1. Introduction
Fractional calculus has become an important topic thanks to its effective characterization of the ubiquitous power-law phenomena as well as its widespread applications in many areas of science and engineering such as porous media, turbulence, bioscience, geoscience, viscoelastic material, and so on. The most important mathematical equations among such models are fractional partial differential equations, which can be more relevant for describing the underlying anomalous features, non-local interactions, manifesting in memory effects, sharp peaks, power law distributions, and self-similar structures. For such kinds of equations, there is a large and rapidly growing number of publications. See the monographs of Herrmann [
1], Hilfer [
2], Jin [
3], Kilbas et al. [
4], and Zhou [
5], and the references therein.
In this paper we consider the following fractional wave equation in a bound domain
with smooth boundary
:
where
is a fractional derivative of order
, which will be defined in the following contexts, and
for
and
with
,
, and
. What is more, we assume that
is uniformly elliptic, i.e., there exist positive constants
such that
for a.a.
.
Recall that the initial boundary value problem (
1) would resolve itself into fractional diffusion equations when
. It has attracted a growing interest due to its widespread applications in sub-diffusive processes. The authors in [
6] constructed fundamental solutions to the problem using Fox’s H-functions and the Levi method, then the parametrix estimates were established. Zacher [
7] studied the well-posedness of weak solutions of abstract evolutionary integro-differential equations based on the Galerkin method and energy estimates. Later, Kubica and Yamamoto [
8] used the same method to obtain well-posedness of weak solutions of fractional diffusion equations with time-dependent coefficients. In [
9], the authors considered the problem with Caputo derivative on
in
- framework and then the uniqueness, existence, and
-estimates of solutions are obtained. In [
10], the authors investigated the well-posedness for this problem with time independent elliptic operators but general non-homogenous boundary conditions by mean of an eigenfunction representation involving the Mittag-Leffter functions. For other results for fractional diffusion equations, we refer to [
11,
12,
13,
14,
15] and the references therein.
Recently, problem (
1) has been the focus of many studies due to its significant application in super-diffusive models of anomalous diffusion such as diffusion in heterogeneous media and viscoelastic problems such as the propagation of stress waves in viscoelastic solids. More specifically, significant development has been made in well-posedness as well as regularity results of the weak solution to fractional wave equations. For example, in [
16], the authors used Laplace transform to define weak solutions and used the Strichartz estimate to derive its well-posedness. Later, Otárola and Salgado [
17] also gave a definition of weak solutions similar to that of inter-order cases and established the well-posedness together with regularity estimates. In [
18,
19], the authors obtained results on the existence and regularity of local and global weak solutions of semi-linear cases. In [
20] the authors used integrated cosine family to give the representation of solutions and then provided the existence and regularity results of mild solutions. For other results for fractional wave equations, we refer to [
21] for existence and regularity, [
22] for the subordination principle, [
23] for the global existence of small data solutions, [
24] for approximate controllability, [
25] for asymptotic behavior, [
26] for well-posedness and regularity, and the references therein.
In the literature mentioned on fractional wave equations, the main technique to construct solutions for deriving such existence and regularity results is based on Fourier series, cosine family, or resolvent operators, and solutions are expressed by the Mittag-Leffler functions. In fact, as it is well known, the smoothness of solutions is followed by the properties of Mittag-Leffler functions. The main novelties of the present paper lie in two aspects. Compared with the existing research on fractional wave equations, our analysis is rather general and relies on Galerkin methods and energy arguments, which can be applied to the general problem that Fourier expansive of solutions cannot be used and cannot be converted to ordinary differential equations. Very recently, Huang and Yamamoto [
27] discussed the well-posedness of initial-boundary value problems for time fractional diffusion-wave equations with time-dependent coefficients using the Galerkin method. On the other hand, in contrast to the classical integer-order case, the main technical difficulty in the rigorous analysis of the well-posedness and regularity of fractional wave equations stems from establishing the energy estimates of the problem. This is mainly due to the fact that integration by parts formula for integer-order derivatives cannot be generalized directly to a fractional-order case and properties of composition and conjugation of the fractional Caputo derivative
do not exist. Therefore, we found it more challenging in dealing with the well-posedness and regularity of fractional wave equations.
The paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2 we recall some notations, definitions, and preliminary facts used throughout this work. In
Section 3 we discuss approximation equations and show the existence of their solutions by means of mollification arguments and the Galerkin methods, which reduce the regularity of coefficients
. The energy estimates of approximation solutions are established in
Section 4. Finally, we derive the well-posedness and regularity results of fractional wave equations using the weak compactness arguments.
2. Preliminaries
Here we recall some notations, definitions, and preliminary facts which are used throughout this paper.
Let
X be a Banach space and
. The left Riemann–Liouville fractional integral of order
for the function
v is defined as
where
and ∗ denotes the convolution.
Further,
and
represent the left Riemann–Liouville fractional derivative and Caputo fractional derivative of order
for the function
v, respectively, which are defined by
where
,
denotes the integer part of
.
Here we denote by
the space of functions
v that
and
. In particular,
. It is worth mentioning that if
, then the Caputo fractional derivative
exists almost everywhere on
, which is represented by
For more insight into the topic, see Kilbas et al. [
4] and Zhou [
5].
Lemma 1. ([
4]).
If and , then and . Lemma 2. Let . If , then we havefor a.e. . Proof. If
, then
exists for a.e.
. From the definition of
we know that
On the other hand, since , we see that . Thus, the proof is complete. □
Before proceeding further, we state an important lemma, which is a direct consequence of an estimate borrowed from [
7].
Lemma 3. Let and H be a real Hilbert space with a scalar product . Assume . Then for any , there holdsfor any . Next, a very significant example is provided which will play a crucial role in the proof of energy estimates.
Example 1. For , we choose . Then for any and , there holds The following property presents the lower bound of the uniformly elliptic operator if the function has enough regularity, which was proved by [
28] (see also [
8]).
Lemma 4. Assume that is a bounded domain with the boundary of class and (2) holds. If and and , thenwhere C depends continuously on and the -norm of , and . Next, we introduce the definition of the weak solution of Equation (
1).
Definition 1. Let and . For given functions and , we say a functionis a weak solution of Equation (1) providedfor each and a.e. . The vectors and can be regarded as initial data for and at least in a weak sense, respectively. If, for example, , then the condition implies and .
Remark 1. In view of Definition 1, we know for .
Proof. Indeed, for
with
, it follows from Lemma 2 and Hölder’s inequality that
In view of the inequality
for
and
, we calculate the integral
The second term is bounded by
. This ensures
The proof is complete. □
3. Approximation Solution
In this section we provide the Galerkin approximate scheme and derive the corresponding existence results. We will suppose initially that
for
, where
and
.
Let
be the standard mollifier satisfying
Then we introduce the mollification
of the function
as
We note first that and if for , then in .
Moreover, we denote
by the mollification of
, which are defined by
where
is the continuation by even reflection to
and zero elsewhere,
and
c are the continuation by zero for
, and
f is the continuation by odd reflection to
and zero elsewhere. Then
in
for
(due to (
2)).
Next, we seek approximate solutions
for Equation (
1) in the form:
where
denotes the complete orthonormal system of eigenfunctions which forms an orthogonal basis of
such that
For the sake of selecting
, one considers the following approximate equation:
where
Let us introduce the time-dependent bilinear form
Taking the scalar product of (
5) with
for
, we obtain
Then (
6) can be reduced to the following linear differential system for the functions
:
Now we consider the nonlinear integral system for the functions
We shall show that system (
8) has a unique solution
which belongs to
. By Lemma 1, then the solution
of Equation (
8) is also the solution of Equation (
7). To accomplish this, we introduce the space
and define a metric on
as
It is easy to show that is a complete metric space. We notice that .
Theorem 1. Let and (3) hold. For every , Equation (8) has a unique solution in . Proof. Consider the operator
given by
Then it is well-defined. Indeed, let
, then
. Further, we immediately take the first and second derivatives of
with respect to
t to obtain
and
For convenience we let
. Then
and
. We can easily check that
and
are continuous on
, which also ensures that
. Therefore it remains to consider the continuity of
. It is easy to verify the continuity of the first two components. To deal with the third one we estimate for
On the other hand, from the definition of
and
, it follows that
From the representation of
and
, we know that
and
belong to the space
, which yields that
and
Thus one can immediately calculate
and
as follows
and
Finally, for
, choosing a
sufficient small for
, one can derive from the increasing property of
and (
9) that
It is clear that the second term tends to zero for some sufficient small . Then we choose one of such , it follows from the uniform continuity of (due to the continuity of on ) that for any , there exists with such that . Thus, this yields that the first term can be bounded by , which together with shows that as for .
Therefore, we have for .
Moreover, for
, we have
where we have used
Similarly, in view of
we proceed to estimate
as follows:
where it is easy to show that
due to
and (
11).
Finally, we will estimate
. Taking account of the following inequality
it holds that
where we know from (
12) that
.
For the sake of convenience, we let
Then one can choose a
small enough which ensures that
. Therefore, combining (
10), (
13) with (
14), we deduce that
This also shows that the operator
is a strict contraction on
. It follows that
has a fixed point, thus Equation (
8) has a unique solution in
.
Now, we will deal with the continuation of the solution to the interval
. Let us make the assumption that we have obtained the solution
of Equation (
8) on the interval
for
. We shall define the solution for
with
. To accomplish this, we introduce the complete space
with the distance
. Let
, then
. According to the previous proof, we know that
, which implies that
and
. It holds that
and then
.
Next, we will show that the operator
is also a strict contraction on
when
is sufficiently small. We shall rewrite
in the following form:
For
, we have
and
for
. Then
This follows from (
11) that
Moreover, we can choose one
such that
is small enough. It also ensures that
Hence, the operator
is a strict contraction on
, this also shows that Equation (
8) has a unique solution on the interval
. We proceed to repeat the process on the intervals
until Equation (
8) has a unique solution on the interval
. The claim then follows. □