Abstract
The motion of viscous compressible magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is considered in a domain bounded by a free boundary. The motion interacts through the free surface with an electromagnetic field located in a domain that is exterior to the free surface and bounded by a given fixed surface. Some data for the electromagnetic fields are prescribed on this fixed boundary. On the free surface, jumps in magnetic and electric fields are assumed. We prove the local existence of solutions by the method of successive approximations using Sobolev–Slobodetskii spaces.
MSC:
76D10; 76W05; 76N99; 35A01
1. Introduction
We consider a free boundary problem for a viscous compressible magnetohydrodynamics motion in domain , bounded by a free surface The motion interacts with an electromagnetic field located in . Moreover, is bounded by a fixed boundary B. Hence, and .
In Figure 1, we present the two-dimensional section of the considered problem.
Figure 1.
Two-dimensional intersections of the considered problem.
In , the magnetohydrodynamic motion of viscous compressible barotropic fluid is described by the following system of equations:
where is the velocity of the fluid, is the density, is the magnetic field, is the electric field, is the external force field, and are Cartesian coordinates.
Since the fluid is considered barotropic, we have
and is the strain tensor of the form
where and are positive viscosity coefficients, and is the Kroneker delta, which is such that for and for .
Moreover, is the constant magnetic permeability; is the constant electric conductivity. For system (1), the following initial and boundary conditions are prescribed:
where is the unit vector outward to and normal to and is the stress magnetic field tensor of the form
The boundary condition (4)1 implies the compatibility condition
where , and is a tangent vector to . In , we have a motionless dielectric gas under the constant pressure .
Therefore, we only have an electromagnetic field described by the system of equations
where is the constant magnetic permeability and is the constant electric conductivity.
For system (7), the following initial and boundary conditions are prescribed:
where are tangent vectors to B.
Problems (1)–(8) are composed of two problems. For a given , we have the following problem for v and :
Furthermore, for a given v, we have the following problem for and :
where and
Problem (10) is not complete because electromagnetic fields in and interact through the free surface . The general transmission conditions are formulated in Lemma 1.1 in [1]. Recalling them, we have
where are arbitrary non-vanishing constants, is the unit normal vector to , and are tangent to .
Eliminating the electric fields from (10), we obtain for any the following problem:
where are tangent vectors to B, and the transmission condition (11) takes the form
In this paper, we prove the local existence of solutions to problems (10), (12), and (13). We prove it by the method of successive approximations described in problems (53) and (54).
The existence is proved in the Sobolev–Slobodetskii spaces defined in Section 2.1. We use the Besov-type spaces to describe more precisely the initial and boundary traces. Moreover, we are able to prove the local existence of solutions with sharp regularity with the lowest possible regularity that is necessary to handle the nonlinearity of the problem. To describe the main result precisely, we need to describe the following quantities:
We define Lagrangian coordinates in and as the initial data for the Cauchy problems (see (49)):
Solving the equation, we get
where
However, to define the Lagrangian coordinate , we need in . Since we do not have it, we construct in as a solution to the problem (see (47))
Since is unknown, we construct it as a solution to the following elliptic problem (see (48)):
Now, we formulate the main result.
Theorem 1.
Assume that , , , , , and . Assume that and , where is a smooth function, , . Assume that , and , , , and , where , , and is defined by (47).
Then, for sufficiently small t, there exists a local solution to problems (9), (12), and (13) such that , , and .
Now, we describe the proof of this theorem. Since the free boundary problem is considered, we need to use the Lagrangian coordinates.
In , there is no velocity, so we introduce velocity in as a solution to problem (47).
Hence, we have in and in . Hence, an evolution of the free surface and domains , is described by the relation between Eulerian and Lagrangian coordinates.
Expressing problems (9) and (12) in the Lagrangian coordinates yields problems (51) and (52). To show the existence of solutions to problems (51) and (52), we construct a method of successive approximations described by problems (53) and (54).
Problem (53) is linear with respect to and nonlinear in , . In Section 4, we derive the inequality
where ,, and is an increasing positive function.
To derive estimate (18), we have to examine the operator
where and are given and is a solution. To obtain an estimate for the quantity
we need the Hölder continuity of and appropriate partition of unity, which helps to derive an estimate for (20). This difficulty follows from the compressibility of the considered problem.
To formulate problem (52), we need Lagrangian coordinates in , so we construct by problem (47). We describe the quantities (see expressions (14) to (17)) introduced prior in Theorem 1. Problem (54) is a linear problem for and and nonlinear with respect to and , , with appropriate initial and boundary conditions and the transmission condition. It is a very complicated problem.
The existence and estimate for , are derived by the regularizer technique. The method can be found in [2]. Estimates of nonlinear terms containing , , and can be derived in the same way as in Section 4. Therefore, we have
where .
From (18) and (21) and t being sufficiently small, we have
The above estimate and the standard estimates for differences imply the existence of the solutions described in Theorem 1.
The free boundary problems for incompressible and compressible magnetohydrodynamics were developed by P. Kacprzyk between 2003 and 2015 (see the references in [2]). The technique developed by P. Kacprzyk is based on the energy method. A more advanced technique developed in [1,2] for incompressible magnetohydrodynamics potentiates proving the existence of solutions with the lowest possible regularity for the considered nonlinear problem. The technique in this paper requires the results of V.A. Solonnikov (see the references in [2]). The mathematical motivation of the considered problem is that it is an open problem. Physically, it means that the magnetohydrodynamic fluid is kept in a bounded domain by the electromagnetic field. Hence, the fusion problem has a physical motivation.
2. Notation and Auxiliary Results
2.1. Spaces
We consider the anisotropic Sobolev–Slobodetskii spaces and with the norm
where means the integer part of
In this paper, we need special spaces of (23) such that . Hence, we use spaces with the norm
In this paper, we also need the -Besov spaces. Hence, we recall some properties of isotropic Besov spaces that are frequently used in this paper. Next, we define anisotropic Besov spaces and formulate some imbedding theorems that we need.
Let us introduce the differences
where and are the standard unit vectors. Then, we define the m-difference inductively as follows:
where . Moreover, we introduce the difference
and inductively
Since
we have
where the last equality holds for .
We define the isotropic Besov spaces by describing their norm (see [3], Ch. 4, Sect. 18)
where .
It was shown in [4] that the Besov spaces defined by (25) all coincide and have equivalent norms for all , satisfying
Next, we define the -scale of Sobolev–Slobodetskii spaces by introducing the norm
where is the integer part of l.
We frequently write , so and .
By the Golorkin theorem (see [4]), the norms of spaces and are equivalent.
We also define the norms
for any and
By [4], norms (27) and (28) are also equivalent. Moreover, norms (25)–(27) and (26)–(28) are equivalent too.
Now, we introduce the partial derivatives
where . Let
We also need the following seminorms:
and
where .
Lemma 1.
where
hold.
The following imbeddings
where
and
where
- and
We recall the following imbedding theorems, which are frequently used in the paper:
Lemma 2.
- Let . Let . If , then
- If , then
Consider anisotropic Sobolev–Slobodetskii spaces with the norm
where is the integer part of ,
where and
Lemma 3.
Then, the imbedding
holds.
Let .
- Let
Now, we recall the trace theorems from [5].
Lemma 4
(Trace theorem). Let . Let , . Let be the trace of u on . Then, and
where c does not depend on u.
Lemma 5
(Inverse trace theorem). Let , . Then, there exists a function such that , and there exists a constant c independent of φ such that
Lemma 6
(Time trace theorem). Let , . Then, the time trace belongs to , and there exists a constant c independent of u such that
Lemma 7
(Inverse time trace theorem). , . Then, there exists a function such that
and
Finally, we introduce the energy type space
2.2. Partition of Unity
2.2.1. The Partition of Unity for Linearized Problem (9)
To prove the existence of solutions, we need a partition of unity. We consider two collections of open subsets and such that , where describes the empty set for , where describes the empty set for and , and where describes the empty set for . Moreover, subdomains with are contained in .
We assume that at most of the sets have nonempty intersections, and that for some . Let be a smooth function such that for for , and . Then, . Introducing the function
we obtain that for and .
We denote by an interior point of and for and an interior point of and of for and an interior point of and of for . For . Let be the Cartesian system of coordinates with the origin located in the interior of .
Then, by translations and rotations, we introduce a local coordinate system with the origin at such that the part of the boundary is described by . We denote the transformation as . Then, we introduce new coordinates defined by
We will denote this transformation by , where .
We assume that the sets are described in local coordinates at by the inequalities
respectively. Moreover, if and for . Let . Then, and
For , we have
For , we introduce new local coordinates with origin at such that locally describes . We also introduce the transformation and assume that belongs to for .
Finally, are described by the inequalities
respectively.
Moreover, we introduce the notations r.h.s. (right-hand side) and l.h.s. (left-hand side).
By , we denote an increasing positive function such that , and it can change its form from formula to formula.
2.2.2. The Partition of Unity for the Linearized Problem (12)
To apply the regularizer technique to the linearized problem (12), we need much more complicated partition of unity than in Section 2.2.1. The partition of unity contains four types of functions: The supports of these functions and their interior points are presented in Figure 2, where .
Figure 2.
The partition of unity necessary for the proof of existence solution of magnetic field by the technique of regularizer.
The other properties of functions are the same as in Section 2.2.1.
2.3. A Model Problem: Initial-Boundary Value Problem for a Parabolic System
We consider the following problem:
where and either is defined in (3) or is an elliptic operator.
Assumption 1.
Our aim is to prove the existence of solutions to (32) such that . To show the existence of solutions to problem (32), we have to transform it to a problem with vanishing initial data.
Let be an extension of the initial data such that and . Introduce the function
Then, w is a solution to the problem
To prove the existence of solutions for problem (34), we use the regularizer technique (see [6], Ch. 4, Sect. 7). For this purpose, we have to consider problem (34) for all .
First, we assume the compatibility conditions
where the first condition yields
To examine problem (34) for , we have to extend functions and for by zero. Therefore, we introduce
and we need that , so we have
To show (38), we have to examine the expression
where the first term equals
To show (38), we use Lemma 2 from [7], which implies
Hence, (38) is proved.
Next, we examine (39). Therefore, we calculate
where the first equals
and where the second inequality follows from Lemma 2 from [7]. Hence, (39) is proved.
In view of the above considerations, problem (34) takes the form
where
Applying the regularizer technique described in [6] (Ch. 4, Sect. 7) and the partition of unity from Section 2.2.1, we have
Lemma 8.
Assume that , where is a positive constant.
Assume that
In view of Lemma 8 and Lemma 2 from [7] and (33), we get
Lemma 9.
Assume that , where is a positive constant. Assume that , . Then, there exists a solution to problem (32) such that and
The linearized problem (12) has the form
where ,
Repeating the considerations leading to Lemma 9 and using the partition of unity introduced in Figure 1 and also applying the regularizer technique, we get
2.4. Notation
We use the following simplified notation: always denotes an increasing positive function
where , and describes the relation between Lagrangian and Eulerian coordinates.
3. Method of Successive Approximations
Let be given.
Definition 1.
The Lagrangian coordinates in are initial data to the Cauchy problem
Hence, the domain is defined by
where .
In free boundary problems in hydrodynamics, the free boundary at any time is built up from the same fluid particles as at time because is tangent to .
To formulate problem (12) in Lagrangian coordinates, we have to introduce them in artificially because there is no velocity in . For this purpose, we need
Definition 2.
Let be defined in . Then, we construct in as a solution to the parabolic problem
Since is unknown, we construct it as a solution to the following elliptic problem
A proof of the existence of solutions to (47) is similar to the proof from [8], where parabolic system (47) with the slip boundary conditions was considered. Having constructed by problems (47) and (48), we can introduce Lagrangian coordinates as the Cauchy data to the problems
Then,
where
Expressing problems (9) and (12) in Lagrangian coordinates yields
and
where in in , and .
Moreover, any operator with subscript means that it contains the transformed gradient , and any operator with subscript ξ contains derivatives with respect to ξ.
To prove the existence of local solutions to problems (51) and (52), we apply the following method of successive approximations. Let be given. Then,
where . Let , be given.
Then, are solutions to the problem
where in , in , and
4. Existence and Estimates for Solutions to Problem (53)
The aim of this section is to find an estimate for in terms of . Integrating (53)1 with respect to time yields
Using (55), we find the following problem for :
where and are defined in (53).
To find the estimate, we introduce a partition of unity such that the center of is and of is . Introduce the notation
Then, is a solution to the problem
Introduce the notation
Then, (58) takes the form
Using [8] in the case of the Neumann problem, we have
Now, we estimate the terms from the r.h.s. of (61). First, we have
Lemma 11.
Assume that . Let . Let
Then,
Proof.
We consider the expression
Let ∩ supp . Consider .
where is written in a qualitative way. To derive estimates for and , we have to estimate some norms of . We employed
where
Next,
We have
for .
Next,
where . Then,
and
Since
where the second factor is bounded by
and where we used the imbedding
Recall that all functions in the above considerations are defined in Similarly,
Consider . By the Hölder inequality with respect to ξ, we get
where , and where .
Continuing,
Estimating, we get
Now, we use the imbeddings
where .
We need
where
and
where
Using the form of in (63) yields
We employed , so . Hence, , and is assumed to be very close to p.
Summarizing,
Using the above estimates for a, we get
where
Next, we estimate
First, we examine . Since
and recalling the notation , we obtain
Integrating with respect to , we get
where .
Applying the Hölder inequality with respect to ξ yields
where .
Now, we obtain the energy type estimate for solutions to (53). For this purpose, we write (53) in the form
Lemma 12.
Assume that
Then,
Proof.
Multiply (73) , where is the Jacobian of transformation , and integrate over to obtain
Integrating by parts and using the boundary conditions (73), we get
where .
Since the tensor
is symmetric, the first term on the r.h.s. of (76) equals
Hence, we obtain from (76) the inequality
where we employed
Using the Korn inequality, we derive from (77) the inequality
Continuing, we have
Integrating with respect to time yields
Now, we estimate some expressions on the r.h.s. of (81)
We have Hence,
So,
Continuing,
Finally, we estimate the expression
We have
Hence,
and
where the first term on the r.h.s. is bounded by , where
Using the above estimates in (81) yields
Dependence on the data is not important in the method of successive approximations.
Introduce the notation
where .
Remark 1.
In this section, we derive an estimate for solutions to (56). However, we cannot achieve it directly. Therefore, we introduce a partition of unity . Then, we derive problem (60). For solutions to this problem, estimate (61) holds. Now, we estimate the particular terms from the r.h.s. of (61). Lemma 11 yields the following estimate for the first term on the r.h.s. of (61):
If
the first term on the r.h.s. of (61) is absorbed by the l.h.s. of (61). Inequality (86) holds for sufficiently small λ.
Now, we estimate the terms from and .
First, we estimate
Lemma 13.
Let . Then,
Proof.
To estimate the expression
we write it qualitatively in the form
First, we consider
where
Holding that
we have
By the Holder inequality with respect to , we obtain
where . Applying the Minkowski inequality with respect to in the first factor of and integrating with respect to in the second factor, we derive
where we use imbeddings
Using the form of , we have the restrictions
Since and are arbitrarily close to , we obtain that , and p and μ are also close. Then, (91) implies
Next, we estimate . Since
we obtain
Finally, we estimate .
Since
we have
where , and we integrate with respect to . Then,
Holding that
we have
Hence, (98) and (99) imply
and (94) and (97) yield
Finally,
Now, we estimate :
First, we examine
Since
we have
First, we examine
Applying the Hölder inequality with respect to and next the Minkowski inequality, we get
where ,
Integrating with respect to in the second factor, we get
We need the imbedding
The above restrictions imply
Since , we have , so . Since is arbitrarily close to and imbedding (102)3 holds for , can therefore be chosen arbitrarily close to p, and we obtain that (103) holds for . Using (102) in yields
Next, we examine
Summarizing, we obtain
Finally, we examine
Applying the Hölder inequality with respect to yields
where . Since is arbitrarily close to , it follows that is also arbitrary small.
Integrating with respect to in the first factor of and applying the Minkowski inequality, we derive
In view of imbeddings
and the form of , we have the restrictions
Hence,
which holds for and close to p, so we have
Summarizing,
Now, we estimate . We have
First, we estimate
Integrating with respect to and applying the Hölder inequality, we get
where . Applying the Minkowski inequality, we obtain
In view of imbeddings
which hold together for , we thus have
Next,
Integrating with respect to , applying the Hölder inequality with respect to ξ, and next the Minkowski inequality with respect to ξ, and next the Minkowski inequality with respect to ξ, we get
where .
Using the imbeddings
which hold together for , we obtain
Finally,
By the Holder inequality with respect to ξ and by the Minkowski inequality in the first factor, we get
where and .
Lemma 14.
Let . Then,
Proof.
We prove (118). Qualitatively, we have
To derive (118), we calculate
First, we examine
Applying the Hölder inequality with respect to , we get
where .
Applying the Minkowski inequality in the first factor of , integrating with respect to in the other factors of , we obtain
where we used the imbeddings
which hold together for
Hence, we have
Next, we consider . By the Hölder inequality with respect to , we have
where .
Integrating with respect to in the second factor, we get
Using the interpolation with ,
which holds for
Moreover, we use
and
which holds for
Inequalities (120) and (121) imply
The condition always holds because , but is arbitrarily close to .
Using the above estimates in yields
Finally, we estimate
where are the same as before. Integrating with respect to in the first factor, we derive
Using the interpolation
where , the restriction holds
and
Finally, we use the imbedding
which holds if
Restrictions (124) and (125) imply
which always holds because is arbitrarily close to .
Using the above estimates in , we obtain
Inequalities (119), (123), and (124) imply
Finally, we estimate
First, we examine ,
Employing
and performing integration with respect to yields
Continuing, we have
Next, we examine :
By the Hölder inequality with respect to ξ, we get
By an interpolation inequality, we obtain
where .
Now, we estimate I.
Using the estimate in , we obtain
Finally, we examine :
Integrating with respect to yields
Using in (128) estimates (129), (130), and (131) yields
The quantity J is defined in (118). It follows that , where (128) implies
and (132) gives
The above estimates imply
Hence, (118) holds and concludes the proof. □
Finally, we summarize the results of this section.
Theorem 2.
Assume that . Let
Assume that . Then,
where .
Proof.
First, we make some comments on solvability of problem (53) and on proofs of appropriate estimates. Problem (53) determines at the -sep of the method of successive approximations by at the n-th step. We write problem (53) in the form (56) because it is more appropriate for the other considerations in this section. Problem (56) denotes the Neumann problem for a linear parabolic system. The main difficulty is such that coefficient of the main part of the parabolic system depends on . To overcome the difficulty, we introduce a partition of unity such that the modified function is a solution to problem (60). Since the coefficients of the main part of the operator in (60) are constants, we apply [8] to derive estimate (61). In Lemma 11, we estimate the first term on the r.h.s. of (61) in such a way that it can be absorbed by the l.h.s. for a sufficiently small support of . In Lemma 12 and Remark 1, by applying some interpolation inequalities, we are able to absorb terms from and by the norm from the l.h.s. of (61). Finally, we derive (92). Next, Lemmas 13 and 14 give estimates for and in terms of norms of . Hence, (133) holds. □
5. The Existence and Estimates for Solutions to Problem (54)
The linear problem (54) is very complicated because we are looking for defined in , which are coupled by the transmission conditions on . Therefore, the existence of solutions and appropriate estimates are derived by the regularizer technique, applying the partition of unity described in Figure 2 (see [2]).
Applying the methods from Section 4, we prove
Theorem 3.
Assume that , , , , , , , . Then, there exists a solution to problem (54) and the estimate holds.
6. Conclusions
The aim of this paper is to prove the local existence of solutions to the system of compressible magnetohydrodynamics described in (1)–(8). The considered problem is naturally divided as follows:
- (1)
- A given implies v in .
- (2)
- A given v implies .
Problem (1), which has the form (9), determines in terms of . Problem (2) is equivalent to (12), where can be calculated in terms of v. problem (12) describes in and in , which are coupled by the transmission conditions (13).
We use the Lagrangian coordinates because the free boundary problems are considered. Unfortunately, in , there is no velocity, so it is constructed artificially as a solution to problem (2). Applying Lagrangian coordinates in (9) and (12), we obtain problems (51) and (52), respectively. Since problems (51) and (52) are very complicated, we use the method of successive approximations to prove the existence of the solutions. The method of successive approximations is described in problems (53) and (54). First, we examine (53). It is a linear parabolic system for - the -step of the approximations with the r.h.s. dependent on .
We have three difficulties:
- (1)
- the coefficients of the main part of the parabolic system are variable: they depend on ρ;
- (2)
- the solvability of a linear parabolic system with constant coefficients in -Besor spaces;
- (3)
- estimating in terms of , where are defined in Section 2.4.
The second difficulty is solved in [8]. To overcome the first difficulty, we need an appropriate partition of unity to locally define the parabolic system with a constant coefficient. This is conducted at the beginning of Section 4. In the second part of Section 4, we derive the estimate
Since we use the -Besov space, the proof of (135) is difficult.
To solve problem (54), we first have to consider the linear problem (43). We can solve (43) via the regularizer technique. For this purpose, we need an appropriate partition of unity (see Section 2.2.1). The problem is considered in [2], where applying the regularizer technique yields
Using the form of described in (54), we prove
where are defined in Section 2.4. To prove (137), we use the same methods as applied in the proof of (135).
From (135) and (137), we obtain, for sufficiently small time, the estimate
where data means initial data and forcing.
Next, for sufficiently small t, we show that differences converge to zero as n tends to ∞.
Hence, the method of successive approximations establishes Theorem 1.
Author Contributions
Both authors contributed to all parts of the work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
The paper is self-contained; all relevant data are provided in the references.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Kacprzyk, P.; Zaja̧czkowski, W.M. Existence of local solutions to a free boundary problem for incompressible viscous magnetohydrodynamics. J. Math. Fluid Mech. 2024, 26, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Shibata, Y.; Zaja̧czkowski, W.M. On local solutions to a free boundary problem for incompressible viscous magnetohydrodynamics. Diss. Math. 2021, 566, 1–102. [Google Scholar]
- Besov, O.V.; Il’in, V.P.; Nikolskii, S.M. Integral Representations of Functions and Imbedding Theorems; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1975. English Translation: Scripta Series in Mathematics; Winston and Halsted Press: Ultimo, Australia, 1979. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Golovkin, K.K. On equivalent norms for fractional spaces. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov 1962, 66, 364–383. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Bugrov, Y.S. Function spaces with mixed norm. Izv. ANSSSR Ser. Mat. 1971, 35, 1137–1158, English Translation: Math. USSR-Izv.1971, 5, 1145–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ladyzhenskaya, O.A.; Solonnikov, V.A.; Uraltseva, N.N. Linear and Quasilinear Equations of Parabolic Type; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1967. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Solonniko, V.A. A priori estimates for parabolic equations of the second order. Trudy Mat. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR 1964, 70, 133–212. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Burnat, M.; Zaja̧czkowski, W.M. On local motion of a compressible barotropic viscous fluid with the boundary slip condition. Top. Meth. Nonlinear Anal. 1997, 10, 195–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

