JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.

1 (1-13)
J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–•••

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications

www.elsevier.com/locate/jmaa

Elliptic-like regularization of semilinear evolution equations

and applications to some hyperbolic problems
Luminiţa Barbu a , Gheorghe Moroşanu b,∗
a
Ovidius University, Department of Mathematics, 124 Mamaia Blvd, 900527 Constanţa, Romania
b
Central European University, Department of Mathematics, Nador u. 9, 1051 Budapest, Hungary

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Consider in a Hilbert space H the Cauchy problem (P0 ): u (t) + Au(t) + Bu(t) =
Received 3 August 2016 f (t), 0 ≤ t ≤ T ; u(0) = u0 , where A : D(A) ⊂ H → H is the generator of a
Available online xxxx C0 -semigroup of contractions and B : H → H is Lipschitzian on bounded sets and
Submitted by J.A. Ball
monotone. Following the method of artificial viscosity introduced by J.L. Lions, we
Dedicated to Professor Dorin Ieşan associate with (P0 ) the approximate problem (Pε ): −εu (t) +u (t) +Au(t) +Bu(t) =
on his 75th anniversary f (t), 0 ≤ t ≤ T ; u(0) = u0 , u(T ) = uT , where ε is a positive small parameter.
We establish an asymptotic expansion of the solution uε of (Pε ), showing that
Keywords: uε corrected by a boundary layer function approximates the solution of (P0 ) with
Elliptic-like regularization respect to the sup norm of C([0, T ]; H). The same asymptotic expansion still holds
Singular perturbation
if B is not necessarily monotone but is Lipschitzian on H. This paper is a significant
Asymptotic expansion
Semilinear telegraph system
extension of a previous one by M. Ahsan and G. Moroşanu [2] so that the framework
Semilinear wave equation created here allows the treatment of hyperbolic problems (besides parabolic ones).
Specifically, our main result is illustrated with the semilinear telegraph system (thus
extending a result by N.C. Apreutesei and B. Djafari Rouhani [3]) and the semilinear
wave equation.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Let H be a real Hilbert space with scalar product denoted by ·, · and the induced norm  · . In this
paper we examine a regularization of the following semilinear Cauchy problem in H, denoted by (P0 ),

u (t) + Au(t) + Bu(t) = f (t), t ∈ [0, T ], (E)
(P0 )
u(0) = u0 , (IC)

where T > 0 is a given time instant, u0 is a given initial state, f : [0, T ] → H, and
(h1 ) A : D(A) ⊂ H → H is a linear, maximal monotone operator;

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lbarbu@univ-ovidius.ro (L. Barbu), morosanug@ceu.edu (G. Moroşanu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2016.12.055
0022-247X/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.2 (1-13)
2 L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–•••

B : H → H is a nonlinear operator satisfying one of the following two conditions

(h2 ) B is Lipschitzian on H, i.e., there exists L > 0 such that
∀x, y ∈ H,  Bx − By ≤ L  x − y ;
(h3 ) B is monotone and Lipschitzian on every bounded subset of H.

Recall that an operator N : D(N ) ⊂ H → H is said to be monotone (or −N is dissipative; or positive if N

is linear) if N x1 − N x2 , x1 − x2  ≥ 0 for all x1 , x2 ∈ D(N ). N is maximal monotone if the range of I + N
is the whole H, where I denotes the identity operator on H. Condition (h1 ) is equivalent to the fact that
−A is the infinitesimal generator of a C0 -semigroup of linear contractions (cf. Lumer–Phillips Theorem, [10,
p. 14]; see also [6, pp. 74–82, in particular Corollary 3.20, p. 79]).
Consider the second order equation

−εu (t) + u (t) + Au(t) + Bu(t) = f (t), t ∈ [0, T ], (Eε )

where ε is a small positive parameter, 0 < ε  1.

We are interested to know whether the solution of problem (P0 ) could be approximated by a solution
of (Eε ) which is more regular, as we will see next. Now, if we associate with equation (Eε ) the original
condition (IC) then we obtain a new problem which is incomplete, since (Eε ) is a second order equation.
So we need to add one additional condition to get a complete problem. We prefer the following condition

u(T ) = uT , (C)

where uT is a given convenient vector. So we obtain an approximate problem, denoted by (Pε ),


−εu (t) + u (t) + Au(t) + Bu(t) = f (t), t ∈ [0, T ],
(Pε )
u(0) = u0 , u(T ) = uT .

Such kind of approximate problems (regularizations) have been suggested by J.L. Lions in his monograph
on singular perturbations [8, see p. 407 where the case B = 0 is examined]. Lions’ motivation was that such
regularizations provide more regular solutions in t approximating the solution of the original problem (P0 )
as ε → 0. Due to the additional term −εu this method was called by J.L. Lions the method of artificial
viscosity.
Problem (Pε ) has already been investigated in [2] with the aim of approximating solutions of parabolic
semilinear problems which involve strongly positive A’s. This time we wish to prepare a framework suitable
for applications to semilinear problems in which the A’s are no longer strongly positive. In fact, we managed
to drop two assumptions from [2]: strong positivity of A and monotonicity of B if B is Lipschitz on H.
Assuming only positivity of A (instead of strong positivity) is the main advance we achieve in this paper,
thus we open the way for applications to a broad class of problems, especially hyperbolic problems. Dropping
the monotonicity of B (if (h2 ) is satisfied) is also important and allows the treatment of more applications,
even in the case of parabolic problems.
Our main theoretical result (Theorem 1) establishes, under our assumption (h1 ) and one of the assump-
tions (h2 ) and (h3 ), an asymptotic expansion of the solution uε of (Pε ) showing that uε corrected by a
boundary layer function approximates in C([0, T ]; H) the solution u of (P0 ).
In particular, according to Theorem 1, in the case of the nonlinear heat equation ut − Δu + b(u) = f (x, t),
x ∈ Ω, 0 ≤ t ≤ T (where Ω is a bounded domain ⊂ R3 ) subject to the Dirichlet or Neumann boundary
condition, it is enough to assume only the Lipschitz condition on the nonlinear function b. Note that in this
case the approximate equation (Eε ) is −εutt + ut − Δu + b(u) = f (x, t) whose dominant differential part is
an elliptic operator in (x, t). So, according to the usual terminology, introduced by J.L. Lions, in this case
and in general, (Pε ) is said to be an elliptic-like regularization.
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.3 (1-13)
L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–••• 3

We examine in the last section of the paper some significant applications related to the semilinear
telegraph system and the semilinear wave equation (see Section 4, Theorems 1 and 3).
A similar regularization of the telegraph system subject to some particular homogeneous boundary con-
ditions has been investigated in [3] under more conditions than ours (see Theorem 2, Section 4 below).
Further examples of elliptic regularizations can be found in [4, Chapter 11].

2. Preliminaries

In this section we present without proofs some results on the existence, uniqueness and regularity of the
solutions of the two problems introduced in the previous section. For more information regarding evolution
equations in Hilbert spaces, including those associated with monotone operators, we refer the reader to
[5,9–11].
First, consider in the Hilbert space H the Cauchy problem

u (t) + N u(t) = f (t), t ∈ [0, T ],
(2.1)
u(0) = u0 ,

where N : D(N ) ⊂ H → H is a single-valued operator, linear or nonlinear, and f ∈ L1 (0, T ; H).

A function u ∈ C([0, T ]; H) is said to be a strong solution of problem (2.1) if: u is absolutely continuous
on every compact subinterval of (0, T ); u(t) ∈ D(N ) for a.a. t ∈ (0, T ); u satisfies (2.1)1 for a.a. t ∈ (0, T );
u(0) = u0 .

Lemma 1. (See, e.g., [9, Theorem 2.1, p. 48 and Remark 2.1, p. 53].) If N : D(N ) ⊂ H → H is a maximal
monotone operator, u0 ∈ D(N ) and f ∈ W 1,1 (0, T ; H), then the Cauchy problem (2.1) has a unique strong
solution u ∈ W 1,∞ (0, T ; H). Moreover, u(t) ∈ D(N ) for all t ∈ [0, T ]. The conclusions still hold if N is
replaced by N + N1 , where N1 : H → H is a Lipschitz operator.

If operator A satisfies (h1 ) and B satisfies either (h2 ) or (h3 ), then obviously the sum A + B : D(A) ⊂
H → H is a maximal monotone operator. Therefore, we can derive from Lemma 1 the following result
regarding problem (P0 )

Lemma 2. If (h1 ) holds and B satisfies either (h2 ) or (h3 ), then, for every f ∈ W 1,1 (0, T ; H) and u0 ∈ D(A),
there exists a unique strong solution u ∈ W 1,∞ (0, T ; H) of problem (P0 ) satisfying u(t) ∈ D(A) for all
t ∈ [0, T ].

As far as the solution uε of problem (Pε ) is concerned, the next result is also known (see [1] and [2,
Theorem 3.1, including its proof]).

Lemma 3. Assume that (h1 ) and (h3 ) hold. If f ∈ L2 (0, T ; H) and u0 , uT ∈ D(A), then for every ε > 0
problem (Pε ) has a unique solution uε ∈ W 2,2 (0, T ; H).

Remark 1. Obviously, under the assumptions of Lemma 3 above, operator A + B is maximal monotone
(since B is maximal monotone and D(B) = H). In fact Lemma 3 holds true if (h3 ) is replaced by the
condition that A + B : D(A) ⊂ H → H is maximal monotone.

Remark 2. If A is selfadjoint then better existence and regularity results for (P0 ) and (Pε ) can be obtained
(see [2]). We don’t need such results here since the applications discussed later involve non-selfadjoint A’s.

Remark 3. Under additional conditions on the initial data higher regularity of u and uε can be obtained
(see [2]). This information might be useful if one looks for higher order asymptotic expansions of uε .
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.4 (1-13)
4 L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–•••

3. Asymptotic expansion of the solution of problem (Pε )

In [2] an asymptotic expansion of order zero of the solution uε of problem (Pε ) was derived. It was done
heuristically in a first stage by using classic arguments in perturbation theory (see [12,4]). Let us recall this
expansion

uε (t) = u(t) + c0 (τ ) + rε (t), t ∈ [0, T ], (3.1)

where τ = (T − t)/ε is the stretched (fast) variable, u is the regular term (the solution of problem (P0 )), c0
is a correction function (or boundary layer function) of order zero, while rε denotes the remainder of order
zero. In fact c0 has an explicit expression

c0 (τ ) = (uT − u(T ))e−τ ∀ τ ≥ 0, (3.2)

while rε should satisfy the problem


−ε(rε + u) + rε + Arε + Buε = Bu − Ac0 in [0, T ],
(3.3)
rε (0) = −c0 (T /ε), rε (T ) = 0.

Now let us state the main result of this section which is a significant improvement of Theorem 4.1 in [2].

Theorem 1. Assume that (h1 ) and either (h2 ) or (h3 ) are satisfied and, in addition,

f ∈ W 1,1 (0, T ; H), u0 , uT ∈ D(A). (3.4)

Then, for every ε > 0 small enough, problem (Pε ) has a unique solution uε ∈ W 2,2 (0, T ; H) that admits
an asymptotic expansion of the form (3.1), where u is the solution of problem (P0 ), c0 is defined by (3.2),
rε satisfies problem (3.3), and the following estimates hold

rε C([0,T ];H) = O(ε1/4 ),  uε − u L2 (0,T ;H) = O(ε1/2 ). (3.5)

Proof. The proof will be divided into two cases corresponding to (h2 ) and (h3 ) as follows
Case 1: (h1 ) and (h2 ) hold. In this case we need the following

Lemma 4. Assume that (h1 ) and (h2 ) are satisfied. If f ∈ L2 (0, T ; H), and u0 , uT ∈ D(A), then there exists
an ε0 > 0 (which depends on the Lipschits constant L of B) such that for all ε ∈ (0, ε0 ) problem (Pε ) has a
unique solution uε ∈ W 2,2 (0, T ; H).

Proof of Lemma 4. Multiply (Eε ) by e−M t , with M > 0 a constant which will be chosen later. Denoting
v(t) = e−M t u(t), we obtain

−εe−M t (eM t v) + v  + M v + Av + e−M t B(eM t v) − e−M t f (t) = 0, t ∈ [0, T ],
(3.7)
v(0) = u0 , v(T ) = e−M T uT =: vT .

Obviously, vT ∈ D(A). Now, define Qε : D(Qε ) ⊂ L2 (0, T ; H) → L2 (0, T ; H) by

D(Qε ) := {v ∈ W 2,2 (0, T ; H); v(0) = u0 , v(T ) = vT , Av ∈ L2 (0, T ; H)},

M
Qε (v) := −εe−M t (eM t v) + v  + v + Av.
2
T −t
Note first that D(Qε ) is a nonempty set: for example, the function v ∗ (t) = T u0 + Tt vT belongs to D(Qε ).
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.5 (1-13)
L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–••• 5

We also have for all v1 , v2 ∈ D(Qε )

T
M
Qε v1 − Qε v2 , v1 − v2 L2 ≥ −ε (eM t v1 ) − (eM t v2 ) , e−M t (v1 − v2 ) dt +  v1 − v2 2L2
2
0
M 
≥ − εM 2  v1 − v2 2L2 +ε  v1 − v2 2L2 .
2

We have denoted by ·, ·L2 ,  · L2 the usual inner product of L2 (0, T ; H) and the corresponding
 norm.

Thus, if 0 < ε < 1/(2M ), operator Qε is strongly monotone in L (0, T ; H) with constant M 2 − εM .
2 1

Moreover, Qε is maximal monotone, i.e., for all g ∈ L2 (0, T ; H) there exists v ∈ D(Qε ) such that
(M/2)v + Qε v = g (cf. Minty’s Theorem; see, e.g., [7, Theorem 1.2.2]). Indeed, using the substitution
u = eM t v we are led to the original problem in u, (Pε ), where B ≡ 0 and f (t) = eM t g(t), and we know that
this problem has a (unique) solution in W 2,2 (0, T ; H) (cf. Lemma 3).
Next, we define the operator B̃ : L2 (0, T ; H) → L2 (0, T ; H), B̃v := e−M t B(eM t v) + M
2 v. Obviously, B̃ is
Lipschitzian on L2 (0, T ; H). Since for all v1 , v2 ∈ H
M 
− L  v1 − v2 2L2 ≤ B̃v1 − B̃v2 , v1 − v2 L2 ,
2

it follows that for M := 2L operator B is monotone, hence maximal monotone (since it is also Lipschitzian).
Note that problem (3.7) can be expressed as (B̃ +Qε )(v) = e−M t f (t), where B̃ +Qε is maximal monotone
and strongly monotone on D(Qε ) ⊂ L2 (0, T ; H) with constant L(1 − 4εL) for all 0 < ε < ε0 := 1/(4L).
Obviously, the equation (B̃ + Qε )v = e−M t f (t) has a unique solution v = vε ∈ D(Qε ), i.e., for all ε ∈ (0, ε0 ),
problem (Pε ) has a unique solution uε = eM t vε ∈ W 2,2 (0, T ; H). The proof of Lemma 4 is complete. 2

The following change of function

rε (t) = rε (t) + ρε (t), ρε (t) = c0 (T /ε) · (T − t)/T, t ∈ [0, T ]

homogenizes the boundary condition (3.3)2 . From Lemmas 2, 3, 4 and relations (3.1), (3.2) we infer that,

for all ε > 0 sufficiently small, rε + u = uε − c0 + ρε ∈ W 2,2 (0, T ; H), rε ∈ W 1,∞ (0, T ; H). An easy
computation shows that rε satisfies the problem

rε + u) + rε + A
−ε( rε + B(uε ) − B(u) = hε , t ∈ [0, T ],
(3.8)
rε (0) = rε (T ) = 0,

where

hε := −c0 (T /ε) · T −1 + Aρε (t) − Ac0 (τ ). (3.9)

In order to obtain the estimates (3.5) we are going to prove

Lemma 5. Assume that the assumptions in Lemma 4 are fulfilled. If f ∈ W 1,1 (0, T ; H), then, for ε > 0
small enough, the following estimates hold

rε L2 (0,T ;H) = O(ε1/2 ), rε L2 (0,T ;H) = O(1). (3.10)

Proof of Lemma 5. Let us start with (3.8). We multiply this equation by e−M t , where the constant M > 0
will be chosen later. Denote rε := e−M t rε . Taking into account the obvious equation e−M t rε = M rε + rε ,
we infer
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.6 (1-13)
6 L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–•••


rε + (B(uε ) − B(u))e−M t = 
−εe−M t (eM t rε + u) + rε + M rε + A hε , t ∈ [0, T ],
(3.11)
rε (0) = rε (T ) = 0,

where hε := e−M t hε , t ∈ [0, T ].

Taking the scalar product in H of equation (3.11)1 and rε and then integrating over [0, T ], we derive by
using the monotonicity of A

T T T
−ε (e Mt 
rε + u) , e −M t
rε  dt + M  rε 2L2 + e −M t
B(uε ) − B(u), rε  dt ≤ 
hε , rε  dt. (3.12)
0 0 0

On the other hand, it is easily seen that

 ρε L2 = O(εj ),  A(ρε ) L2 = O(εj ), ∀j ≥ 1,

(3.13)
 c0 L2 = O(ε1/2 ),  A(c0 ) L2 = O(ε1/2 ).

Integrating by parts the first term in the left-hand side of (3.12) yields

T T

ε (e Mt
rε + u) , e−M t rε − Me −M t
rε  dt + M  rε 2L2 + e−M t B(uε ) − B(u), rε  dt
0 0

≤ 
hε L2 ·  rε L2 ,

which in view of estimates (3.13) implies

T
M (1 − εM )  rε 2L2 +ε  rε 2L2 + e−M t B(uε ) − B(u), rε  dt
(3.14)
0

≤ C1 ε  rε L2 +C2 ε  rε L2 +C3 ε1/2  rε L2 .

Here and throughout in what follows C1 , C2 , ... denote some positive constants which depend on the data,
but are independent of ε. Further, using (h2 ) and estimates (3.13), we infer that

T T
e−M t B(u) − B(uε ), rε  dt ≤ L e−M t  c0 − ρε + rε  ·  rε  dt
0 0
(3.15)
T
≤L  c0 − ρε  ·  rε  dt + L  rε 2L2 ≤ C4 ε1/2  rε L2 +L  rε 2L2 .
0

Now, choose M = 2L. Thus, (3.14) and (3.15) lead us to

L(1 − 4εL)  rε 2L2 +ε  rε 2L2 ≤ C1 ε  rε L2 +C2 ε  rε L2 +C5 ε1/2  rε L2 . (3.16)

If, for example, 0 < ε < min{1, 1/(8L)}, then we can deduce from (3.16)

L
 rε 2L2 +ε  rε 2L2 ≤ C2 ε  rε L2 +C6 ε1/2  rε L2
2
L ε
≤ C7 ε +  rε 2L2 +  rε 2L2 ,
4 2
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.7 (1-13)
L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–••• 7

where we have used the inequality ab ≤ (a2 +b2 )/2. This shows that for all 0 < ε  1 we have  rε L2 (0,T ;H) =
rε L2 (0,T ;H) = O(1). Since rε = e2Lt rε − ρε , using (3.13), we obtain (3.10). 2
O(ε1/2 ), 

Case 2: (h1 ) and (h3 ) hold. We have

Lemma 6. The conclusions of Lemma 5 remain valid if (h2 ) is replaced by (h3 ).

Proof of Lemma 6. Similar to the proof of Lemma 5. The only difference concerns the evaluation of

T −M t
0
e B(u) − B(uε ), rε  dt. Using the monotonicity of B we can infer

T T
−M t
e B(u) − B(uε ), rε  dt = − e−M t B(u + c0 + eM t rε − ρε ) − B(u + c0 − ρε ), rε  dt
0 0
(3.17)
T T
+ e−M t −B(u + c0 − ρε ) + B(u), rε  dt ≤ e−M t −B(u + c0 − ρε ) + B(u), rε  dt.
0 0

Now, using (3.13) and the Lipschitz condition for B on every bounded subset of H, we derive

T
e−M t B(u) − B(uε ), rε  dt ≤ C8  c0 − ρε L2 ·  rε L2 = O(ε1/2 )·  rε L2 (3.18)
0

(in (3.18) the constant C8 does not depend on ε, since the arguments of B in the last term of (3.17) belong
to a ball in H centered at the origin whose radius depends only on  u C([0,T ];H) ,  uT ). Thus, choosing
for example M = 1, from (3.14) and (3.18) we obtain an estimate similar to (3.16).
The conclusion of the lemma follows by arguments similar to those used in the proof of Lemma 5. 2

Summarizing all the information above, we see that in both our cases all the terms of expansion (3.1)
are well defined and satisfy the stated regularity conditions, while rε satisfies (3.10). Consequently, from
the obvious equality

T
 rε (t)  = −2
2
rε (s), rε (s) ds ∀ t ∈ [0, T ],
t

we infer that rε C([0,T ];H) = O(ε1/4 ).

Finally, (3.5)2 is an obvious consequence of estimations (3.13) and (3.10)1 . The proof of the theorem is
complete. 2

Remark 4. From (3.10) we infer rε → 0 as ε → 0, weakly in L2 (0, T ; H), i.e., d
dt uε − c0 → u , weakly in
L2 (0, T ; H).

Remark 5. The estimate (3.5)2 shows that problem (Pε ) is regularly perturbed of the zero-th order with
respect to the norm of L2 (0, T ; H), meaning that the boundary layer is not visible through this weaker
norm.

4. Applications

In this section we illustrate our theoretical results with some significant examples of hyperbolic problems.
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.8 (1-13)
8 L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–•••

4.1. Regularization of the semilinear telegraph system

Consider in DT := {(x, t) : x ∈ [0, 1] and t ∈ [0, T ]} the telegraph system


ut + vx + r(x, u) = f1 (x, t),
(4.1)
vt + ux + g(x, v) = f2 (x, t),

with initial conditions

u(x, 0) = u0 (x), v(x, 0) = v0 (x), 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, (4.2)

and the following type of boundary conditions (Ohm’s law at both the ends of the line)

−u(0, t) = r0 · v(0, t), u(1, t) = f0 · v(1, t), 0 ≤ t ≤ T, (4.3)

where r0 and f0 are given non-negative constants, and r, g : [0, 1] × R → R are given functions such that
r(·, ξ) and g(·, ξ) belong to L2 (0, 1) for all ξ ∈ R and one of the conditions (h4 ), (h5 ) below holds.
(h4 ) there exists a positive constant L > 0 such that:

| r(x, ξ) − r(x, η) |≤ L | ξ − η |, | g(x, ξ) − g(x, η) |≤ L | ξ − η |, ∀ ξ, η ∈ R and a.a. x ∈ (0, 1);

(h5 ) ξ → r(x, ξ), ξ → g(x, ξ) are nondecreasing for a.a. x ∈ (0, 1), and for all K > 0 there exists a constant
LK > 0 such that | r(x, ξ) − r(x, η) |≤ LK | ξ − η |, | g(x, ξ) − g(x, η) |≤ LK | ξ − η |, a.a. x ∈ (0, 1),
∀ | ξ |, | η |≤ K.
2
We consider the Hilbert space H1 := L2 (0, 1) , with the usual scalar product defined by

1
(p1 , q1 ), (p2 , q2 ) = (p1 p2 + q1 q2 ) dx.
0

Define the operators A1 : D(A1 ) ⊂ H1 → H1 by

 
2
D(A1 ) = (p, q) ∈ H 1 (0, 1) ; −p(0) = r0 · q(0), p(1) = f0 · q(1) ,

A1 (p, q) = (q  , p ) ,

and B1 : D(B1 ) ⊂ H1 → H1 , B1 (p, q) = (r(·, p), g(·, q)).

So, in terms of the notations used in the previous sections, problem (4.1)–(4.3) can be expressed as a
Cauchy problem in H1 :

(u , v  ) + A1 (u, v) + B1 (u, v) = (f1 (·, t), f2 (·, t)), in [0, T ],
(P01 )
u(0) = u0 , v(0) = v0 .

If (h4 ) is satisfied then B1 is Lipschitz on H1 , so B1 +ωI is maximal monotone in H1 for ω > 0 sufficiently
large, where I stands for the identity operator on H1 . It follows that A1 + B1 + ωI is maximal monotone
(see [7, Proposition 5.1.1, p. 111]). Consequently, we have the following result (cf. [7, Theorem 5.1.1, p. 115])
which also works in the case in which r, g satisfy assumption (h5 ) instead of (h4 ).

Lemma 7. Assume that r(·, ξ), g(·, ξ) ∈ L2 (0, 1) for all ξ ∈ R and either (h4 ) or (h5 ) is satisfied. Let T > 0
be fixed. Then, for every
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.9 (1-13)
L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–••• 9

f1 , f2 ∈ W 1,1 (0, T ; L2 (0, 1)), u0 , v0 ∈ H 1 (0, 1), such that

− u0 (0) = r0 · v0 (0), u0 (1) = f0 · v0 (1),

there exists a unique strong solution (u, v) of problem (P01 ) such that

(u, v) ∈ W 1,∞ (0, T ; L2 (0, 1)2 ), ux , vx ∈ L∞ (0, T ; L2 (0, 1)), u, v ∈ L∞ (DT ),

and u, v satisfy (4.3) for all t ∈ [0, T ].

The elliptic-like regularization of problem (P01 ) is given by the system


−εutt + ut + vx + r(x, u) = f1 (x, t),
(4.4)
−εvtt + vt + ux + g(x, v) = f2 (x, t), in DT ,

subject to

u(x, 0) = u0 (x), v(x, 0) = v0 (x),

(4.5)
u(x, T ) = uT (x), v(x, T ) = vT (x), 0 ≤ x ≤ 1,

and the boundary conditions

−u(0, t) = r0 · v(0, t), u(1, t) = f0 · v(1, t), 0 ≤ t ≤ T. (4.6)

An abstract form of this problem is the following


−ε(u , v  ) + (u , v  ) + A1 (u, v) + B1 (u, v) = (f1 , f2 ), t ∈ [0, T ],
(Pε1 )
u(0) = u0 , v(0) = u0 , u(T ) = uT , v(T ) = vT .

Under the assumptions of Lemma 7, if in addition (uT , vT ) ∈ D(A1 ), then for every ε > 0 small enough
problem (Pε1 ) has a unique solution (uε , vε ) ∈ W 2,2 (0, T ; L2 (0, 1)2 ) (see Lemmas 3 and 4).
The solution of problem (Pε1 ) can be written as follows (see (3.1)):

uε (x, t) = u(x, t) + c0 (x, τ ) + rε (x, t),

(4.7)
vε (x, t) = v(x, t) + d0 (x, τ ) + sε (x, t),

for all (x, t) ∈ DT , where τ = (T − t)/ε, (u, v) is the solution of the problem (4.1)–(4.3), and (cf. (3.2))

c0 (x, τ ) = (uT (x) − u(x, T ))e−τ ,

(4.8)
d0 (x, τ ) = (vT (x) − v(x, T ))e−τ , ∀x ∈ [0, 1], τ ≥ 0,

while (cf. (3.3)) the remainder terms satisfy the problem


−ε(Rε + (u, v)) + Rε + A1 Rε + B1 (uε , vε ) = B(u, v) − A1 (c0 , d0 ),
(4.9)
Rε (0) = −(c0 (·, T /ε), d0 (·, T /ε)), Rε (T ) = (0, 0),

where Rε = (rε , sε ).
Summarizing, Theorem 1 can be formulated in this specific case as follows:
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.10 (1-13)
10 L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–•••

Theorem 2. Assume that r(·, ξ), g(·, ξ) ∈ L2 (0, 1) for all ξ ∈ R and either (h4 ) or (h5 ) is satisfied and, in
addition,

(f1 , f2 ) ∈ W 1,1 (0, T ; L2 (0, 1)2 ), u0 , v0 , uT , vT ∈ H 1 (0, 1),

−u0 (0) = r0 · v0 (0), u0 (1) = f0 · v0 (1), (4.10)
−uT (0) = r0 · vT (0), uT (1) = f0 · vT (1).

Then, for every ε > 0 small enough, problem (Pε1 ) has a unique solution (uε , vε ) ∈ W 2,2 (0, T ; L2 (0, 1)2 )
that admits an asymptotic expansion of the form (4.7), where (u, v) is the solution of problem (P01 ), c0 , d0
are defined by (4.8), (rε , sε ) satisfies problem (4.9), and the following estimates hold true:

uε − u − c0 C([0,T ];L2 (0,1)) = O(ε1/4 ),  uε − u L2 (DT ) = O(ε1/2 ),

(4.11)
vε − v − d0 C([0,T ];L2 (0,1)) = O(ε1/4 ),  vε − v L2 (DT ) = O(ε1/2 ).

Proof. Theorem 2 is a direct consequence of Theorem 1 if (h4 ) holds, since in this case operator B1 is
Lipschitzian on H1 . If (h5 ) holds, then B1 is monotone, but is not necessarily Lipschitz on bounded subsets.
This property has been used to obtain the estimate (3.18). However (3.18) can be derived here by using the
local Lipschitz condition on r, g. Indeed we have for all (u, v) ∈ D(B1 ) = D(A1 )

 B1 ((u, v) + (c0 , d0 ) − (ρ1 , ρ2 )) − B1 (u, v) 2H1

 
= r(·, u + c0 − ρ1 ) − r(·, u) , g(·, v + d0 − ρ2 ) − g(·, v) 2H1
1  2 1  2
= r(·, u + c0 − ρ1 ) − r(·, u) dx + g(·, v + d0 − ρ2 ) − g(·, v) dx,
0 0

where ρ1 := c0 (T /ε) TT−t , ρ2 := d0 (T /ε) TT−t . From Lemma 7 we see that the solution (u, v) ∈ L∞ (DT )2 ,
and since by assumption u0 , v0 , uT , vT ∈ H 1 (0, 1), we obtain (by using the local Lipschitz condition on r, g)
that there exists an L1 > 0 depending on f1 , f2 , u0 , v0 , uT , vT , but independent of ε, such that

 1 1 
 B1 ((u, v) + (c0 , d0 ) − (ρ1 , ρ2 )) − B1 ((u, v)) 2H1 ≤ L1 (c0 − ρ1 ) dx +
2
(d0 − ρ2 )2 dx = O(ε).
0 0

This implies estimate (3.18), as claimed. 2

Remark 6. Similar results can be established in the case of linear algebraic-differential boundary conditions
of the form

−u(0, t) = r0 · v(0, t), vt (1, t) − u(1, t) + f0 · v(1, t) = e(t), 0 ≤ t ≤ T,

where r0 , f0 are given nonnegative constants, and e ∈ L2 (0, T ). Such conditions also occur in specific
practical problems.
It is also worth pointing out that in a similar manner further types of linear boundary conditions can be
investigated, such as differential–differential, bilocal or periodic conditions (for more information, see, e.g.,
[7, Chapter 5]).
Even more, our technique is applicable to systems consisting of n couples of telegraph systems with
unknowns ui , vi , i = 1, 2, ..., n, connected by various linear conditions at x = 0 and x = 1, as in the case of
integrated circuits.
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.11 (1-13)
L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–••• 11

4.2. Regularization of the semilinear wave equation

In what follows we are concerned with the wave equation

utt − Δu + β(ut ) = f (x, t), (x, t) ∈ Ω × (0, ∞), (4.12)

with initial conditions

u(x, 0) = u0 (x), ut (x, 0) = v0 (x), x ∈ Ω, (4.13)

and the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition

u(x, t) = 0 on Γ × [0, ∞), (4.14)

where Ω ⊂ Rn is a bounded domain with sufficiently smooth boundary Γ, and

(h6 ) β : R → R is Lipschitzian on R.
In this case, we consider as usual the Hilbert space (phase space) H2 = H01 (Ω) × L2 (Ω) with the scalar
product defined by
 
(p1 , q1 ), (p2 , q2 ) = ∇p1 , ∇p2  dx + q1 q2 dx,
Ω Ω

and define the operators A2 : D(A2 ) ⊂ H2 → H2 by

D(A2 ) := {(p, q) ∈ H01 (Ω)2 ; Δp ∈ L2 (Ω)}, A2 (p, q) = (−q, −Δp),

 
and B2 : H2 → H2 , B2 (p, q) = (0, β(q)). In fact, D(A2 ) = H01 (Ω) ∩ H 2 (Ω) × H01 (Ω).
Obviously, problem (4.12)–(4.14) can be expressed as a Cauchy problem in H2 as follows

U  (t) + A2 U (t) + B2 (U (t)) = F (t), t ∈ [0, T ],
(P02 )
U (0) = U0 ,

where U (t) := (u(·, t), ut (·, t)), F (t) := (0, f (·, t)), U0 := (u0 , v0 ).
According to [9, p. 209; see also Theorem 2.1, p. 48 and Remark 2.1, p. 53], we have

Lemma 8. Assume (h6 ). Let T > 0 be fixed. Then, for every

f ∈ W 1,1 (0, T ; L2 (Ω)), u0 ∈ H01 (Ω) ∩ H 2 (Ω), v0 ∈ H01 (Ω),

there exists a unique strong solution u of problem (P02 ) such that

u ∈ W 1,∞ (0, T ; H01 (Ω)) ∩ W 2,∞ (0, T ; L2 (Ω)),

u(·, t) ∈ H01 (Ω) ∩ H 2 (Ω), for all t ∈ [0, T ].

The elliptic-like regularization of problem (P02 ) is


−εU  + U  + A2 U + B2 (U ) = F (t), t ∈ [0, T ],
(Pε2 )
U (0) = U0 , U (T ) = UT ,

where UT := (uT , vT ), or, equivalently,

JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.12 (1-13)
12 L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–•••

⎧
⎪
⎪ −εutt + ut − v = 0,
⎪
⎪
⎨ −εvtt + vt − Δu + β(v) = f in Ω × [0, T ],
⎪
⎪ u = v = 0 on Γ × [0, ∞),
⎪
⎪
⎩
u(·, 0) = u0 , v(·, 0) = v0 , u(·, T ) = uT , v(·, T ) = vT in Ω.

According to our results in Section 3, if the assumptions of Lemma 8 are fulfilled and in addition (uT , vT )
∈ D(A2 ) then, for each ε > 0 sufficiently small, problem (Pε2 ) has a unique solution

Uε := (uε , vε ) ∈ W 2,2 (0, T ; H01 (Ω) × L2 (Ω)).

In fact, uε is more regular. Indeed, from the equation

−ε(uε )tt + (uε )t − vε = 0,

it follows that uε ∈ W 4,2 (0, T ; L2 (Ω)). Even more, from the equation

−ε(vε )tt + (vε )t − Δuε + β(vε ) = f,

we derive Δuε ∈ L2 (0, T ; L2 (Ω)) and hence

uε ∈ W 4,2 (0, T ; L2 (Ω)) ∩ W 2,2 (0, T ; H01 (Ω)) ∩ L2 (0, T ; H 2 (Ω)),

showing that the effect of the regularization is significant.

We also have the asymptotic expansion

uε (x, t) = u(x, t) + l0 (x, τ ) + rε (x, t),

(4.15)
vε (x, t) = ut (x, t) + j0 (x, τ ) + sε (x, t), x ∈ Ω, t ∈ [0, T ],

where u is the solution of problem (4.12)–(4.14),

l0 (x, τ ) = (uT (x) − u(x, T ))e−τ ,

(4.16)
j0 (x, τ ) = (vT (x) − v(x, T ))e−τ , ∀x ∈ Ω, τ ≥ 0,

τ = (T − t)/ε, and the remainder (rε , sε ) satisfies the problem derived from (3.3), where A and B are
replaced by A2 and B2 , respectively.
In view of (h6 ), B2 is a Lipschitz operator on H2 . Indeed, for all (u, v), (u1 , v1 ) ∈ H2 , we have

 B2 (u, v) − B2 (u1 , v1 ) H2 = β(v) − β(v1 ) L2 (Ω) ≤ Lβ  v − v1 L2 (Ω) ≤ Lβ  (u, v) − (u1 , v1 ) H2 ,

where Lβ is the Lipschitz constant of β.

Taking into account Theorem 1 and the above comments, we can state

Theorem 3. Assume that (h6 ) is satisfied and, in addition,

f ∈ W 1,1 (0, T ; L2 (Ω)), u0 , uT ∈ H01 (Ω) ∩ H 2 (Ω), v0 , vT ∈ H01 (Ω).

Then, for every ε > 0 small enough, problem (Pε2 ) has a unique solution

(uε , vε ) ∈ W 4,2 (0, T ; L2 (Ω)) ∩ W 2,2 (0, T ; H01 (Ω)) ∩ L2 (0, T ; H 2 (Ω)) × W 2,2 (0, T ; L2 (Ω)),
JID:YJMAA AID:20995 /FLA Doctopic: Partial Differential Equations [m3L; v1.194; Prn:30/12/2016; 11:10] P.13 (1-13)
L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu / J. Math. Anal. Appl. ••• (••••) •••–••• 13

which admits an asymptotic expansion of the form (4.15), where (u, v) is the solution of problem (P02 ), l0 , j0
are defined by (4.16), and the following estimates hold

uε − u − l0 C([0,T ];L2 (Ω)) = O(ε1/4 ),  uε − u L2 (0,T ;H01 (Ω)) = O(ε1/2 ),

vε − ut − j0 C([0,T ];L2 (Ω)) = O(ε1/4 ),  vε − ut L2 (0,T ;L2 (Ω)) = O(ε1/2 ).

Remark 7. It is easily seen that a result similar to Theorem 3 above is valid if β is a Lipschitz continuous
function depending on u. Also, other types of linear boundary conditions can be analyzed in a similar
manner. The case of nonlinear boundary conditions is more delicate since in this case operator A is no
longer linear. We plan to tackle such nonlinear problems in a forthcoming paper.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their remarks and helpful suggestions.

References

[1] A.R. Aftabizadeh, N.H. Pavel, Boundary value problems for second order differential equations and a convex problem of
Bolza, Differential Integral Equations 2 (1989) 495–509.
[2] M. Ahsan, G. Moroşanu, Elliptic-like regularization of semilinear evolution equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 396 (2012)
759–771.
[3] N.C. Apreutesei, B. Djafari Rouhani, Elliptic regularization for the semi-linear telegraph system, Nonlinear Anal. 35 (2010)
3049–3061.
[4] L. Barbu, G. Moroşanu, Singularly Perturbed Boundary Value Problems, Birkhäuser, Basel–Boston–Berlin, 2007.
[5] H. Brezis, Operateurs maximaux monotones et semi-groupes de contractions dans les espaces de Hilbert, Math. Stud.,
vol. 5, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1973.
[6] K.-J. Engel, R. Nagel, A Short Course on Operator Semigroups, Springer, 2010.
[7] V.-M. Hokkanen, G. Moroşanu, Functional Methods in Differential Equations, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton–
London–New York–Washington, D.C., 2002.
[8] J.L. Lions, Perturbations singulières dans les problèmes aux limites et en contrôl optimal, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 323,
Springer, Berlin, 1973.
[9] G. Moroşanu, Nonlinear Evolution Equations and Applications, D. Reidel, Dordrecht–Boston–Lancaster–Tokyo, 1988.
[10] A. Pazy, Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications to Partial Differential Equations, Springer, New York, 1983.
[11] R.E. Showalter, Monotone Operators in Banach Space and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations, Math. Surveys
Monogr., vol. 49, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997.
[12] A.B. Vasilieva, V.F. Butuzov, V. Kalashev, The Boundary Function Method for Singular Perturbation Problems, SIAM
Stud. Appl. Math., vol. 14, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1995.