978: and hence the solution is unique.

2979: 

2980: %%\bibliographystyle{unsrt}

2981: %\bibliographystyle{plain}

2982: %\bibliography{thin_film_bibliography}

2983:  

2984: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2985: 

2986: \bibitem{Aarts2005}

2987: D.~G. A.~L. Aarts, R.~P.~A. Dullens, and H.N.W. Lekkerherker.

2988: \newblock Interfacial dynamics in demixing systems with ultralow interfacial

2989:   tension.

2990: \newblock {\em New J. Phys.}, 7:14, 2005.

2991: 

2992: \bibitem{Friedman1990}

2993: F.~Bernis and A.~Friedman.

2994: \newblock Higher order nonlinear degenerate parabolic equations.

2995: \newblock {\em J. Differential Equations}, 83:179--206, 1990.

2996: 

2997: \bibitem{chaos_Berthier}

2998: L.~Berthier, J.~L. Barrat, and J.~Kurchan.

2999: \newblock Phase separation in a chaotic flow.

3000: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 86:2014--2017, 2001.

3001: 

3002: \bibitem{Berti2005}

3003: S.~Berti, G.~Boffetta, M.~Cencini, and A.~Vulpiani.

3004: \newblock Turbulence and coarsening in active and passive binary mixtures.

3005: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 95:224501, 2005.

3006: 

3007: \bibitem{Bertozzi1996}

3008: A.~L. Bertozzi and M.~Pugh.

3009: \newblock The lubrication approximation for thin viscous films: regularity and

3010:   long-time behaviour of weak solultions.

3011: \newblock {\em Comm. Pure Appl. Math.}, XLIX:85, 1996.

3012: 

3013: \bibitem{Bertozzi1998}

3014: A.~L. Bertozzi and M.~C. Pugh.

3015: \newblock Long-wave instabilities and saturation in thin film equations.

3016: \newblock {\em Comm. Pure Appl. Math.}, LI:0625, 1998.

3017: 

3018: \bibitem{Bray_advphys}

3019: A.~J. Bray.

3020: \newblock Theory of phase-ordering kinetics.

3021: \newblock {\em Adv. Phys.}, 43:357--459, 1994.

3022: 

3023: \bibitem{CH_orig}

3024: J.~W. Cahn and J.~E. Hilliard.

3025: \newblock {Free energy of a nonuniform system. I. Interfacial energy}.

3026: \newblock {\em J. Chem. Phys}, 28:258--267, 1957.

3027: 

3028: \bibitem{ChungH2004}

3029: H.~Chung and R.J. Composto.

3030: \newblock Breakdown of dynamic scaling in thin film binary liquids undergoing

3031:   phase separation.

3032: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 92:185704--1, 2004.

3033: 

3034: \bibitem{Murray1981}

3035: D.~S. Cohen and J.~D. Murray.

3036: \newblock A generalized diffusion model for growth and dispersal in a

3037:   population.

3038: \newblock {\em J. Math. Biology}, 12:237, 1981.

3039: 

3040: \bibitem{Spelt2007}

3041: H.~Ding, P.~D.~M. Spelt, and C.~Shu.

3042: \newblock Diffuse interface model for incompressible two-phase flows with large

3043:   density ratios.

3044: \newblock {\em J. Comp. Phys.}, 226:2078, 2007.

3045: 

3046: \bibitem{DoeringGibbon}

3047: C.~R. Doering and J.~D. Gibbon.

3048: \newblock {\em Applied Analysis of the Navier--Stokes Equations}.

3049: \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.

3050: 

3051: \bibitem{Elliott_varmob}

3052: C.~M. Elliott and H.~Garcke.

3053: \newblock {The Cahn--Hilliard equation with degenerate mobility}.

3054: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Math. Anal.}, 27:403--423, 1996.

3055: 

3056: \bibitem{Elliott_Zheng}

3057: C.~M. Elliott and S.~Zheng.

3058: \newblock {On the Cahn--Hilliard equation}.

3059: \newblock {\em Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal.}, 96:339--357, 1986.

3060: 

3061: \bibitem{Gajewski_nonlocal}

3062: H.~Gajewski and K.~Zacharias.

3063: \newblock On a nonlocal phase separation model.

3064: \newblock {\em J. Math. Anal. Appl.}, 286:11--31, 2003.

3065: 

3066: \bibitem{Holm2005}

3067: D.~D. Holm and V.~Putkaradze.

3068: \newblock Aggregation of finite size particles with variable mobility.

3069: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 95:226106, 2005.

3070: 

3071: \bibitem{Karim2002}

3072: A.~Karim, J.~F. Douglas, L.~P. Sung, and B.~D. Ermi.

3073: \newblock Self-assembly by phase separation in polymer thin films.

3074: \newblock {\em Encyclopedia of Materials: Science and Technology}, page 8319,

3075:   2002.

3076: 

3077: \bibitem{Krausch1994}

3078: G.~Krausch, E.~J. Kramer, M.~H. Rafailovich, and J.~Sokolov.

3079: \newblock Self-assembly of a homopolymer mixture via phase separation.

3080: \newblock {\em Appl. Phys. Lett.}, 64:2655, 1994.

3081: 

3082: \bibitem{Lacasta1995}

3083: A.~M. Lacasta, J.~M. Sancho, and F.~Sagues.

3084: \newblock Phase separation dynamics under stirring.

3085: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 75:1791, 1995.

3086: 

3087: \bibitem{Laugesen2002}

3088: R.~S. Laugesen and M.~C. Pugh.

3089: \newblock Heteroclinic orbits, mobility parameters and stability for thin film

3090:   type equations.

3091: \newblock {\em J. Differential Equations}, 95:1--29, 2002.

3092: 

3093: \bibitem{LowenTrus}

3094: J.~Lowengrub and L.~Truskinowsky.

3095: \newblock {Quasi-incompressible Cahn--Hilliard fluids and topological

3096:   transitions}.

3097: \newblock {\em Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A}, 454:2617--2654, 1998.

3098: 

3099: \bibitem{Putkaradze2005}

3100: K.~Mertens, V.~Putkaradze, D.~Xia, and S.R. Brueck.

3101: \newblock Theory and experiment for one-dimensional directed self-assembly of

3102:   nanoparticles.

3103: \newblock {\em J. App. Phys.}, 98:034309, 2005.

3104: 

3105: \bibitem{Myers1998}

3106: T.~G. Myers.

3107: \newblock Thin films with high surface tension.

3108: \newblock {\em SIAM Review}, 40:441, 1998.

3109: 

3110: \bibitem{ONaraigh2006}

3111: L.~{\'O N\'araigh} and J.-L. Thiffeault.

3112: \newblock {Bubbles and Filaments: Stirring a Cahn--Hilliard Fluid}.

3113: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E}, 75:016216, 2007.

3114: 

3115: \bibitem{ONaraigh2007}

3116: L.~{\'O N\'araigh} and J.-L. Thiffeault.

3117: \newblock Dynamical effects and phase separation in cooled binary fluid films.

3118: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E}, 76:035303(R), 2007.

3119: 

3120: \bibitem{Oron1997}

3121: A.~Oron, S.~H. Davis, and S.~G. Bankoff.

3122: \newblock Long-scale evolution of thin liquid films.

3123: \newblock {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.}, 69:931, 1997.

3124: 

3125: \bibitem{Book_Parsegian2006}

3126: V.~A. Parsegian.

3127: \newblock {\em {Van der Waals Forces}}.

3128: \newblock Cambridge University Press, New York, 2001.

3129: 

3130: \bibitem{Sung1996}

3131: L.~Sung, A.~Karim, J.F. Douglas, and C.C. Han.

3132: \newblock Dimensional crossover in the phase separation kinetics of thin

3133:   polymer blend films.

3134: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 76:4368, 1996.

3135: 

3136: \bibitem{TaylorPDEbook}

3137: M.~E. Taylor.

3138: \newblock {\em Partial Differential Equations III}.

3139: \newblock Springer, New York, 1996.

3140: 

3141: \bibitem{WangH2000}

3142: H.~Wang and R.~J. Composto.

3143: \newblock Thin film polymer blends undergoing phase separation and wetting:

3144:   identification of early, intermediate, and late stages.

3145: \newblock {\em J. Chem. Phys.}, 113:10386, 2000.

3146: 

3147: \bibitem{WangW2003}

3148: W.~Wang, T.~Shiwaku, and T.~Hashimoto.

3149: \newblock Phase separation dynamics and pattern formation in thin films of a

3150:   liquid crystalline copolyester in its biphasic region.

3151: \newblock {\em Macromolecules}, 36:8088, 2003.

3152: 

3153: \bibitem{Wieland2006}

3154: S.~Wieland and H.~Garcke.

3155: \newblock {Surfactant spreading on thin viscous films: Nonnegative solutions of

3156:   a coupled degenerate system}.

3157: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Math. Anal.}, 37:2025, 2006.

3158: 

3159: \bibitem{Xia2004}

3160: D.~Xia and S.~Brueck.

3161: \newblock A facile approach to directed assembly of patterns of nanoparticles

3162:   using interference lithography and spin coating.

3163: \newblock {\em Nano Letters}, 4:1295, 2004.

3164: 

3165: \end{thebibliography}

3166: 

3167: \end{document}

3168: