DEPT. OF MATH. UNIV.

OF OSLO
PURE MATHEMATICS NO. 32
ISSN 08062439 OCTOBER 2005
H
1
PERTURBATIONS OF SMOOTH SOLUTIONS
FOR A WEAKLY DISSIPATIVE
HYPERELASTIC-ROD WAVE EQUATION
M. BENDAHMANE, G. M. COCLITE, AND K. H. KARLSEN
Abstract. We consider a weakly dissipative hyperelastic-rod wave equation
(or weakly dissipative CamassaHolm equation) describing nonlinear disper-
sive dissipative waves in compressible hyperelastic rods. By xed a smooth so-
lution, we establish the existence of a strongly continuous semigroup of global
weak solutions for any initial perturbation from H
1
(R). In particular, the
supersonic solitary shock waves [8] are included in the analysis.
1. Introduction and Statement of Main Results
Consider the equation
(1.1)
t
u
3
txx
u + 3u
x
u +
2
xx
u =
_
2
x
u
2
xx
u + u
3
xxx
u
_
, t > 0, x R.
In the case = 1, = 0 it is known as the Camassa-Holm equation and describes
unidirectional shallow water waves above a at bottom: u represents the uid veloc-
ity [1, 12]. The CamassaHolm equation possesses a bi-Hamiltonian structure (and
thus an innite number of conservation laws) [11, 1] and is completely integrable
[1]. From a mathematical point of view the CamassaHolm equation is well stud-
ied, see [3] for a complete list of references. In particular, we recall that existence
and uniqueness results for global weak solutions have been proved by Constantin
and Escher [4], Constantin and Molinet [5], and Xin and Zhang [17, 18], see also
Danchin [9, 10].
When = 0, it is termed hyperelastic-rod wave equation and describes the -
nite length, small amplitude radial deformation waves in cylindrical compressible
hyperelastic rods. The constant > 0 depends on the material constants and the
prestress of the rod [6, 7, 8].
The additional weakly dissipative term
2
xx
u is introduced in [15]. We coin (1.1)
the weakly dissipative hyperelastic-rod wave equation.
In [3] the authors consider the case = 0 and prove the global existence and
wellposedness of solutions belonging to L

(R
+
; H
1
(R)). On the other hand in [8]
it is showed that for = 0 and any constants 0 < < 3, c > 0 there exists a R
Date: October 19, 2005.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classication. 35G25, 35L05, 35A05.
Key words and phrases. Shallow water equation, integrable equation, hyperbolic equation,
weak solution, existence, uniqueness, stability.
The research of K. H. Karlsen is supported by an Outstanding Young Investigators Award
from the Research Council of Norway. The current address of G. M. Coclite is Department of
Mathematics, University of Bari, Via E. Orabona 4, 70125 Bari, Italy.
1
2 BENDAHMANE, COCLITE, AND KARLSEN
such that the following peakon like function is a traveling wave solution of (1.1)
(1.2) U(t, x) =
c
2
_
1
1

_
+
c
2
_
3

1
_
e
|xct|/

,
called supersonic solitary shock wave. It is clear that the analysis in [3] does not
cover this kind of solutions (that do not belong to L

(R
+
; H
1
(R))!).
In this paper we extend the result of [3] to cover also (1.2). Roughly speaking
the idea is to look at (1.2) as a L

(R
+
; H
1
(R))perturbation of a constant state.
Indeed we can decompose U in the following way
U = U
1
+ U
2
, U
1
:=
c
2
_
1
1

_
, U
2
(t, x) :=
c
2
_
3

1
_
e
|xct|/

,
where U
1
is a classical solution to (1.1) and U
2
is a perturbation that lies in the
space L

(R
+
; H
1
(R)).
To be more precise: let = (t, x) be a solution of (1.1) such that
(1.3) C
3
([0, ) R), ,
t
,
x
,
2
tx
,
2
xx
,
3
x
L

(R
+
R),
(this is the case if is periodic or constant) and
(1.4) v
0
H
1
(R), > 0, R.
We want to study the wellposedness of the Cauchy problem
(1.5)
_

t
u
3
txx
u + 3u
x
u +
2
xx
u =
_
2
x
u
2
xx
u + u
3
xxx
u
_
, t > 0, x R,
u(0, x) = (0, x) + v
0
(x), x R.
Observe that, at least formally, (1.5) is equivalent to the elliptic-hyperbolic sys-
tem
(1.6)
_

t
u + u
x
u +
x
P = 0, t > 0, x R,

2
xx
P + P =
3
2
u
2
+

2
_

x
u
_
2
+
x
u, t > 0, x R,
u(0, x) = (0, x) + v
0
(x), x R.
Motivated by this, we shall use the following denition of weak solution. More-
over, in the same spirit of [3, Denition 1.1] we dene the admissible perturbations.
Denition 1.1. We call u : [0, )R R a weak solution of the Cauchy problem
(1.5) if
(i) u C([0, ) R);
(ii) u L

_
(0, T); H
1
(R)
_
, T > 0;
(iii) u satises (1.6) in the sense of distributions;
(iv) u(0, x) = (0, x) + v
0
(x), for every x R.
If, in addition, for each T > 0 there exists a positive constant K
T
depending only
on v
0

H
1
(R)
, , , T, such that
(1.7)
x
_
u(t, x) (t, x)
_

4
t
+ K
T
, (t, x) (0, T) R,
then we say that u is an admissible perturbation of (1.1).
Our results are collected in the following theorem:
WEAKLY DISSIPATIVE HYPERELASTIC-ROD WAVE EQUATION 3
Theorem 1.1. There exists a strongly continuous semigroup of solutions associated
to the Cauchy problem (1.5). More precisely, there exists a map
S : [0, ) (0, ) RH
1
(R) C([0, ) R), (t, , , v
0
) S
t
(, , v
0
)(),
with the following properties:
(i) for each v
0
H
1
(R), > 0, R the map u(t, x) = S
t
(, , v
0
)(x) is a
weak solution of (1.5) and u is an admissible perturbation of (1.1);
(ii) it is stable with respect to the initial condition and the coecient in the
following sense, if
(1.8) v
0,n
v
0
in H
1
(R),
n
,
n
in R,
then
(1.9) S(
n
,
n
, v
0,n
) S(, , v
0
) in L

([0, T]; H
1
(R)),
for every {v
0,n
}
nN
H
1
(R), {
n
}
nN
(0, ), {
n
}
nN
R, v
0

H
1
(R), > 0, R, T > 0.
Moreover, the following statements hold:
(iii) the estimate (1.7) is valid with
K
T
:=
2

_
_

2
xx

(R
+
R)
+| 3|

2
L

(R
+
R)
_
e
T
v
0

H
1
(R)
(1.10)
+
max
_
|3 |, 2
_
+|3 |
4
e
2T
v
0

2
H
1
(R)
+
5
2

x

2
L

(R
+
R)
+ 2

_
1/2
,
:=
3 +
2

x

(R
+
R)
+

2

3
xxx

(R
+
R)
+||, (1.11)
for T > 0;
(iv) there results
(1.12)
x
S(, , v
0
) L
p
loc
(R
+
R),
with 1 p < 3.
Our argument is based on the analysis of the evolution of the perturbation
v := u .
From (1.5) we get the following equation for v
(1.13)
_

t
v
3
txx
v + 3v
x
v + 3
x
v + 3v
x
+
2
xx
v
=
_
2
x
v
2
xx
v + v
3
xxx
v + 2
x
v
2
xx
+ 2
x

2
xx
v + v
3
xxx
+
3
xxx
v
_
,
v(0, ) = v
0
,
that is formally equivalent to the elliptic-hyperbolic system
(1.14)
_

t
v + v
x
v + v
x
+
x
v +
x
P = 0,

2
xx
P + P =
3
2
v
2
+

2
_

x
v
_
2
+ (3 )v +
x

x
v +
x
v,
v(0, ) = v
0
.
Since the argument is very similar to the one in [3] we simply sketch it.
4 BENDAHMANE, COCLITE, AND KARLSEN
2. Viscous Approximations: Existence and A Priori Estimates
We prove existence of a weak solution to the Cauchy problem (1.13) (and equiv-
alently to (1.5)) by proving compactness of a sequence of smooth solutions {v

}
>0
solving the following viscous problems (see [2]):
(2.1)
_

t
v

+ v

x
v

+ v

x
+
x
v

+
x
P

=
2
xx
v

2
xx
P

+ P

=
3
2
v
2

+

2
_

x
v

_
2
+ (3 )v

+
x

x
v

+
x
v

,
v

(0, ) = v
,0
,
that is equivalent to the following fourth order one
(2.2)
_

t
v

3
txx
v

+ 3v

x
v

+ 3
x
v

+ 3v

x
+
2
xx
v

=
_
2
x
v

2
xx
v

+ v

3
xxx
v

+ 2
x
v

2
xx
+ 2
x

2
xx
v

_
+
_

3
xxx
v

+ v

3
xxx

_
+
2
xx
v

4
xxxx
v

,
v

(0, ) = v
,0
.
Formally, sending 0 in (2.2), (2.1) yields (1.13), (1.14), respectively.
We shall assume that
(2.3) v
,0
H
2
(R), v
,0

H
1
(R)
v
0

H
1
(R)
, > 0, and v
,0
v
0
inH
1
(R).
The starting point of our analysis is the following wellposedness result for (2.1)
(see [2, Theorem 2.3]).
Lemma 2.1. Assume (1.3), (1.4) and (2.3), let > 0. There exists a unique
smooth solution v

C
_
[0, ); H
2
(R)
_
to the Cauchy problem (2.1).
The next step in our analysis is to derive the following a priori estimates:
Lemma 2.2. Assume (1.3), (1.4) and (2.3), and let > 0. Then the following
estimates hold:
j) (Energy Conservation) for each t 0
(2.4)
_
_
v

(t, )
_
_
2
H
1
(R)
+ 2
_
t
0
_
_

x
v

(, )
_
_
2
H
1
(R)
d e
2t
v
0

2
H
1
(R)
;
jj) (Oleinik type Estimate) for any 0 < t < T and x R,
(2.5)
x
v

(t, x)
4
t
+ K
T
,
where K
T
is dened in (1.10);
jj) (Higher Integrability Estimate) for every 0 < 1, T > 0, and a, b
R, a < b, there exists a positive constant C
T
depending only on v
0

H
1
(R)
,
, , T, a and b, but independent on , such that
(2.6)
_
T
0
_
b
a

x
v

(t, x)

2+
dtdx C
T
.
Remark 2.1. Due to [13, Theorem 8.5], (2.3) and (2.4), we have for each t 0
(2.7) v

(t, )
L

(R)

1

2
v

(t, )
H
1
(R)

e
t

2
v
0

H
1
(R)
.
WEAKLY DISSIPATIVE HYPERELASTIC-ROD WAVE EQUATION 5
Proof of Lemma 2.2. We begin with j). Multiplying (2.2) by v

, integrating on R,
and integrating by parts we get
1
2
d
dt
_
R
_
v
2

+ (
x
v

)
2
_
dx +
_
R
_
(
x
v

)
2
+ (
2
xx
v

)
2
_
dx
_
R
_
v
2

+ (
x
v

)
2
_
dx,
where is dened in (1.11). Hence (2.4) is consequence of (2.3) and the Gronwall
Lemma.
We continue by proving jj). Introduce the notation
q

:=
x
v

.
From (2.1) we get the following equation for q

t
q

+

2
q
2

+ v

x
q

+ v

2
xx
+
x
q

(2.8)
+
x
q

+
3
2
v
2

+ ( 3)v

+ P

2
xx
q

= 0.
Using the fact that e
|x|
/2 is the Greens function of the operator 1
2
xx
P

(t, x) =
1
2
_
R
e
|xy|
_
3
2
v
2

(t, y) +

2
_

x
v

(t, y)
_
2
(2.9)
+ (3 )(t, y)v

(t, y) +
x
(t, y)
x
v

(t, y)
_
dy.
It follows from (2.4) and (2.7) (see [3, Proof of Lemma 3.1]) that
_
_
_v

2
xx
+
3
2
v
2

+ (3 )v

+ P

_
_
_
L

((0,T)R)
L
T
, (2.10)
for some constant L
T
> 0. Then, from (2.8),

t
q

+

2
q
2

+ v

x
q

+
x
q

+
x
q

2
xx
q

L
T
.
Since

2
+ (
x
)

4

(
x
)
2

, R,
we conclude

t
q

+

4
q
2

+ v

x
q

+
x
q

2
xx
q

(2.11)
L
T
+ 2
x

2
L

(R
+
R)
+ 2

=:

L
T
.
Employing the comparison principle for parabolic equations, we get
(2.12) q

(t, x) h(t), 0 t T, x R
where h solves
(2.13)
dh
dt
+

4
h
2
=

L
T
, h(0) =
x
v
,0

(R)
.
Since the map
H(t) :=
4
t
+

L
T

, t > 0,
is a super-solution of (2.13) in the interval [0, T]. Due to the comparison principle
for ordinary dierential equations, we get h(t) H(t) for all 0 < t T. Therefore,
(2.5) is proved.
6 BENDAHMANE, COCLITE, AND KARLSEN
Finally, we consider jjj). The argument is very similar to the one of [3, Lemma
4.1]. Pick a cut-o function C

(R) such that

0 1, (x) =
_
1, if x [a, b],
0, if x (, a 1] [b + 1, ),
consider the map () :=
_
||+1
_

, R, then multiply (2.8) by

(q

), integrate
over (0, T) R and use (2.4).
3. Compactness
Lemma 3.1. The family {P

}
>0
is uniformly bounded in L

([0, T); W
1,
(R))
and L

([0, T); H
1
(R)) for each T > 0.
Proof. The argument is the same of [3, Lemma 5.1]: use the integral representation
of P

(2.9) and then employ (2.7).

Lemma 3.2. There exists a sequence {
j
}
jN
tending to zero and a function v
L

([0, T); H
1
(R)) H
1
([0, T] R), for each T 0, such that
v

j
v weakly in H
1
loc
([0, T] R), for each T 0, (3.1)
v

j
v strongly in L

loc
([0, ) R). (3.2)
Proof. Fix T > 0. Observe that, from (2.1),

t
v

=
2
xx
v

x
v

x

x
v

x
P

,
hence, by (2.7), (2.4), Lemma 3.1, and the Holder inequality, {v

}
>0
is uniformly
bounded in H
1
([0, T] R) L

([0, T); H
1
(R)), and (3.1) follows. Finally, since
H
1
(R) L

loc
(R) L
2
loc
(R), (3.2) is consequence of [16, Theorem 5].
Lemma 3.3. The family {P

}
>0
is uniformly bounded in W
1,1
loc
([0, T) R) for any
T > 0. In particular, there exists a sequence {
j
}
jN
tending to zero and a function
P L

([0, T); W
1,
(R)) such that for each 1 p <
(3.3) P

j
P strongly in L
p
loc
([0, ) R).
Proof. The argument is analogous to the one of [3, Lemma 5.3]. Using the integral
representation (2.9) of P

and then employing (2.7) we get the uniform boundedness

of
_

t
P

_
>0
in L
1
loc
([0, ) R). Then, due to Lemma 3.1, {P

}
>0
is bounded
in W
1,1
loc
([0, T) R). Finally, using again Lemma 3.1, we have the existence of a
pointwise converging subsequence that is uniformly bounded in L

([0, T) R).
Clearly, this implies (3.3).
Lemma 3.4. There exist a sequence {
j
}
jN
tending to zero and two functions
q L
p
loc
([0, ) R), q
2
L
r
loc
([0, ) R) such that
q

j
q in L
p
loc
([0, ) R), q

q in L

loc
([0, ); L
2
(R)), (3.4)
q
2

j
q
2
in L
r
loc
([0, ) R), (3.5)
for each 1 < p < 3 and 1 < r < 3/2. Moreover,
(3.6) q
2
(t, x) q
2
(t, x) for almost every (t, x) [0, ) R
and
(3.7)
x
v = q in the sense of distributions on [0, ) R.
WEAKLY DISSIPATIVE HYPERELASTIC-ROD WAVE EQUATION 7
Proof. Formulas (3.4) and (3.5) are direct consequences of Lemma 2.1 and (2.6).
Inequality (3.6) is true thanks to the weak convergence in (3.5). Finally, (3.7) is a
consequence of the denition of q

, Lemma 3.2, and (3.4).

In the following, for notational convenience, we replace the sequences {v

j
}
jN
,
{q

j
}
jN
, {P

j
}
jN
by {v

}
>0
, {q

}
>0
, {P

}
>0
, respectively.
In view of (3.4), we conclude that for any C
1
(R) with

bounded, Lipschitz
continuous on R and any 1 p < 3 we have
(3.8) (q

) (q) in L
p
loc
([0, ) R), (q

)

(q) in L

loc
([0, ); L
2
(R)).
Multiplying the equation in (2.8) by

(q

), we get

t
(q

) +
x
_
(v

+ )(q

)
_

2
xx
(q

(q

)(
x
(q

))
2
q

(q

) (3.9)
+ v

2
xx

(q

) +
x

_
q

(q

) (q

)
_
q

(q

)
+
3
2
v
2

(q

) +

2
q
2

(q

) + ( 3)v

(q

) + P

(q

) = 0.
Lemma 3.5. For any convex C
1
(R) with

bounded, Lipschitz continuous on

R, we have

t
(q) +
x
_
(v + )(q)
_
q(q) (3.10)
+ v
2
xx

(q) +
x

_
q

(q) (q)
_
q

(q)
+
3
2
v
2

(q) +

2
q
2

(q) + ( 3)v

(q) + P

(q) 0,
in the sense of distributions on [0, ) R. Here q(q), q
2

(q) and

(q)q denote
the weak limits of q

(q

), q
2

(q

) and

(q

)q

in L
r
loc
([0, ) R), 1 < r < 3/2,
respectively.
Proof. In (3.9), by convexity of , (3.2), (3.4), and (3.5), sending 0 yields
(3.10).
Remark 3.1. From (3.4) and (3.5), it is clear that
q = q
+
+ q

= q
+
+ q

, q
2
= (q
+
)
2
+ (q

)
2
, q
2
= (q
+
)
2
+ (q

)
2
,
almost everywhere in [0, ) R, where
+
:=
[0,+)
(),

:=
(,0]
(),
R. Moreover, by (2.5) and (3.4),
(3.11) q

(t, x), q(t, x)

4
t
+ K
T
, 0 < t < T, x R.
Lemma 3.6. There holds
(3.12)
t
q +
x
_
(v + )q
_

2
q
2
+ v
2
xx
+
3
2
v
2
+ ( 3)v + P q = 0,
in the sense of distributions on [0, ) R.
Proof. Using (3.2), (3.3), (3.4), and (3.5), the result (3.12) follows by 0 in
(2.8).
The next lemma contains a renormalized formulation of (3.12).
8 BENDAHMANE, COCLITE, AND KARLSEN
Lemma 3.7 ([3, Lemma 5.8]). For any C
1
(R) with

(R),

t
(q) +
x
_
(v + )(q)
_
q(q)
_
q
2
2
q
2
_

(q) (3.13)
+ v
2
xx

(q) +
x

_
q

(q) (q)
_
q(q)
+
3
2
v
2

(q) + ( 3)v

(q) + P

(q) = 0,
in the sense of distributions on [0, ) R.
Following [3, Section 6] and [17], we improve the weak convergence of q

in
(3.4) to strong convergence (and then we have an existence result for (1.5)). The
idea is to derive a transport equation for the evolution of the defect measure
_
q
2
q
2
_
(t, ) 0, so that if it is zero initially then it will continue to be zero at
all later times t > 0. The proof is complicated by the fact that we do not have a
uniform bound on q

from below but merely (3.11) and that in (2.6) we have only
< 1.
Lemma 3.8. Assume (1.3) and (2.3). Then for each t 0
_
R
_
(q
+
)
2
(t, x) (q
+
)
2
(t, x)
_
dx (3.14)
2e
t
_
t
0
_
R
e
s
S(s, x) [q
+
(s, x) q
+
(s, x)] dsdx,
where
:=
x

(R
+
R)
+ 2||,
S(s, x) := v(s, x)
2
xx
(s, x) +
3
2
v
2
(s, x) + (3 )(s, x)v(s, x) P(s, x).
Proof. Let T > 0, R > K
T
(see (2.5)). Subtract (3.13) from (3.10) using the
renormalization

+
R
() :=
_

_
R R
2
/2, if > R,

2
/2, if 0 R,
0, if < 0.
Arguing as in [3, Lemma 6.4] we get
d
dt
_
R
_
(q
+
)
2
(q
+
)
2
_
dx
_
R
_
(q
+
)
2
(q
+
)
2
_
dx + 2
_
R
S(t, x) [q
+
q
+
] dx,
for 4/((R K
T
)) < t < T. First we have to apply the Gronwall Lemma to the
previous inequality on the interval (4/((RK
T
)), T). Then sending R and
using (see [3, Lemma 6.2])
(3.15) lim
t0+
_
R
_

+
R
(q)(t, x)
+
R
(q(t, x))
_
dx = 0, R > 0.

Lemma 3.9. For any t 0 and any R > 0,

_
R
_

R
(q)(t, x)

R
(q)(t, x)
_
dx (3.16)

Re
t
2
_
t
0
_
R
e
s
(R 2
x
+ 2) (R + q)
(,R)
(q) dsdx
WEAKLY DISSIPATIVE HYPERELASTIC-ROD WAVE EQUATION 9

Re
t
2
_
t
0
_
R
e
s
(R 2
x
+ 2) (R + q)
(,R)
(q) dsdx
+
Re
t
2
_
t
0
_
R
e
s
_
(q
+
)
2
(q
+
)
2
_
dsdx
+ Re
t
_
t
0
_
R
e
s
_

R
(q)

R
(q)
_
dsdx
+ e
t
_
t
0
_
R
e
s
S(s, x)
_
(

R
)

(q) (

R
)

(q)
_
dsdx.
Proof. The argument is very similar to the one of [3, Lemma 6.3]. We begin by
subtracting (3.13) from (3.10), using the renormalization

R
() :=
_

_
0, if > 0,

2
/2, if R 0,
R R
2
/2, if < R.
Then we integrate on R and use the Gronwall Lemma and (see [3, Lemma 6.2])
(3.17) lim
t0+
_
R
_

R
(q)(t, x)

R
(q(t, x))
_
dx = 0, R > 0.

Lemma 3.10. There holds q

2
= q
2
almost everywhere in [0, ) R.
Proof. We follow the argument of [3, Lemma 6.6]. We add (3.14) and (3.16). Using
the concavity of (R+)
(,R)
(), the Gronwall Lemma, (3.15), (3.17) and
lim
t0+
_
R
q
2
(t, x) dx = lim
t0+
_
R
q
2
(t, x) dx =
_
R
(
x
v
0
)
2
dx,
we conclude that
_
R
_
1
2
_
(q
+
)
2
(q
+
)
2
_
+
_

R
(q)

R
(q)
_
_
(t, x) dx = 0, for each 0 < t < T.
By the Fatou Lemma, Remark 3.1, and (3.6), sending R yields
0
_
R
_
q
2
q
2
_
(t, x) dx 0, 0 < t < T,
and, since the argument holds for each T > 0, we are done.
4. Proof of Theorem 1.1
In this last section we prove Theorem 1.1. The rst step consists in the proof of
the existence of solutions for (1.5).
Lemma 4.1. Assume (1.3) and (2.3). Then there exists an admissible weak solu-
tion of (1.5), satisfying (iii) and (iv) of Theorem 1.1.
Proof. The conditions (i), (ii), (iv) of Denition 1.1 are satised, due to (2.3), (2.4)
and Lemma 3.2. We have to verify (ii). Due to Lemma 3.10, we have
(4.1) q

q strongly in L
2
loc
([0, ) R).
Clearly (3.2), (3.3), and (4.1) imply that v is a distributional solution of (1.14).
Therefore u := v + is a weak solution of (1.5) and v is an admissible perturbation
10 BENDAHMANE, COCLITE, AND KARLSEN
of (1.1). Finally, (iii) and (iv) of Theorem 1.1 are consequences of (2.5) and (2.6),
respectively.
The second step is the existence of the semigroup.
Lemma 4.2. There exists a strongly continuous semigroup of solutions associated
with the Cauchy problem (1.5)
S : [0, ) (0, ) R H
1
(R) C([0, ) R),
namely, for each v
0
H
1
(R), > 0, R the map u(t, x) = S
t
(, , v
0
)(x) is an
admissible weak solution and u and admissible perturbation of (1.5). Moreover,
(iii) and (iv) of Theorem 1.1 are satised.
Clearly, this lemma is a direct consequence of the following one and of the ones
in the previous sections.
Lemma 4.3. Let {
n
}
nN
, {
n
}
nN
(0, ) and v, w L

([0, T]; H
1
(R))
H
1
([0, T] R), for each T 0, be such that
n
,
n
0 and
v

n
v, v

n
v, strongly in L

([0, T]; H
1
(R)), T > 0,
then
v = w.
Proof. Let t > 0. From [2, Theorem 3.1], we have that
v

(t, ) v

(t, )
H
1
(R)
A(t, + )v
0,
v
0,

H
1
(R)
+ B(t, + )| |,
with
A(t, + ) = O
_
e
t/(+)
_
, B(t, + ) = O
_
e
t/(+)
_
,
for each , > 0. Hence
v

n
(t, ) v

n
(t, )
H
1
(R)
c
1
e
t/(+)
_
|
n

n
| +v
0,
n
v
0,
n

H
1
(R)
_
, n N,
for some constant c
1
> 0. Choosing suitable subsequences as in [3, Lemma 7.2] we
get v = w.
The third and last step is the stability of the semigroup.
Lemma 4.4. The semigroup S dened on [0, ) (0, ) R H
1
(R) satises
the stability property (ii) of Theorem 1.1.
Proof. Fix > 0 and denote by S

the semigroup associated to the viscous problem

(2.1) and

S := S. Choose {v
0,n
}
nN
H
1
(R), {
n
}
nN
(0, ), {
n
}
nN
R,
v
0
H
1
(R), > 0, R satisfying (1.8). The initial data satisfy v
0,,n
, v
0,

H
2
(R) and (2.3). Finally, write
v
,n
:= S

(
n
,
n
, v
0,n
), v
n
:= S(
n
,
n
, v
0,n
), v := S(, , v
0
).
Let t > 0. Due to Lemmas 3.2 and 4.1,
v
n
(t, ) v(t, )
H
1
(R)
= lim
0
v
,n
(t, ) v

(t, )
H
1
(R)
.
Using [2, Theorem 3.1], we have that
v
,n
(t, ) v

(t, )
H
1
(R)
A(t, )v
0,n
v
0

H
1
(R)
+ B(t, )
_
|
n
| +|
n
|
_
,
with
A(t, ) = O(e
T/
), B(t, ) = O(e
T/
), t [0, T].
Now, using the same argument as in [3, Lemma 8.1] we prove the claim.
WEAKLY DISSIPATIVE HYPERELASTIC-ROD WAVE EQUATION 11
Proof of Theorem 1.1. It is direct consequence of Lemmas 4.2 and 4.4.
References
[1] R. Camassa and D. D. Holm. An integrable shallow water equation with peaked solitons.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 71(11):16611664, 1993.
[2] G. M. Coclite, H. Holden, and K. H. Karlsen. Wellposedness of solutions of a parabolic-elliptic
system. Discrete Contin. Dynam. Systems, 13(3):659682, 2005.
[3] G. M. Coclite, H. Holden, and K. H. Karlsen. Global weak solutions to a generalized
hyperelastic-rod wave equation. SIAM J. Math. Anal. To appear.
[4] A. Constantin and J. Escher. Global weak solutions for a shallow water equation. Indiana
Univ. Math. J., 47(4):15271545, 1998.
[5] A. Constantin and L. Molinet. Global weak solutions for a shallow water equation. Comm.
Math. Phys., 211(1):4561, 2000.
[6] H.-H. Dai. Exact travelling-wave solutions of an integrable equation arising in hyperelastic
rods. Wave Motion, 28(4):367381, 1998.
[7] H.-H. Dai. Model equations for nonlinear dispersive waves in a compressible MooneyRivlin
rod. Acta Mech., 127(1-4):193207, 1998.
[8] H.-H. Dai and Y. Huo. Solitary shock waves and other travelling waves in a general com-
pressible hyperelastic rod. R. Soc. Lond. Proc. Ser. A, 456(1994):331363, 2000.
[9] R. Danchin. A few remarks on the CamassaHolm equation. Dierential Integral Equations,
14(8):953988, 2001.
[10] R. Danchin. A note on well-posedness for CamassaHolm equation. J. Dierential Equations,
192(2):429444, 2003.
[11] B. Fuchssteiner and A. S. Fokas. Symplectic structures, their Backlund transformations and
hereditary symmetries. Phys. D, 4(1):4766, 1981/82.
[12] R. S. Johnson. CamassaHolm, Kortewegde Vries and related models for water waves. J.
Fluid Mech., 455:6382, 2002.
[13] E. H. Lieb and M. Loss. Analysis, volume 14 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American
Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 2001.
[14] P.-L. Lions. Mathematical Topics in Fluid Mechanics. Vol. 1. Incompressible Models, vol-
ume 3 of Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications. Oxford University Press,
New York, 1996.
[15] L. Tian and J. Yin. New compacton solutions and solitary wave solutions of fully nonlinear
generalized CamassaHolm equations. Chaos Solitons Fractals, 20(2):289299, 2004.
[16] J. Simon. Compact sets in the space L
p
(0, T; B). Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 146(4):6596, 1987.
[17] Z. Xin and P. Zhang. On the weak solutions to a shallow water equation. Comm. Pure Appl.
Math., 53(11):14111433, 2000.
[18] Z. Xin and P. Zhang. On the uniqueness and large time behavior of the weak solutions to a
shallow water equation. Comm. Partial Dierential Equations, 27(9-10):18151844, 2002.
(Mostafa Bendahmane, Giuseppe Maria Coclite, and Kenneth Hvistendahl Karlsen)
Centre of Mathematics for Applications (CMA)
University of Oslo
P.O. Box 1053, Blindern
N0316 Oslo, Norway
E-mail address: mostafab@math.uio.no, giusepc@math.uio.no, kennethk@math.uio.no
URL: http://folk.uio.no/mostafab/, http://www.math.uio.no/~kennethk/