License: arXiv.org perpetual non-exclusive license
arXiv:2602.14412v2 [math.AP] 25 Jun 2026

The small Deborah number limit for the compressible fluid-particle flows

Zhendong Fang
School of Mathematics and Information Science, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, P. R. China
zdfang@gzhu.edu.cn
, Kunlun Qi
Department of Computational Mathematics, Science and Engineering and Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
qikunlun@msu.edu; kunlunqi.math@gmail.com
and Huanyao Wen
School of Mathematics, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510641, P. R. China
mahywen@scut.edu.cn
Abstract.

In this paper, we consider the hydrodynamic limit for the fluid-particle flows governed by the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation coupled with the compressible Navier-Stokes equation as the Deborah number tends to zero. The proof is based on a formal derivation via the Hilbert expansion around the limiting system, the rigorous justification of which is completed by the refined energy estimates involving the macro-micro decomposition. Compared with the existing results obtained by the relative entropy argument ([A. Mellet and A. F. Vasseur, Comm. Math. Phys., 281 (2008), pp. 573–596]), the present work extends to a pointwise convergence of the hydrodynamic limits with an explicit rate for the fluid-particle coupled model.

Key words and phrases:
Compressible Navier-Stokes equation, Vlasov-Fokker-Plank equation, Navier-Stokes-Smoluchowski equation, Hydrodynamic limit, Pointwise convergence, Hilbert Expansion.
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 35Q99; 35B25; 35Q30; 35B40. Second: 82C40; 76N10.

1. Introduction

1.1. The model

Many natural phenomena are described by the fluid-particle two-phase flow models, including the droplets of spray, diesel engines, sedimentation analysis, biotechnology, medicine, and mineral processes [3, 4, 40], where one phase is considered as a suspension of particles within the other phase thought as a fluid. One of the models that has been widely considered is the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation coupled with the compressible Navier-Stokes equations (VFP-CNS):

{tf+vxf=9π2R2ρPdivv[k𝒯vf+(vu)f],ρF[t(ρu)+divx(ρuu)+xP~(ρ)]+L~u=6πμ~R3(vu)f𝑑v,tρ+divx(ρu)=0,\left\{\begin{aligned} &\partial_{t}f+v\cdot\nabla_{x}f=\frac{9\pi}{2R^{2}\rho_{P}}\mathrm{div}_{v}\big[\frac{k\mathcal{T}}{\mathcal{M}}\nabla_{v}f+(v-u)f\big],\\[3.0pt] &\rho_{F}\big[\partial_{t}(\rho u)+\mathrm{div}_{x}(\rho u\otimes u)+\nabla_{x}\tilde{P}(\rho)\big]+\tilde{L}u=6\pi\tilde{\mu}R\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}(v-u)f\,dv,\\[3.0pt] &\partial_{t}\rho+\mathrm{div}_{x}(\rho u)=0,\end{aligned}\right. (1.1)

where f(t,x,v)f(t,x,v) is the density distribution function of the particles, ρ(t,x)\rho(t,x), u(t,x)u(t,x) denote the density and velocity of the fluid at time t0t\geq 0, position x=(x1,x2,x3)3x=(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3})\in\mathbb{R}^{3}, velocity v=(v1,v2,v3)3v=(v_{1},v_{2},v_{3})\in\mathbb{R}^{3} respectively. P~(ρ)=A~ργ\tilde{P}(\rho)=\tilde{A}\rho^{\gamma} denotes the pressure function with A~>0,γ>1\tilde{A}>0,\,\gamma>1, L~u=μ~Δxu(μ~+λ~)xdivxu\tilde{L}u=-\tilde{\mu}\Delta_{x}u-(\tilde{\mu}+\tilde{\lambda})\nabla_{x}\textup{div}_{x}u is the so-called the Lame´\acute{\text{e}} operator with constants μ~+λ~>0\tilde{\mu}+\tilde{\lambda}>0 and μ~>0\tilde{\mu}>0 being the dynamic viscosity of the fluid. RR, \mathcal{M} and ρP\rho_{P} are the radius, mass and associated mass density of one single spherical particle, respectively. ρF\rho_{F} is the mass density of the fluid, kk is the Boltzmann constant, and 𝒯>0\mathcal{T}>0 is the temperature of the suspension that is assumed to be constant throughout this paper as in [22].

After re-normalization as in [10], we can deduce the scaled VFP-CNS system in the dimensionless form by introducing χ=𝒫ρFU2\chi=\frac{\mathscr{P}}{\rho_{F}U^{2}}, the Mach number Ma, Reynolds number Re, and Deborah number De:

{tf+1Mavxf=1Dedivv[vf+(vMau)f],t(ρu)+divx(ρuu)+χxP(ρ)+1ReLu=ρPρFMaDe3(vMau)f𝑑v,tρ+divx(ρu)=0,\left\{\begin{aligned} &\partial_{t}f+\frac{1}{\textup{Ma}}v\cdot\nabla_{x}f=\frac{1}{\textup{De}}\mathrm{div}_{v}\big[\nabla_{v}f+(v-\textup{Ma}\,u)f\big],\\[3.0pt] &\partial_{t}(\rho u)+\mathrm{div}_{x}(\rho u\otimes u)+\chi\nabla_{x}P(\rho)+\frac{1}{\textup{Re}}Lu=\frac{\rho_{P}}{\rho_{F}\textup{Ma}\,\textup{De}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}(v-\textup{Ma}\,u)f\,dv,\\[3.0pt] &\partial_{t}\rho+\mathrm{div}_{x}(\rho u)=0,\end{aligned}\right. (1.2)

where 𝒫\mathscr{P} is a pressure unit, UU is a macroscopic velocity unit, P(ρ)=AργP(\rho)=A\rho^{\gamma} with A>0A>0 and Lu=29μ~L~u:=μΔxu(μ+λ)xdivxuLu=\frac{2}{9\tilde{\mu}}\tilde{L}u:=-\mu\Delta_{x}u-(\mu+\lambda)\nabla_{x}\textup{div}_{x}u with dimensionless constant μ>0,μ+λ>0\mu>0,\mu+\lambda>0. We refer to [27, 36] for more physical background about the dimensionless analysis as well as the Mach number Ma, Reynolds number Re, and Deborah number De.

In this paper, the small Deborah number limit in the light particles regime is considered for the scaled VFP-CNS system (1.2) in the sense that

χ=1,Ma=ε,Re=1,De=ε2,ρPρF=ε2.\displaystyle\chi=1,\quad\textup{Ma}=\varepsilon,\quad\textup{Re}=1,\quad\textup{De}=\varepsilon^{2},\quad\frac{\rho_{P}}{\rho_{F}}=\varepsilon^{2}. (1.3)

Then the scaled VFP-CNS system (1.2) can be rewritten as

{tfε+1εvxfε=1ε2divv[vfε+(vεuε)fε],t(ρεuε)+divx(ρεuεuε)+xP(ρε)+Luε=1ε3(vεuε)fε𝑑v,tρε+divx(ρεuε)=0,(fε,uε,ρε)|t=0=(fε,in(x,v),uε,in(x),ρε,in(x))(M,0,1),as|x|+,\left\{\begin{aligned} &\partial_{t}f^{\varepsilon}+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}v\cdot\nabla_{x}f^{\varepsilon}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\mathrm{div}_{v}\big[\nabla_{v}f^{\varepsilon}+(v-\varepsilon u^{\varepsilon})f^{\varepsilon}\big],\\[3.0pt] &\partial_{t}(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon})+\mathrm{div}_{x}(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}\otimes u^{\varepsilon})+\nabla_{x}P(\rho^{\varepsilon})+Lu^{\varepsilon}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}(v-\varepsilon u^{\varepsilon})f^{\varepsilon}\,dv,\\[3.0pt] &\partial_{t}\rho^{\varepsilon}+\mathrm{div}_{x}(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon})=0,\\[3.0pt] &(f^{\varepsilon},u^{\varepsilon},\rho^{\varepsilon})|_{t=0}=\big(f^{\varepsilon,in}(x,v),u^{\varepsilon,in}(x),\rho^{\varepsilon,in}(x)\big)\to(M,0,1),\quad\textup{as}\,\quad|x|\to+\infty,\end{aligned}\right. (1.4)

where M:=M(v)M:=M(v) is a global normalized Maxwellian equilibrium given by:

M(v)=1(2π)32e|v|22.M(v)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\textup{e}^{-\frac{|v|^{2}}{2}}. (1.5)

Inspired by [22], taking ε0\varepsilon\to 0, the Navier-Stokes-Smoluchowski (NSS) equation is formally deduced (see Section 2) for (n0(t,x),u0(t,x),ρ0(t,x))\big(n_{0}(t,x),u_{0}(t,x),\rho_{0}(t,x)\big):

{tn0+divx(u0n0)=Δxn0,t(ρ0u0)+divx(ρ0u0u0)+xP(ρ0)+Lu0+xn0=0,tρ0+divx(ρ0u0)=0,(n0,u0,ρ0)|t=0=(n0in(x),u0in(x),ρ0in(x))(1,0,1),as|x|+.\left\{\begin{aligned} &\partial_{t}n_{0}+\textup{div}_{x}(u_{0}n_{0})=\Delta_{x}n_{0},\\[3.0pt] &\partial_{t}(\rho_{0}u_{0})+\textup{div}_{x}(\rho_{0}u_{0}\otimes u_{0})+\nabla_{x}P(\rho_{0})+Lu_{0}+\nabla_{x}n_{0}=0,\\[3.0pt] &\partial_{t}\rho_{0}+\mathrm{div}_{x}(\rho_{0}u_{0})=0,\\[3.0pt] &(n_{0},u_{0},\rho_{0})|_{t=0}=\big(n_{0}^{in}(x),u_{0}^{in}(x),\rho_{0}^{in}(x)\big)\to(1,0,1),\quad\textup{as}\,\quad|x|\to+\infty.\end{aligned}\right. (1.6)

1.2. Previous results and our contributions

Due to its physical significance, the fluid-particle two-phase model has attracted people’s attention for a long time, which can be traced back to the work of Caflish-Papanicolaou in [7]. In the seminal work [22, 23], Goudon-Jabin-Vasseur first established a systematic framework to study the particle-fluid two-phase flow, i.e., the VFP equation coupled with incompressible Navier-Stokes equation, where their study involved two distinct scalings for the light particles (density of the particle is much less than the fluid density, i.e., ρP/ρF=O(ε2)\rho_{P}/\rho_{F}=O(\varepsilon^{2})) and fine particles (density of the particle is of the same order as gas density, i.e., ρPρF\rho_{P}\approx\rho_{F}), as informed by dimensional analysis; our model (1.4) follows the scaling proposed in [22], though the compressible Navier-Stokes equation is considered to be coupled with the VFP equation.

To clearly state our contributions in this paper, we begin with a comprehensive overview of the fluid-particle model, encompassing the previous results of both its well-posedness and hydrodynamic limit; furthermore, the mathematical challenges and contributions of our work are illustrated for comparison.

Previous results for “well-posedness” of the fluid-particle model: There are many results concerning the well-posedness of the VFP equation coupled with the compressible Navier-Stokes system. Mellet-Vasseur studied the existence of global weak solutions to the VFP-CNS system with Dirichlet or reflection boundary conditions in [32]. Li-Mu-Wang in [28] obtained the global well-posedness of a strong solution when the initial data is a small perturbation of some given equilibrium, along with the algebraic convergence rate of a solution toward the equilibrium, and similar results can be extended to the VFP equation coupled with the non-isentropic CNS equation by Mu-Wang in [34]. Recently, the existence of a global-in-time strong solution to the VFP-CNS system with specular reflection boundary conditions was proved by Li-Liu-Yang in [29]. Besides, in the presence of various boundary conditions, the global existence of weak solutions to the incompressible case has been shown in [8, 29, 39, 41], and we refer the readers to our previous work [21] and the references therein for more results regarding the VFP-INS model. As for VFP equation coupled with the Euler equations, Carrillo-Duan-Moussa [9] and Duan-Liu [16] proved the existence and large time behaviors of the classical solutions to the Cauchy problem, while the stability and asymptotic analysis of such a model was studied by Carrillo-Goudon in [10].

Previous results for “hydrodynamic limit” and “limiting two-phase model”: Another important research field of the fluid-particle model is its hydrodynamic limit. Carrillo-Goudon in [10] first studied the VFP equation coupled with the compressible Euler equations, where they formally derived the hydrodynamic model in the so-called “bubbling” and “flowing” regime with different scalings. The rigorous justifications for hydrodynamic limit in these two regimes were completed by Mellet-Vasseur [33] and Ballew [2], respectively. It is worth mentioning that both results relied on the relative entropy method (also called the “modulated energy” method for different asymptotic problems), which is reminiscent of the weak-strong uniqueness principle by Dafermos [5] and Lions [30]. Recently, Choi-Jung also applied a similar strategy to study the case of VFP equation coupled with compressible Navier-Stokes equations with a density-dependent viscosity [12]. The hydrodynamic limit results of the VFP equation coupled with the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations were established by Goudon-Jabin-Vasseur in [22, 23] via the weak compactness and relative entropy argument. In our previous work [21], we further rigorously justified the hydrodynamic limit with an explicit convergent rate by designing a new expansion form and applying the refined energy estimate.

Furthermore, to rigorously justify the hydrodynamic limit in a stronger topology (e.g., pointwise), it is essential to rely on the well-posedness and regularity theory of the limiting system. In fact, the limiting two-phase system in the so-called “bubbling” regime [10, Section 4.3] corresponds to the NSS system (1.6). Within this framework, Huang-Ding-Wen established the local existence and uniqueness of the strong solutions to the compressible NSS system in [24], which was later extended to global-in-time solutions for initial data with small energy near equilibrium in [14]. In the presence of a “small” external potential, the global existence of classical solutions was further proved by Ding-Huang-Li in [13]. For additional results on the NSS system, we refer the reader to [1, 11, 20]. Although this paper primarily focuses on the “bubbling” regime, another class of two-phase limiting models, arising from the “flowing” regime [10, Section 4.2], has attracted significant attention in recent years. In [37], Vasseur-Wen-Yu established the global existence of weak solutions for a bi-fluid two-phase model with a pressure law. This result was further generalized by Novotny-Pokorny in [35] and Wen in [38]. In [6], Bresch-Mucha-Zatorska proved the global existence of weak solutions to a related two-fluid compressible Stokes system for more general adiabatic index. For further developments on the limiting two-phase system in the “flowing” regime, we refer the reader to [18, 19, 26]. These results mentioned above motivate our future goal of rigorously justifying the hydrodynamic limit in the “flowing” regime.

Mathematical challenges and our contributions: As we discussed above, in the previous results concerning the hydrodynamic limit of the VFP-CNS system [2, 33], the proof essentially relied on the relative entropy argument. Albeit successful, the pointwise convergence seems to be tough to obtain through the “modulated energy” method. As a consequence, our main purpose in this paper is to rigorously justify the hydrodynamic limit from the VFP-CNS system (1.4) to the NSS system (1.6) in a pointwise sense with an explicit convergence rate. Specifically speaking, we start with looking for a special class of solutions to the scaled kinetic-fluid coupled system (1.4) in the form of Hilbert expansion, where, in contrast with the previous scalings corresponding to the flow regime [33] and bubble regime [2], we take the scaling in (1.4) from [22] to model the two-phase flow of light particles. The key point here is that the Hilbert expansion is taken around the classical solution to our limiting macroscopic system (1.6), hence, the essential part of the proof lies in the establishment of the uniform energy estimate for the remainder system (3.2), which is manageable thanks to its less singular and nonlinear property than the original coupled system (1.4). Note that this sort of strategy and expansion has been applied in justifying the stability of the Boltzmann equation near Couette flows in [17], the hydrodynamic limit of the self-organized kinetic equation coupled with a fluid equation in [25], as well as the VFP equation coupled with the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in our preceding work [21]. However, even though the decomposition framework has proven highly effective for incompressible flows, extending this methodology to the compressible regime is highly non-trivial. The critical challenges, along with the novelties of our strategies, are illustrated below:

  • In contrast with the incompressible case, where the density is a constant, the appearances of the extra continuity equation and the density-dependent pressure function in the coupled compressible Navier-Stokes equation bring more difficulties in our analysis. The notable challenge arises from the strong couplings between the momentum equations and the continuity equation, leading to severe singularity in the remainder system such that the usual expansion form of (fε,uε,ρε)(f^{\varepsilon},u^{\varepsilon},\rho^{\varepsilon}), directly derived from the classical Hilbert expansion, would no longer be sufficient to directly handle the singular terms via dissipation. Hence, we construct the expansion (1.14) based on our observation and formal analysis (see Section 2). Note that the primary distinction of the expansion in the compressible case lies in the extra density expansion of ρε=ρ0+ερ=(1+h0)+ερ\rho^{\varepsilon}=\rho_{0}+\varepsilon\rho=(1+h_{0})+\varepsilon\rho. Still, balancing the nonlinear pressure terms gives rise to a distinctive singular term 1εR2\frac{1}{\varepsilon}R_{2} in (3.3) in the compressible case,

    To address this, we introduce a new auxiliary function (e.g., BαγB^{\gamma}_{\alpha} in Lemma 3.1)

    Bγα=xα[(1+h0+ερ)γ]xα[(1+h0)γ]γε(1+h0+ερ)γ1xαρ,B^{\alpha}_{\gamma}=\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\left[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma}\right]-\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\left[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma}\right]-\gamma\varepsilon(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{{\gamma}-1}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,

    and explicitly calculate its spatial derivatives before applying Taylor’s expansion to each resulting component, where an 𝒪(ε)\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon) term naturally emerges and exactly cancels out the singularity of 1ε\frac{1}{\varepsilon} inherent in the pressure term. This crucial cancellation enables us to uniformly control the nonlinearity from the pressure term and successfully close the energy estimates. This newly-designed expansion profile provides the “optimal” order of convergence in the sense of aligning with the order of singularity in the remainder system (3.2). It is worth mentioning that the applications of such a novel strategy, i.e., re-designing the expansion form to match the singular behavior and close the energy estimate, are expected to be extensively fruitful, especially when the high-order singularity exists.

  • In addition, our study extends the previous convergence results by the relative entropy method [2, 33] to a pointwise convergence (see Corollary 1.1), thanks to the high-regularity estimates. To this end, we apply dedicated energy estimates to the reminder system (3.2) by proposing the refined energy/dissipation structures that incorporate higher regularity in both spatial and velocity variables (see Section 3.2). More specifically, our refined energy/dissipation functionals (3.9) are designed based on the well-established macro-micro decomposition [15] such that they consist of contributions from both macroscopic and microscopic parts, which also perfectly match our new expansion form (see (1.14)). The refined total energy estimate of the reminder system (3.2) can be found in Proposition 3.2.

1.3. Notations

The notations that will be used throughout this paper are introduced as follows:

(i) A1B1A_{1}\lesssim B_{1} stands for A1CB1A_{1}\leq CB_{1} with generic constant C>0C>0. A1B1A_{1}\sim B_{1} stands for C1A1B1C2A1C_{1}A_{1}\leq B_{1}\leq C_{2}A_{1} with some generic constants C1,C2>0C_{1},C_{2}>0.

(ii) For multi-indices α=(α1,α2,α3)\alpha=(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}) and β=(β1,β2,β3)\beta=(\beta_{1},\beta_{2},\beta_{3}), we denote

xα=x1α1x2α2x3α3,vβ=v1β1v2β2v3β3.\partial_{x}^{\alpha}=\partial_{x_{1}}^{\alpha_{1}}\partial_{x_{2}}^{\alpha_{2}}\partial_{x_{3}}^{\alpha_{3}},\quad\partial_{v}^{\beta}=\partial_{v_{1}}^{\beta_{1}}\partial_{v_{2}}^{\beta_{2}}\partial_{v_{3}}^{\beta_{3}}.

(iii) For d,ed,e\in\mathbb{N}, we denote the following inner-product and the spaces:

u,wx=\displaystyle\langle u,w\rangle_{x}= 3uw𝑑x,f,gv=3fg𝑑v,uLx2=u,ux12,fLv2=f,fv12,\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}uw\,dx,\,\quad\langle f,g\rangle_{v}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}fg\,dv,\,\quad\|u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}=\langle u,u\rangle_{x}^{\frac{1}{2}},\,\quad\|f\|_{L^{2}_{v}}=\langle f,f\rangle_{v}^{\frac{1}{2}},
f,gx,v=\displaystyle\langle f,g\rangle_{x,v}= 33fg𝑑v𝑑x,fLx,v2=f,fx,v12,\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}fg\,dvdx,\,\quad\|f\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}=\langle f,f\rangle_{x,v}^{\frac{1}{2}},

Hxd:=\displaystyle H^{d}_{x}= {u(x)|xαuLx2<,for any|α|d},\displaystyle\big\{u(x)\ \big|\ \|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}<\infty,\,\textup{for any}\,|\alpha|\leq d\big\},
Hx,vd:=\displaystyle H^{d}_{x,v}= {f(x,v)|xαvβfLx,v2<,for any|α|+|β|d},\displaystyle\big\{f(x,v)\ \big|\ \|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}f\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}<\infty,\,\textup{for any}\,|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq d\big\},
x,vd:=\displaystyle\mathcal{H}^{d}_{x,v}= {f(x,v)|xαvβ+β1fLx,v2<,for any|α|+|β|+|β1|dand|β1|=1},\displaystyle\big\{f(x,v)\ \big|\ \|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta+\beta_{1}}f\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}<\infty,\,\textup{for any}\,|\alpha|+|\beta|+|\beta_{1}|\leq d\,\text{and}\,|\beta_{1}|=1\big\},
HxdHve:=\displaystyle H^{d}_{x}H^{e}_{v}= {f(x,v)|xαvβfLx,v2<,for any|α|d,|β|e}.\displaystyle\big\{f(x,v)\ \big|\ \|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}f\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}<\infty,\,\textup{for any}\,|\alpha|\leq d,\,|\beta|\leq e\big\}.

Let ν(v)=1+|v|2\nu(v)=1+|v|^{2} and denote ν\|\cdot\|_{\nu} by

fν=(33|vf(x,v)|2+|f(x,v)|2ν(v)dvdx)12.\|f\|_{\nu}=\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}|\partial_{v}f(x,v)|^{2}+|f(x,v)|^{2}\nu(v)\,dv\,dx\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}.

(iv) By following [15], the velocity orthogonal projection 𝐏:Lv2Span{M,v1M,v2M,v3M}\mathbf{P}\textup{:}\,L^{2}_{v}\to\textup{Span}\{\sqrt{M},v_{1}\sqrt{M},v_{2}\sqrt{M},v_{3}\sqrt{M}\} is denoted as

𝐏=𝐏0𝐏1,𝐏0g=aM,𝐏1g=vbM\mathbf{P}=\mathbf{P}_{0}\oplus\mathbf{P}_{1},\quad\mathbf{P}_{0}g=a\sqrt{M},\quad\mathbf{P}_{1}g=v\cdot b\sqrt{M}

with

a=3gM𝑑vandb=3gvM𝑑v.a=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}g\sqrt{M}\,dv\quad\text{and}\quad b=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}gv\sqrt{M}\,dv.

The linearized Fokker-Planck operator \mathcal{L} is denoted as

g=1Mdivv[Mv(gM)],\mathcal{L}g=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}\big[M\nabla_{v}(\frac{g}{\sqrt{M}})\big],

with Ker=Span{M}\textup{Ker}\mathcal{L}=\textup{Span}\{\sqrt{M}\} in Lv2L^{2}_{v} norm, and \mathcal{L} can be decomposed by

g=(𝐈𝐏)g+𝐏1g.\mathcal{L}g=\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g+\mathbf{P}_{1}g. (1.7)

Notice that 𝐈𝐏0\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0}, 𝐈𝐏\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P} is self-adjoint in Hx,vdH^{d}_{x,v}, i.e., for any f,gHx,vdf,g\in H^{d}_{x,v},

xα(𝐈𝐏0)f,xαgx,v=xαf,xα(𝐈𝐏0)gx,v,xα(𝐈𝐏)f,xαgx,v=xαf,xα(𝐈𝐏)gx,v,\displaystyle\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0})f,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}=\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}f,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0})g\rangle_{x,v}\,,\quad\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})f,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}=\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}f,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}\,, (1.8)

and it can be verified that

(𝐈𝐏0)(𝐈𝐏)=𝐈𝐏,(𝐈𝐏0)(𝐈𝐏0)=𝐈𝐏0,(𝐈𝐏)(𝐈𝐏)=𝐈𝐏.\displaystyle(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0})(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})=\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P},\quad(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0})(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0})=\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0},\quad(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})=\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}. (1.9)

According to [9], the dissipative property holds for \mathcal{L}, i.e., there exists a constant c0>0c_{0}>0 such that

c0(𝐈𝐏)fν2+bLx22f,fx,v.c_{0}\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})f\|_{\nu}^{2}+\|b\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\leq\langle\mathcal{L}f,f\rangle_{x,v}. (1.10)

1.4. Main results

Let h0(t,x):=ρ0(t,x)1,m0(t,x):=n0(t,x)1h_{0}(t,x):=\rho_{0}(t,x)-1,m_{0}(t,x):=n_{0}(t,x)-1, the NSS system (1.6) becomes

{tm0+divx[(1+m0)u0]=Δxm0,t[(1+h0)u0]+divx[(1+h0)u0u0]+xP(1+h0)+Lu0+xm0=0,th0+divx[(1+h0)u0]=0,(m0,u0,h0)|t=0=(m0in,u0in,h0in)(0,0,0),as|x|+.\left\{\begin{aligned} &\partial_{t}m_{0}+\textup{div}_{x}\big[(1+m_{0})u_{0}\big]=\Delta_{x}m_{0},\\[4.0pt] &\partial_{t}[(1+h_{0})u_{0}]+\textup{div}_{x}[(1+h_{0})u_{0}\otimes u_{0}]+\nabla_{x}P(1+h_{0})+Lu_{0}+\nabla_{x}m_{0}=0,\\[4.0pt] &\partial_{t}h_{0}+\textup{div}_{x}[(1+h_{0})u_{0}]=0,\\[4.0pt] &(m_{0},u_{0},h_{0})|_{t=0}=(m_{0}^{in},u^{in}_{0},h_{0}^{in})\to(0,0,0),\quad\textup{as}\quad|x|\to+\infty.\end{aligned}\right. (1.11)

For the NSS system (1.11) above, we have the following well-posedness result:

Proposition 1.1.

Assume that the initial data (m0in,u0in,h0in)(m_{0}^{in},u_{0}^{in},h_{0}^{in}) satisfy
(i) 1+infx3h0in(x)>01+\inf_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{3}}h_{0}^{in}(x)>0,
(ii) (m0in,u0in,h0in)Hx6×Hx6×Hx6(m_{0}^{in},u_{0}^{in},h_{0}^{in})\in H^{6}_{x}\times H^{6}_{x}\times H^{6}_{x}.
Then, there exists a small constant δ0>0\delta_{0}>0 such that if (m0in,u0in,h0in)Hx62δ0\|(m_{0}^{in},u_{0}^{in},h_{0}^{in})\|_{H^{6}_{x}}^{2}\leq\delta_{0} with u0in(x)𝑑x=0\int u_{0}^{in}(x)dx=0, the system (1.11) admits a unique global-in-time solution (m0,u0,h0)(m_{0},u_{0},h_{0}) satisfying

(m0,u0)C0([0,+);Hx6)C1([0,+);Hx4),h0C0([0,+);Hx6)C1([0,+);Hx5).(m_{0},u_{0})\in C^{0}\left([0,+\infty);H^{6}_{x}\right)\cap C^{1}\left([0,+\infty);H^{4}_{x}\right),\quad h_{0}\in C^{0}\left([0,+\infty);H^{6}_{x}\right)\cap C^{1}\left([0,+\infty);H^{5}_{x}\right).

Furthermore, for all t>0t>0, there exists a constant C0>0C_{0}>0 such that

12ddtma(t)+C0𝒟ma(t)0,\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{E}_{ma}(t)+C_{0}\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)\leq 0, (1.12)

and

(m0(t,),u0(t,),h0(t,))Hx62(m0in,u0in,h0in)Hx62δ0,\|\big(m_{0}(t,\cdot),u_{0}(t,\cdot),h_{0}(t,\cdot)\big)\|_{H^{6}_{x}}^{2}\lesssim\|(m_{0}^{in},u_{0}^{in},h_{0}^{in})\|_{H^{6}_{x}}^{2}\lesssim\delta_{0}, (1.13)

where the macroscopic energy functional ma(t)\mathcal{E}_{ma}(t) and dissipation functional 𝒟ma(t)\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t) are defined in (3.5) and (3.6).

Remark 1.1.

The Proposition 1.1 can be proved by following similar argument in [13], where, however, the well-posedness and energy estimates are obtained in the lower-regularity space, i.e.,

(m0,u0)C0([0,+);Hx3)C1([0,+);Hx1),h0C0([0,+);Hx3)C1([0,+);Hx2)(m_{0},u_{0})\in C^{0}\left([0,+\infty);H^{3}_{x}\right)\cap C^{1}\left([0,+\infty);H^{1}_{x}\right),\quad h_{0}\in C^{0}\left([0,+\infty);H^{3}_{x}\right)\cap C^{1}\left([0,+\infty);H^{2}_{x}\right)

with the corresponding initial conditions (m0in,u0in,h0in)Hx3×Hx3×Hx3(m_{0}^{in},u_{0}^{in},h_{0}^{in})\in H^{3}_{x}\times H^{3}_{x}\times H^{3}_{x}, 1+infx3h0in(x)>01+\inf_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{3}}h_{0}^{in}(x)>0, and the “smallness” of (m0in,u0in,h0in)Hx3\|(m_{0}^{in},u_{0}^{in},h_{0}^{in})\|_{H^{3}_{x}}. We are considering to remove the “smallness” assumption (at least in the two dimensions) in our future work.

We seek a solution to the VFP-CNS system (1.4) in the following form by employing (m0,u0,h0)(m_{0},u_{0},h_{0}) of the NSS system (1.11):

fε=\displaystyle f^{\varepsilon}= g0+εg1M+εgM\displaystyle g_{0}+\varepsilon g_{1}\sqrt{M}+\varepsilon g\sqrt{M} (1.14)
=\displaystyle= (1+m0)M+ε[(vu0)(1+m0)vxm0]M+εgM,\displaystyle(1+m_{0})M+\varepsilon[(v\cdot u_{0})(1+m_{0})-v\cdot\nabla_{x}m_{0}]M+\varepsilon g\sqrt{M},
uε=\displaystyle u^{\varepsilon}= u0+εu,\displaystyle u_{0}+\varepsilon u,
ρε=\displaystyle\rho^{\varepsilon}= ρ0+ερ\displaystyle\rho_{0}+\varepsilon\rho
=\displaystyle= (1+h0)+ερ,\displaystyle(1+h_{0})+\varepsilon\rho,

where gg, uu, ρ\rho also depend on ε\varepsilon, but, for simplicity, we will omit the dependence in the notation throughout the paper.

Then, the main theorem is presented as follows:

Theorem 1.1.

Let (m0(t,x),u0(t,x),h0(t,x))(m_{0}(t,x),u_{0}(t,x),h_{0}(t,x)) be the solution to the NSS equations (1.11) given by Proposition 1.1, and assume the initial data of the VFP-CNS system (1.4) to be

fε,in(x,v)=\displaystyle f^{\varepsilon,in}(x,v)= (1+m0in)M+ε[(vu0in)(1+m0in)vxm0in]M+εginM,\displaystyle\ (1+m_{0}^{in})M+\varepsilon\big[(v\cdot u_{0}^{in})(1+m^{in}_{0})-v\cdot\nabla_{x}m^{in}_{0}\big]M+\varepsilon g^{in}\sqrt{M}, (1.15)
uε,in(x)=\displaystyle u^{\varepsilon,in}(x)= u0in+εuin,\displaystyle\ u_{0}^{in}+\varepsilon u^{in},
ρε,in(x)=\displaystyle\rho^{\varepsilon,in}(x)= 1+h0in+ερin.\displaystyle 1+h_{0}^{in}+\varepsilon\rho^{in}.

Then, there exist small constants ε0,δ>0\varepsilon_{0},\,\delta>0 such that, for any given ε(0,ε0]\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}], the VFP-CNS system (1.4) admits a unique global-in-time solution (fε(t,x,v),uε(t,x),ρε(t,x))(f^{\varepsilon}(t,x,v),u^{\varepsilon}(t,x),\rho^{\varepsilon}(t,x)) in the following form:

fε(t,x,v)=\displaystyle f^{\varepsilon}(t,x,v)= (1+m0)M+ε[(vu0)(1+m0)vxm0]M+εgM,\displaystyle\ (1+m_{0})M+\varepsilon\big[(v\cdot u_{0})(1+m_{0})-v\cdot\nabla_{x}m_{0}\big]M+\varepsilon g\sqrt{M}, (1.16)
uε(t,x)=\displaystyle u^{\varepsilon}(t,x)= u0+εu,\displaystyle\ u_{0}+\varepsilon u,
ρε(t,x)=\displaystyle\rho^{\varepsilon}(t,x)= 1+h0+ερ,\displaystyle 1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho,

for some (g,u,ρ)(g,u,\rho) satisfying

g\displaystyle g\in C0([0,);Hx,v4)L2([0,);x,v5),\displaystyle C^{0}([0,\infty);H^{4}_{x,v})\cap L^{2}([0,\infty);\mathcal{H}^{5}_{x,v}), (1.17)
u\displaystyle u\in C0([0,);Hx4)L2([0,);Hx5),\displaystyle C^{0}([0,\infty);H^{4}_{x})\cap L^{2}([0,\infty);H^{5}_{x}),
ρ\displaystyle\rho\in C0([0,);Hx4)L2([0,);Hx4),\displaystyle C^{0}([0,\infty);H^{4}_{x})\cap L^{2}([0,\infty);H^{4}_{x}),

provided that

ginHx,v42+(uin,ρin)Hx42+m0inHx62+(u0in,h0in)Hx52δ,\displaystyle\|g^{in}\|_{H^{4}_{x,v}}^{2}+\|(u^{in},\rho^{in})\|^{2}_{H^{4}_{x}}+\|m_{0}^{in}\|_{H^{6}_{x}}^{2}+\|(u_{0}^{in},h_{0}^{in})\|_{H^{5}_{x}}^{2}\leq\delta, (1.18)

where δ\delta is independent of ε\varepsilon. In addition, the following energy estimate holds:

supt0𝔼(t)+C0𝔻(s)𝑑s𝔼(0),\displaystyle\sup_{t\geq 0}\mathbb{E}(t)+C\int_{0}^{\infty}\mathbb{D}(s)\,ds\lesssim\mathbb{E}(0), (1.19)

for some constants C>0C>0 independent of ε\varepsilon, and the energy functional 𝔼\mathbb{E} and dissipation functional 𝔻\mathbb{D} are defined as follows:

𝔼(t)=gHx,v42+(u,ρ)Hx42+m0Hx62+(u0,h0)Hx52\displaystyle\mathbb{E}(t)=\|g\|_{H^{4}_{x,v}}^{2}+\|(u,\rho)\|^{2}_{H^{4}_{x}}+\|m_{0}\|_{H^{6}_{x}}^{2}+\|(u_{0},h_{0})\|_{H^{5}_{x}}^{2} (1.20)

and the associated dissipative functional

𝔻(t)=\displaystyle\mathbb{D}(t)= 1ε2(|α|+|β|4xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gν2+bεuHx42)+(xu,divxu)Hx42+(tu,xρ,xa)Hx32\displaystyle\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\left(\sum_{|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq 4}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\nabla_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{\nu}^{2}+\|b-\varepsilon u\|_{H^{4}_{x}}^{2}\right)+\|(\nabla_{x}u,\textup{div}_{x}u)\|_{H^{4}_{x}}^{2}+\|(\partial_{t}u,\nabla_{x}\rho,\nabla_{x}a)\|^{2}_{H^{3}_{x}} (1.21)
+(xm0,xu0)Hx52+(txm0,tu0,xh0,divxu0)Hx42.\displaystyle+\|(\nabla_{x}m_{0},\nabla_{x}u_{0})\|^{2}_{H^{5}_{x}}+\|(\partial_{t}\nabla_{x}m_{0},\partial_{t}u_{0},\nabla_{x}h_{0},\textup{div}_{x}u_{0})\|_{H^{4}_{x}}^{2}.
Remark 1.2.

The smallness constant δ\delta in (1.18) is usually larger than δ0\delta_{0} given in Proposition 1.1, and it will be determined in Section 3.

By applying the Sobolev embedding H2LH^{2}\hookrightarrow L^{\infty}, we obtain the following corollary:

Corollary 1.1.

Under the conditions of Theorem 1.1, the following pointwise convergence holds:

|fε(t,x,v)(1+m0(t,x))M(v)|+|uε(t,x)u0(t,x)|+|ρε(t,x)(1+h0(t,x))|ε|f^{\varepsilon}(t,x,v)-(1+m_{0}(t,x))M(v)|+|u^{\varepsilon}(t,x)-u_{0}(t,x)|+|\rho^{\varepsilon}(t,x)-(1+h_{0}(t,x))|\lesssim\varepsilon (1.22)

for (t,x,v)+×3×3(t,x,v)\in\mathbb{R}^{+}\times\mathbb{R}^{3}\times\mathbb{R}^{3}.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we present the formal analysis. In Section 3, we derive global-in-time a priori estimates for the remainder system. Finally, the proofs of the main Theorem and Corollary are illustrated in Section 4.

2. Formal analysis

In this section, we formally derive the NSS equations (1.6)

fε=f0+εf1+ε2f2+,\displaystyle f^{\varepsilon}=f_{0}+\varepsilon f_{1}+\varepsilon^{2}f_{2}+\cdots, (2.1)
uε=u0+εu1+ε2u2+,\displaystyle u^{\varepsilon}=u_{0}+\varepsilon u_{1}+\varepsilon^{2}u_{2}+\cdots,
ρε=ρ0+ερ1+ε2ρ2+.\displaystyle\rho^{\varepsilon}=\rho_{0}+\varepsilon\rho_{1}+\varepsilon^{2}\rho_{2}+\cdots.

Step 1: Plugging the expansion (2.1) into the VFP-CNS system (1.4)1\eqref{VFP-CNS}_{1}, we have

t(f0+εf1+ε2f2+)+1εvx(f0+εf1+ε2f2+)\displaystyle\partial_{t}(f_{0}+\varepsilon f_{1}+\varepsilon^{2}f_{2}+\cdots)+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}v\cdot\nabla_{x}(f_{0}+\varepsilon f_{1}+\varepsilon^{2}f_{2}+\cdots) (2.2)
=\displaystyle= 1ε2divv{v(f0+εf1+ε2f2+)+[vε(u0+εu1+ε2u2+)](f0+εf1+ε2f2+)}.\displaystyle\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\textup{div}_{v}\Big\{\nabla_{v}(f_{0}+\varepsilon f_{1}+\varepsilon^{2}f_{2}+\cdots)+\big[v-\varepsilon(u_{0}+\varepsilon u_{1}+\varepsilon^{2}u_{2}+\cdots)\big]\cdot(f_{0}+\varepsilon f_{1}+\varepsilon^{2}f_{2}+\cdots)\Big\}.

The 𝒪(1ε2)\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}) of (2.2) reads

divv(vf0+vf0)=divv[Mv(f0M)]=0,\textup{div}_{v}(\nabla_{v}f_{0}+vf_{0})=\textup{div}_{v}[M\nabla_{v}(\frac{f_{0}}{M})]=0,

which implies that

f0(t,x,v)=n0(t,x)M(v)f_{0}(t,x,v)=n_{0}(t,x)M(v) (2.3)

with n0(t,x)n_{0}(t,x) to be determined.

The 𝒪(1ε)\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}) of (2.2) reads

vxf0+divv(u0f0)=divv[Mv(f1M)].v\cdot\nabla_{x}f_{0}+\textup{div}_{v}(u_{0}f_{0})=\textup{div}_{v}[M\nabla_{v}(\frac{f_{1}}{M})]. (2.4)

By substituting (2.3) into (2.4) and further simplification, the equation (2.4) becomes

divv[M(vf1M+xn0u0n0)]=0.\textup{div}_{v}\big[M(\nabla_{v}\frac{f_{1}}{M}+\nabla_{x}n_{0}-u_{0}n_{0})\big]=0.

Hence, f1f_{1} can be solved as

f1(t,x,v)=[(vu0)n0(t,x)vxn0(t,x)]M(v).f_{1}(t,x,v)=\big[(v\cdot u_{0})n_{0}(t,x)-v\cdot\nabla_{x}n_{0}(t,x)\big]M(v). (2.5)

The 𝒪(1)\mathcal{O}(1) of (2.2) reads

tf0+vxf1=divv(vf2+vf2u0f1u1f0),\partial_{t}f_{0}+v\cdot\nabla_{x}f_{1}=\textup{div}_{v}(\nabla_{v}f_{2}+vf_{2}-u_{0}f_{1}-u_{1}f_{0}),

which shows

3tf0+vxf1dv=0.\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\partial_{t}f_{0}+v\cdot\nabla_{x}f_{1}dv=0. (2.6)

Substituting (2.3) and (2.5) into (2.6) gives

tn0+divx(n0u0)=Δxn0.\partial_{t}n_{0}+\textup{div}_{x}(n_{0}u_{0})=\Delta_{x}n_{0}. (2.7)

Step 2: Then, we substitute the expansions (2.1) into the VFP-CNS system (1.4)2\eqref{VFP-CNS}_{2} gives

(ρ0+ερ1+)[t(u0+εu1+)+(u0+εu1+)x(u0+εu1+)]\displaystyle(\rho_{0}+\varepsilon\rho_{1}+\cdots)\big[\partial_{t}(u_{0}+\varepsilon u_{1}+\cdots)+(u_{0}+\varepsilon u_{1}+\cdots)\cdot\nabla_{x}(u_{0}+\varepsilon u_{1}+\cdots)\big] (2.8)
+xP(ρ0+ερ1+)+L(u0+εu1+)\displaystyle+\nabla_{x}P(\rho_{0}+\varepsilon\rho_{1}+\cdots)+L(u_{0}+\varepsilon u_{1}+\cdots)
=\displaystyle= 1ε3[vε(u0+εu1+)](f0+εf1+)𝑑v,\displaystyle\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\big[v-\varepsilon(u_{0}+\varepsilon u_{1}+\cdots)\big](f_{0}+\varepsilon f_{1}+\cdots)dv,

The 𝒪(1ε)\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}) of (2.8) reads

3vf0𝑑v=0,\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}vf_{0}\,dv=0,

which is automatically correct since f0=n0Mf_{0}=n_{0}M in (2.3).

The 𝒪(1)\mathcal{O}(1) of (2.8) reads

ρ0(tu0+u0xu0)+xP(ρ0)+Lu0\displaystyle\rho_{0}(\partial_{t}u_{0}+u_{0}\cdot\nabla_{x}u_{0})+\nabla_{x}P(\rho_{0})+Lu_{0} =3vf1𝑑v3u0f0𝑑v.\displaystyle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}vf_{1}\,dv-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}u_{0}f_{0}\,dv.

This implies that

ρ0(tu0+u0xu0)+xP(ρ0)+Lu0+xn0=0,\rho_{0}(\partial_{t}u_{0}+u_{0}\cdot\nabla_{x}u_{0})+\nabla_{x}P(\rho_{0})+Lu_{0}+\nabla_{x}n_{0}=0, (2.9)

by considering the form of f0f_{0} in (2.3) and f1f_{1} in (2.5).

Step 3: Finally, substituting the expansions (2.1) into the VFP-CNS system (1.4)3\eqref{VFP-CNS}_{3} gives

t(ρ0+ερ1+)+divx[(ρ0+ερ1+)(u0+εu1+)]=0.\partial_{t}(\rho_{0}+\varepsilon\rho_{1}+\cdots)+\textup{div}_{x}\big[(\rho_{0}+\varepsilon\rho_{1}+\cdots)(u_{0}+\varepsilon u_{1}+\cdots)\big]=0. (2.10)

The 𝒪(1)\mathcal{O}(1) of (2.10) reads

tρ0+divx(ρ0u0)=0.\partial_{t}\rho_{0}+\textup{div}_{x}(\rho_{0}u_{0})=0. (2.11)

Combining the equations (2.7), (2.9) and (2.11), it formally yields the limiting system (1.6).

3. Energy estimate

3.1. The remainder system

Based on the formal analysis in Section 2, we introduce the remainder terms of the VFP-CNS system (1.4):

g=fεg0εg1MεM,u=uεu0ε,ρ=ρεερ0ε,g=\frac{f^{\varepsilon}-g_{0}-\varepsilon g_{1}\sqrt{M}}{\varepsilon\sqrt{M}},\quad u=\frac{u^{\varepsilon}-u_{0}}{\varepsilon},\quad\rho=\frac{\rho^{\varepsilon}-\varepsilon\rho_{0}}{\varepsilon}, (3.1)

where

g0=n0M,g1=[(vu0)n0vxn0]Mg_{0}=n_{0}M,\,\quad g_{1}=\big[(v\cdot u_{0})n_{0}-v\cdot\nabla_{x}n_{0}\big]\sqrt{M}

and (n0,u0,ρ0)(n_{0},u_{0},\rho_{0}) is the solution to the NSS system (1.6). In other words, we seek a solution to the VFP-CNS system (1.4) in our newly-designed expansion form (1.14).

By denoting m0=n01,h0=ρ01m_{0}=n_{0}-1,\,h_{0}=\rho_{0}-1, the remainder system of (g,u,ρ)(g,u,\rho) is deduced as follows:

{tg1εvuM+1ε2g=1εR0+R1,(1+h0+ερ)(tu+u0xu+uxu0)+Lu1ε(bεu)=1εR2+R3,tρ+divx(h0u+ρu0)+divxu+εdivx(ρu)=0,(g,u,ρ)|t=0=(gin(x,v),uin(x),ρin(x))(0,0,0),as|x|+,\left\{\begin{aligned} &\partial_{t}g-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}v\cdot u\sqrt{M}+\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\mathcal{L}g=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}R_{0}+R_{1},\\[3.0pt] &(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)(\partial_{t}u+u_{0}\cdot\nabla_{x}u+u\cdot\nabla_{x}u_{0})+Lu-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}(b-\varepsilon u)=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}R_{2}+R_{3},\\[3.0pt] &\partial_{t}\rho+\textup{div}_{x}(h_{0}u+\rho u_{0})+\textup{div}_{x}u+\varepsilon\textup{div}_{x}(\rho u)=0,\\[3.0pt] &(g,u,\rho)|_{t=0}=\big(g^{in}(x,v),u^{in}(x),\rho^{in}(x)\big)\to(0,0,0),\quad\textup{as}\quad|x|\to+\infty,\end{aligned}\right. (3.2)

where

g=\displaystyle\mathcal{L}g= 1Mdivv[Mv(gM)]=Δvg+|v|24g32g,\displaystyle-\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}[M\nabla_{v}(\frac{g}{\sqrt{M}})]=-\Delta_{v}g+\frac{|v|^{2}}{4}g-\frac{3}{2}g, (3.3)
Lu=\displaystyle Lu= μΔxu(μ+λ)xdivxu,\displaystyle-\mu\Delta_{x}u-(\mu+\lambda)\nabla_{x}\textup{div}_{x}u,
g1=\displaystyle g_{1}= [(vu0)(m0+1)vxm0]M,\displaystyle\big[(v\cdot u_{0})(m_{0}+1)-v\cdot\nabla_{x}m_{0}\big]\sqrt{M},
R0=\displaystyle R_{0}= (𝐈𝐏0)(vxg1)vxg1Mdivv(u0g1M+u0gM+um0M),\displaystyle-(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0})(v\cdot\nabla_{x}g_{1})-v\cdot\nabla_{x}g-\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(u_{0}g_{1}\sqrt{M}+u_{0}g\sqrt{M}+um_{0}M),
R1=\displaystyle R_{1}= tg11Mdivv(ug1M+ugM),\displaystyle-\partial_{t}g_{1}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(ug_{1}\sqrt{M}+ug\sqrt{M}),
R2=\displaystyle R_{2}= [xP(1+h0+ερ)xP(1+h0)],\displaystyle-\big[\nabla_{x}P(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)-\nabla_{x}P(1+h_{0})\big],
R3=\displaystyle R_{3}= [(ρtu0+ρu0xu0+um0+u0a)+ε(uxu+h0uxu+ua)+ε2ρuxu],\displaystyle-\big[(\rho\partial_{t}u_{0}+\rho u_{0}\cdot\nabla_{x}u_{0}+um_{0}+u_{0}a)+\varepsilon(u\cdot\nabla_{x}u+h_{0}u\cdot\nabla_{x}u+ua)+\varepsilon^{2}\rho u\cdot\nabla_{x}u\big],

and (m0,u0,h0)(m_{0},u_{0},h_{0}) is the classical solution to

{tm0+divx[(1+m0)u0]=Δxm0,t[(1+h0)u0]+divx[(1+h0)u0u0]+xP(1+h0)+Lu0+xm0=0,th0+divx[(1+h0)u0]=0,(m0,u0,h0)|t=0=(m0in(x),u0in(x),h0in(x))(0,0,0),as|x|+.\left\{\begin{aligned} &\partial_{t}m_{0}+\textup{div}_{x}\big[(1+m_{0})u_{0}\big]=\Delta_{x}m_{0},\\[3.0pt] &\partial_{t}\big[(1+h_{0})u_{0}\big]+\textup{div}_{x}\big[(1+h_{0})u_{0}\otimes u_{0}\big]+\nabla_{x}P(1+h_{0})+Lu_{0}+\nabla_{x}m_{0}=0,\\[3.0pt] &\partial_{t}h_{0}+\textup{div}_{x}\big[(1+h_{0})u_{0}\big]=0,\\[3.0pt] &(m_{0},u_{0},h_{0})|_{t=0}=(m^{in}_{0}(x),u^{in}_{0}(x),h^{in}_{0}(x))\to(0,0,0),\quad\textup{as}\quad|x|\to+\infty.\end{aligned}\right. (3.4)

We first present the local well-posedness of the remainder system (3.2).

Proposition 3.1.

Under the conditions of Proposition 1.1, assume that ginHx,v4+(uin,ρin)Hx4M0<\|g^{in}\|_{H^{4}_{x,v}}+\|(u^{in},\rho^{in})\|_{H^{4}_{x}}\leq M_{0}<\infty, then for any given 0<εε0:=ε0(M0)0<\varepsilon\leq\varepsilon_{0}:=\varepsilon_{0}(M_{0}), there exists a Tε:=Tε(M0)>0T_{\varepsilon}:=T_{\varepsilon}(M_{0})>0 such that the remainder system (3.2) admits a unique solution (g,u,ρ)(g,u,\rho) satisfying

gC0([0,Tε];Hx,v4)L2([0,Tε];x,v5),\displaystyle g\in C^{0}([0,T_{\varepsilon}];H^{4}_{x,v})\cap L^{2}([0,T_{\varepsilon}];\mathcal{H}^{5}_{x,v}),
uC0([0,Tε];Hx4)L2([0,Tε];Hx5),\displaystyle u\in C^{0}([0,T_{\varepsilon}];H^{4}_{x})\cap L^{2}([0,T_{\varepsilon}];H^{5}_{x}),
ρC0([0,Tε];Hx4)L2([0,Tε];Hx4).\displaystyle\rho\in C^{0}([0,T_{\varepsilon}];H^{4}_{x})\cap L^{2}([0,T_{\varepsilon}];H^{4}_{x}).
Proof.

The proof is based on the standard contractive mapping argument. We refer to [28, 31] for more details. ∎

3.2. Energy and dissipation functionals

In this subsection, we present the energy and associated dissipation structure based on the Micro-Macro decomposition.

To state the energy estimate, we introduce the temporal energy and dissipation functionals of different parts:

  • Macroscopic energy functional of (m0,u0,h0)(m_{0},u_{0},h_{0}): for |α1|=6|\alpha_{1}|=6 and |β1|=1|\beta_{1}|=1,

    ma(t)=xα1m0Lx22+|α|=15K1,|α|(xαh0,xαm0,xαu0)Lx22+|α|=04K2,|α|xαdivxu0Lx22+|α|=15K3,|α|xαh0,xαβ1u0(1+h0)2x+K1[m0Lx22+1+h0u0Lx22+2Aγ1(1+h0)γ2Lx22],\begin{split}\mathcal{E}_{ma}(t)=&\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha_{1}}m_{0}\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\sum_{|\alpha|=1}^{5}K_{1,|\alpha|}\|(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}h_{0},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}m_{0},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0})\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\sum_{|\alpha|=0}^{4}K_{2,|\alpha|}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u_{0}\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\\[4.0pt] &+\sum_{|\alpha|=1}^{5}K_{3,|\alpha|}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}h_{0},\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta_{1}}u_{0}(1+h_{0})^{2}\rangle_{x}+K_{1}\Big[\|m_{0}\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|\sqrt{1+h_{0}}\,u_{0}\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\\[4.0pt] &+\frac{2A}{\gamma-1}\|(1+h_{0})^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\Big],\end{split} (3.5)

    and the associated macro dissipation functionals

    𝒟ma(t)=(xm0,xu0)Hx52+(txm0,tu0,xh0,divxu0)Hx42,\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)=\|(\nabla_{x}m_{0},\nabla_{x}u_{0})\|^{2}_{H^{5}_{x}}+\|(\partial_{t}\nabla_{x}m_{0},\partial_{t}u_{0},\nabla_{x}h_{0},\textup{div}_{x}u_{0})\|_{H^{4}_{x}}^{2}, (3.6)

    where K1K_{1} and Ki,|α|,i=1,2,3,|α|=1,,5K_{i,|\alpha|},\,i=1,2,3,|\alpha|=1,\cdots,5 are all positive constants.
    Note that one can verify that ma(t)m0Hx62+(u0,h0)Hx52\mathcal{E}_{ma}(t)\sim\|m_{0}\|_{H^{6}_{x}}^{2}+\|(u_{0},h_{0})\|_{H^{5}_{x}}^{2}.

  • Microscopic energy and dissipation functional of (g,u,ρ)(g,u,\rho): for |β1|=1|\beta_{1}|=1,

    mi,K,1(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,1}(t)= gHx4Lv22+|α|=041+h+ερxαu2+AγρHx42,\displaystyle\ \|g\|^{2}_{H^{4}_{x}L_{v}^{2}}+\sum_{|\alpha|=0}^{4}\|\sqrt{1+h+\varepsilon\rho}\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|^{2}+A\gamma\|\rho\|^{2}_{H^{4}_{x}}, (3.7)
    mi,K,2(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,2}(t)= μxuHx32+(μ+λ)divxuHx32,\displaystyle\ \mu\|\nabla_{x}u\|^{2}_{H^{3}_{x}}+(\mu+\lambda)\|\textup{div}_{x}u\|^{2}_{H_{x}^{3}},
    mi,K,3(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,3}(t)= xρHx32+22μ+λ|α|=14xαρ,(1+h+ερ)2xαβ1ux,\displaystyle\ \|\partial_{x}\rho\|^{2}_{H^{3}_{x}}+\frac{2}{2\mu+\lambda}\sum_{|\alpha|=1}^{4}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,(1+h+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta_{1}}u\rangle_{x},
    mi,K,4(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,4}(t)= 0|α|+|β|3C¯α,βxαvβ+β1(𝐈𝐏)gLx22,\displaystyle\ \sum_{0\leq|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq 3}\bar{C}_{\alpha,\beta}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta+\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}},
    mi,F(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{E}_{mi,F}(t)= (a,b)Hx32+ε|α|=03xα+β1a,xαbx,\displaystyle\ \|(a,b)\|_{H^{3}_{x}}^{2}+\varepsilon\sum_{|\alpha|=0}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta_{1}}a,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}b\rangle_{x},

    and the associated micro dissipation functionals:

    𝒟mi,K,1(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)= 1ε2[|α|4xα(𝐈𝐏)gν2+bεuHx42]+(xu,divxu)Hx42,\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\left[\sum_{|\alpha|\leq 4}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{\nu}^{2}+\|b-\varepsilon u\|_{H^{4}_{x}}^{2}\right]+\|(\nabla_{x}u,\textup{div}_{x}u)\|_{H^{4}_{x}}^{2}, (3.8)
    𝒟mi,K,2(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,2}(t)= tuHx32,\displaystyle\ \|\partial_{t}u\|_{H^{3}_{x}}^{2},
    𝒟mi,K,3(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,3}(t)= xρHx32,\displaystyle\ \|\nabla_{x}\rho\|^{2}_{H^{3}_{x}},
    𝒟mi,K,4(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,4}(t)= 1ε2|α|+|β|3xαvβ+β1(𝐈𝐏)gν2,\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\sum_{|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq 3}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta+\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{\nu}^{2},
    𝒟mi,F(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t)= xaHx32,\displaystyle\ \|\nabla_{x}a\|^{2}_{H^{3}_{x}},

    with the constant C¯α,β>0\bar{C}_{\alpha,\beta}>0.

  • Total temporal energy and dissipation functionals:

    (t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{E}(t)= i=14λimi,K,i(t)+λ5mi,F(t)+λ6ma(t),\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{4}\lambda_{i}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,i}(t)+\lambda_{5}\mathcal{E}_{mi,F}(t)+\lambda_{6}\mathcal{E}_{ma}(t), (3.9)
    𝒟(t)=\displaystyle\mathcal{D}(t)= i=14𝒟mi,K,i(t)+𝒟mi,F(t)+𝒟ma(t),\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{4}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,i}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t),

    where λi>0, 1i6\lambda_{i}>0,\,1\leq i\leq 6 are constants determined in (3.76).

Considering the definitions of (t),𝒟(t)\mathcal{E}(t),\,\mathcal{D}(t) in (3.5) and (3.6), one can check that

𝔼(t)(t),𝔻(t)𝒟(t),\mathbb{E}(t)\sim\mathcal{E}(t),\quad\mathbb{D}(t)\sim\mathcal{D}(t), (3.10)

and also the energy functional 𝔼(t)\mathbb{E}(t) is continuous for any 0tT0\leq t\leq T, i.e., there exists a positive constant C¯\bar{C} depending on some known constants only, such that

1C¯(t)𝔼(t)C¯(t),1C¯𝒟(t)𝔻(t)C¯𝒟(t).\displaystyle\frac{1}{\bar{C}}\mathcal{E}(t)\leq\mathbb{E}(t)\leq\bar{C}\mathcal{E}(t),\quad\frac{1}{\bar{C}}\mathcal{D}(t)\leq\mathbb{D}(t)\leq\bar{C}\mathcal{D}(t).

We propose the following a priori assumption: for any given T>0T>0,

sup0tT[gHx,v42+(u,ρ)Hx42]δ1\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\big[\|g\|_{H^{4}_{x,v}}^{2}+\|(u,\rho)\|^{2}_{H^{4}_{x}}\big]\leq\delta_{1} (3.11)

for a small positive constant δ1\delta_{1}.

Now we are in a position to state our main energy estimate in Section 3.

Proposition 3.2.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 and (3.11), let (g,u,ρ)(g,u,\rho) be the classical solutions to the remainder system (3.2), then, for any 0tT0\leq t\leq T,

(t)+C~0t𝒟(s)𝑑s(0),\mathcal{E}(t)+\tilde{C}\int_{0}^{t}\mathcal{D}(s)\,ds\leq\mathcal{E}(0), (3.12)

where the constants C~>0\tilde{C}>0 are independent of ε\varepsilon, δ\delta, δ1\delta_{1} and TT.

The following Corollary can be deduced by Proposition 3.2 together with the equivalent condition (3.10).

Corollary 3.1.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 and (3.11), let (g,u,ρ)(g,u,\rho) be the classical solutions to the remainder system (3.2), then, for any t[0,T]t\in[0,T],

𝔼(t)+C~0t𝔻(s)𝑑sC𝔼(0),\mathbb{E}(t)+\tilde{C}^{*}\int_{0}^{t}\mathbb{D}(s)\,ds\leq C^{*}\mathbb{E}(0), (3.13)

where the constants C~,C>0\tilde{C}^{*}\,,C^{*}>0 are independent of ε\varepsilon, δ\delta, δ1\delta_{1} and TT.

3.3. Energy estimate of the remainder system

In this subsection, we will prove the Proposition 3.2. To this end, we first present the following lemma to evaluate 11+h0+ερ\frac{1}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho} and the singular term 1ε[xP(1+h0+ερ)xP(1+h0)]\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\big[\nabla_{x}P(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)-\nabla_{x}P(1+h_{0})\big] from pressure.

Lemma 3.1.

Under the assumptions of Proposition 1.1 and (3.11), we have the following uniform estimates independent of the parameter ε\varepsilon,

BαLxp{xh0Hx|α|1+εxρHx|α|1if 1|α|4andp=2,xh0Hx|α|+εxρHx|α|if 1|α|3and2<p6,xh0Hx|α|+1+εxρHx|α|+1if 1|α|3andp=,\|B^{\alpha}\|_{L^{p}_{x}}\lesssim\left\{\begin{array}[]{ccc}&\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}\qquad&\textup{if}\,1\leq|\alpha|\leq 4\quad\textup{and}\quad p=2,\\[4.0pt] &\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\qquad&\textup{if}\,1\leq|\alpha|\leq 3\quad\textup{and}\quad 2<p\leq 6,\\[4.0pt] &\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|+1}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{|\alpha|+1}_{x}}\qquad&\textup{if}\,1\leq|\alpha|\leq 3\quad\textup{and}\quad p=\infty,\end{array}\right. (3.14)

where BαB^{\alpha} is denoted as

Bα=xα(11+h0+ερ),B^{\alpha}=\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\left(\frac{1}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}\right), (3.15)

and

(1+h0)γ11Lx\displaystyle\|(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}-1\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}} h0Hx2,\displaystyle\lesssim\|h_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}, (3.16)
(1+h0)γ11Hx1\displaystyle\|(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}-1\|_{H^{1}_{x}} h0Hx1,\displaystyle\lesssim\|h_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}},
(1+h0+ερ)γ1(1+h0)γ1Lx\displaystyle\|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}} ερHx2,\displaystyle\lesssim\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}},
(1+h0+ερ)γ1(1+h0)γ1Hx1\displaystyle\|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}\|_{H^{1}_{x}} ερHx1.\displaystyle\lesssim\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}.

Furthermore, we have

BγαLxp{ερHx1xρLx2ifp=2,|α|=0andp=3,|α|=0ερHx2xh0Hx1ifp=2,|α|=1andp=3,|α|=1,ερHx2(xh0,xρ)Hx1ifp=2,|α|=2,ερHx2(xh0,xρ)Hx2ifp=3,|α|=2andp=2,|α|=3,ερHx3(xh0,xρ)Hx3ifp=3,|α|=3andp=2,|α|=4,\|B^{\alpha}_{\gamma}\|_{L^{p}_{x}}\lesssim\left\{\begin{array}[]{ccc}\displaystyle\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}&\qquad\textup{if}\,\,p=2,\quad|\alpha|=0\quad\textup{and}\quad p=3,\,|\alpha|=0\\[4.0pt] \displaystyle\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}&\qquad\textup{if}\,\,p=2,\,|\alpha|=1\quad\textup{and}\quad p=3,\,|\alpha|=1,\\[4.0pt] \displaystyle\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|(\nabla_{x}h_{0},\nabla_{x}\rho)\|_{H^{1}_{x}}&\qquad\textup{if}\,\,p=2,\,|\alpha|=2,\\[4.0pt] \displaystyle\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|(\nabla_{x}h_{0},\nabla_{x}\rho)\|_{H^{2}_{x}}&\qquad\textup{if}\,\,p=3,\,|\alpha|=2\quad\textup{and}\quad p=2,\,|\alpha|=3,\\[4.0pt] \displaystyle\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{3}_{x}}\|(\nabla_{x}h_{0},\nabla_{x}\rho)\|_{H^{3}_{x}}&\qquad\textup{if}\,\,p=3,\,|\alpha|=3\quad\textup{and}\quad p=2,\,|\alpha|=4,\\ \end{array}\right. (3.17)

where BγαB^{\alpha}_{\gamma} is denoted as

Bγα=xα[(1+h0+ερ)γ]xα[(1+h0)γ]γε(1+h0+ερ)γ1xαρ.B^{\alpha}_{\gamma}=\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\left[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma}\right]-\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\left[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma}\right]-\gamma\varepsilon(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{{\gamma}-1}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho. (3.18)

The complete proof can be found in Appendix A, and we explain the key points in the following Remark 3.1.

Remark 3.1.

Note that handling the highly nonlinear pressure singularity relies fundamentally on the “away from vacuum” assumption for the fluid density. A direct Taylor expansion cannot be utilized to estimate the pressure term because it yields an intractable remainder. Specifically, a direct expansion gives:

xP(1+h0+ερ)xP(1+h0)Hxs=\displaystyle\|\nabla_{x}P(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)-\nabla_{x}P(1+h_{0})\|_{H^{s}_{x}}= x[(1+h0+ερ)γ]x[(1+h0)γ]Hxs\displaystyle\|\nabla_{x}[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma}]-\nabla_{x}[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma}]\|_{H^{s}_{x}}
=\displaystyle= γεxρ+γ(γ1)2x[(1+h0+ηρ)γ2ε2ρ2]Hxs,\displaystyle\|\gamma\varepsilon\nabla_{x}\rho+\frac{\gamma(\gamma-1)}{2}\nabla_{x}\big[(1+h_{0}+\eta\rho)^{\gamma-2}\varepsilon^{2}\rho^{2}\big]\|_{H^{s}_{x}},

where the intermediate state η=η(t,x)(0,ε)\eta=\eta(t,x)\in(0,\varepsilon) depends on time tt and space xx. Hence, the higher-order derivative term xαη(t,x)\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\eta(t,x) is hard to bound.

To overcome this difficulty, our proof structure instead relies on a recursive exact algebraic expansion. We first explicitly calculate the spatial derivatives xα[(1+h0+ερ)γ]xα[(1+h0)γ]\partial_{x}^{\alpha}[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma}]-\partial_{x}^{\alpha}[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma}] as shown in (A.6) for each 0|α|40\leq|\alpha|\leq 4. Then, we can apply the Taylor expansion (strictly up to the second order) at the base level (1+h0)(1+h_{0}) for each resulting term (1+h0+ερ)γ~(1+h0)γ~(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}}-(1+h_{0})^{\tilde{\gamma}} (see (A.4)). This decoupling approach isolates the singular components, bypassing the problematic η(t,x)\eta(t,x) term entirely and allowing the singularities to be systematically absorbed by our adapted energy-dissipation structure.

3.3.1. Estimates of kinetic part of the remainder system

In this subsection, we will present the a priori estimates of the kinetic part of the remainder system (3.2)-(3.4), where the coercivity of \mathcal{L} plays an essential role.

We start with the estimate of mi,K,1(t)\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,1}(t) and 𝒟mi,K,1(t)\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t).

Lemma 3.2.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 and (3.11), then, for any 0tT0\leq t\leq T,

12ddtmi,K,1(t)+C1𝒟mi,K,1(t)C~1(𝒟ma(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)),\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,1}(t)+C_{1}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)\leq\tilde{C}_{1}\left(\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right), (3.19)

where the constants C~1,C1>0\tilde{C}_{1},\,C_{1}>0 are independent of ε\varepsilon, δ\delta, δ1\delta_{1} and TT.

Proof.

By applying the derivative operator xα\partial_{x}^{\alpha} with 0|α|40\leq|\alpha|\leq 4 to the remainder system (3.2), then multiplying each equation by xαg\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g, xαu\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u, AγxαρA\gamma\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho, respectively, and taking the integration with respect to (x,v)(x,v) and xx, we have, for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

12ddt(xαgLx,v22+1+h0+ερxαuLx22+AγxαρLx22)+c0ε2xα(𝐈𝐏)gν2+1ε2xα(bεu)Lx22+μxα+βuLx22+(μ+λ)xαdivxuLx221εxαR0,xαgx,vB11+xαR1,xαgx,vB12+1εxαR2,xαuxB13+xαR3,xαuxB14xα[(1+h0)(u0xu+uxu0)],xαuxB151|α~||α|Cα,α~xα~(1+h0+ερ)txαα~u0,xαuxB16Aγxαdivx(h0u+ερu),xαρxB17Aγxαdivx(ρu0),xαρxB18Aγxαdivxu,xαρxB19,\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+\|\sqrt{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+A\gamma\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\right)+\frac{c_{0}}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{\nu}\\[4.0pt] +\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\mu\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+(\mu+\lambda)\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\\[4.0pt] \leq\underbrace{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}R_{0},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{11}}+\underbrace{\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}R_{1},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{12}}+\underbrace{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}R_{2},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{13}}+\underbrace{\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}R_{3},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{14}}\\[4.0pt] \underbrace{-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[(1+h_{0})(u_{0}\cdot\partial_{x}u+u\cdot\partial_{x}u_{0})\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{15}}\underbrace{-\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}C_{\alpha,\tilde{\alpha}}\langle\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}u_{0},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{16}}\\[4.0pt] \underbrace{-A\gamma\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}(h_{0}u+\varepsilon\rho u),\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\rangle_{x}}_{B_{17}}\underbrace{-A\gamma\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}(\rho u_{0}),\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\rangle_{x}}_{B_{18}}\underbrace{-A\gamma\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\rangle_{x}}_{B_{19}}, (3.20)

where we consider the decomposition g=(𝐈𝐏)g+𝐏1g\mathcal{L}g=\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g+\mathbf{P}_{1}g in (1.7) and inequality (1.10), and R0R_{0}, R1R_{1}, R2R_{2}, R3R_{3} are given as in (3.3).

Recalling the definition of R0R_{0} in (3.3), we can split B11B_{11} into the following four terms:

B11=\displaystyle B_{11}= 1εxα[(𝐈𝐏0)(vxg1)],xαgx,vB1111εxα[1Mdivv(u0g1M)],xαgx,vB112\displaystyle\ \underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0})(v\cdot\nabla_{x}g_{1})\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{111}}\underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(u_{0}g_{1}\sqrt{M})\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{112}} (3.21)
1εxα[1Mdivv(u0gM)],xαgx,vB1131εxα[1Mdivv(um0M)],xαgx,vB114.\displaystyle\ \underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(u_{0}g\sqrt{M})\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{113}}\underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(um_{0}M)\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{114}}.

For B111B_{111}, by substituting g1g_{1} in (3.3) and noticing (1.8), we have, for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

B111=\displaystyle B_{111}= 1εvxα+βg1,xα(𝐈𝐏)gx,v1εvxα+βg1,vxαbMx,v\displaystyle\ -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle v\cdot\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}g_{1},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle v\cdot\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}g_{1},v\cdot\partial_{x}^{\alpha}b\sqrt{M}\rangle_{x,v}
=\displaystyle= 1εvxα+β(vu0m0)M,xα(𝐈𝐏)gx,v1εvxα+β(vu0)M,xα(𝐈𝐏)gx,v\displaystyle\ -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle v\cdot\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}(v\cdot u_{0}m_{0})\sqrt{M},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle v\cdot\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}(v\cdot u_{0})\sqrt{M},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}
+1εvxα+β(vxm0)M,xα(𝐈𝐏)gx,v,\displaystyle\ +\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle v\cdot\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}(v\cdot\partial_{x}m_{0})\sqrt{M},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v},

where (𝐈𝐏0)g=(𝐈𝐏0)(𝐈𝐏)g+vbM=(𝐈𝐏)g+vbM(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0})g=(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0})(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g+v\cdot b\sqrt{M}=(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g+v\cdot b\sqrt{M} is used in the second equality.
Then, |B111||B_{111}| is bounded by, for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

|B111|\displaystyle|B_{111}|\leq Cεu0Lx3m0Lx6(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v2+Cεxu0Lx2(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v2+Cεxm0Lx2(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v2\displaystyle\ \frac{C}{\varepsilon}\|u_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\|m_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+\frac{C}{\varepsilon}\|\nabla_{x}u_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+\frac{C}{\varepsilon}\|\nabla_{x}m_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}
C024ε2(𝐈𝐏)gHx1Lv22+C(xm0,xu0)Lx22+Cεu0Hx1xm0Lx2(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v2\displaystyle\leq\ \frac{C_{0}}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{H^{1}_{x}L^{2}_{v}}+C\|(\nabla_{x}m_{0},\nabla_{x}u_{0})\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{C}{\varepsilon}\|u_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}m_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}
c024ε2(𝐈𝐏)gHx1Lv22+C𝒟ma(t)+C12(t)𝒟(t),if|α|=0,\displaystyle\leq\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{H^{1}_{x}L^{2}_{v}}+C\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+C\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),\quad\text{if}\quad|\alpha|=0,
|B111|\displaystyle|B_{111}|\leq Cε1|α~||α|Cα,α~xα~u0Lx4xαα~m0Lx4xα(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v2\displaystyle\ \frac{C}{\varepsilon}\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}C_{\alpha,\tilde{\alpha}}\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}u_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}m_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}
+Cεxαu0Lx2xα(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v2+Cεxα+βm0Lx2xα(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v2\displaystyle\ +\frac{C}{\varepsilon}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+\frac{C}{\varepsilon}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}m_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}
\displaystyle\leq c024ε2xα(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+C𝒟ma(t)+C12(t)𝒟(t),if|α|1,\displaystyle\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+C\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+C\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),\quad\text{if}\quad|\alpha|\geq 1,

where the dissipative property (1.10) is employed.
Hence, we obtain

|B111|\displaystyle|B_{111}|\leq c024ε2[(𝐈𝐏)gHx1Lv22+xα(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22]+C𝒟ma(t)+C12(t)𝒟(t).\displaystyle\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\left[\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{H^{1}_{x}L^{2}_{v}}+\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}\right]+C\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+C\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t).

For B112B_{112}, by applying the similar argument as B111B_{111}, we also find

|B112|12(t)𝒟(t).|B_{112}|\lesssim\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t).

For B113B_{113}, we have

B113=\displaystyle B_{113}= 1εxα[u0v(𝐈𝐏)gv2u0(𝐈𝐏)g],xα(𝐈𝐏)gx,v\displaystyle\ -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[u_{0}\partial_{v}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g-\frac{v}{2}\cdot u_{0}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}
1εxα(u0v𝐏gv2u0𝐏g),xα(𝐈𝐏)gx,v\displaystyle\ -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(u_{0}\partial_{v}\mathbf{P}g-\frac{v}{2}\cdot u_{0}\mathbf{P}g),\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}
1εxα[u0v(𝐈𝐏)gv2u0(𝐈𝐏)g],xα𝐏gx,v\displaystyle\ -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[u_{0}\partial_{v}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g-\frac{v}{2}\cdot u_{0}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\mathbf{P}g\rangle_{x,v}
1εxα(u0v𝐏gv2u0𝐏g),xα𝐏gx,v\displaystyle\ -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(u_{0}\partial_{v}\mathbf{P}g-\frac{v}{2}\cdot u_{0}\mathbf{P}g),\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\mathbf{P}g\rangle_{x,v}
\displaystyle\leq Cε(u0Hx|α|+u0Hx2)[(xa,xb)Hx|α|1+0|α|4xα(𝐈𝐏)gν]0|α|4xα(𝐈𝐏)gν\displaystyle\ \frac{C}{\varepsilon}\left(\|u_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}+\|u_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\right)\left[\|(\partial_{x}a,\partial_{x}b)\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}+\sum_{0\leq|\alpha|\leq 4}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{\nu}\right]\sum_{0\leq|\alpha|\leq 4}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{\nu}
1εxα(u0v𝐏gv2u0𝐏g),xα𝐏gx,v\displaystyle\ -\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(u_{0}\partial_{v}\mathbf{P}g-\frac{v}{2}\cdot u_{0}\mathbf{P}g),\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\mathbf{P}g\rangle_{x,v}
\displaystyle\leq C12(t)𝒟(t)+1εxα(u0a),xα(bεu)x+xα(u0a),xαuxB1131,\displaystyle\ C\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\underbrace{+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(u_{0}a),\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\rangle_{x}+\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(u_{0}a),\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{1131}},

and furthermore, notice the term au0-au_{0} from R3R_{3} in (3.3), we have the following estimate for B1131B_{1131},

|B1131u0a,ux|\displaystyle|B_{1131}-\langle u_{0}a,u\rangle_{x}|\leq 1εu0Lx3aLx6bεuLx2\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\|u_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\|a\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|b-\varepsilon u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 1εu0Hx1xaLx2bεuLx2\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\|u_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}a\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|b-\varepsilon u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t),if|α|=0\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),\quad\text{if}\quad|\alpha|=0
|B1131|\displaystyle|B_{1131}|\leq 1εxαu0Lx3aLx6xα(bεu)Lx2+1εu0LxxαaLx2xα(bεu)Lx2\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\|a\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}a\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
+Cε1|α~||α|xα~u0Lx4xαα~aLx4xα(bεu)Lx2+xαu0Lx3aLx6xαuLx2\displaystyle\ +\frac{C}{\varepsilon}\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}u_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}a\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\|a\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
+u0LxxαaLx2xαuLx2+C1|α~||α|xα~u0Lx4xαα~aLx4xαuLx2\displaystyle\ +\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}a\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}u_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}a\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t),if|α|1.\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),\quad\text{if}\quad|\alpha|\geq 1.

Hence, we have

|B113|12(t)𝒟(t).|B_{113}|\lesssim\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t).

By applying the similar argument as B113B_{113}, we also find

|B114|12(t)𝒟(t).|B_{114}|\lesssim\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t).

By inserting all the estimates of B111B_{111}, B112B_{112}, B113B_{113}, B114B_{114} into (3.21), we obtain that

|B11|c024ε2[(𝐈𝐏)gHx1Lv22+xα(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22]+C(𝒟ma(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)).\displaystyle|B_{11}|\leq\frac{c_{0}}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\left[\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{H^{1}_{x}L^{2}_{v}}^{2}+\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}\right]+C\left(\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right). (3.22)

For B12B_{12}, by recalling the definition of R1R_{1} in (3.3), we can split it into

B12=xαtg1,xαgx,vB121xα[1Mdivv(ug1M+ugM)],xαgx,vB122.B_{12}=\ \underbrace{-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{t}g_{1},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{121}}\underbrace{-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(ug_{1}\sqrt{M}+ug\sqrt{M})\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{122}}. (3.23)

Furthermore, by substituting g1g_{1}, B121B_{121} is divided into the following two parts:

B121=txα(m0u0),xαbxB1211txαu0+txα+1m0,xαbxB1212.B_{121}=\underbrace{-\langle\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(m_{0}u_{0}),\partial^{\alpha}_{x}b\rangle_{x}}_{B_{1211}}\underbrace{-\langle\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}+\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha+1}m_{0},\partial^{\alpha}_{x}b\rangle_{x}}_{B_{1212}}. (3.24)

For B1211B_{1211},

|B1211|=\displaystyle|B_{1211}|= |tm0u0+m0tu0,bεuxεtm0u0+m0tu0,ux|\displaystyle\ \left|-\langle\partial_{t}m_{0}u_{0}+m_{0}\partial_{t}u_{0},b-\varepsilon u\rangle_{x}-\varepsilon\langle\partial_{t}m_{0}u_{0}+m_{0}\partial_{t}u_{0},u\rangle_{x}\right|
\displaystyle\leq (tm0Lx2u0Lx+tu0Lx2m0Lx)bεuLx2\displaystyle\ \left(\|\partial_{t}m_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}+\|\partial_{t}u_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|m_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\right)\|b-\varepsilon u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
+ε(tm0Lx2u0Lx3+tu0Lx2m0Lx3)uLx6\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\varepsilon\left(\|\partial_{t}m_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|u_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}+\|\partial_{t}u_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|m_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\right)\|u\|_{L^{6}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim (tm0u0Hx2+tu0Lx2m0Hx2)bεuLx2\displaystyle\ \big(\|\partial_{t}m_{0}\|\|u_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}+\|\partial_{t}u_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|m_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\big)\|b-\varepsilon u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
+ε(tm0Lx2u0Hx1+tu0Lx2m0Hx1)xuLx2\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\varepsilon\big(\|\partial_{t}m_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|u_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}+\|\partial_{t}u_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|m_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\big)\|\partial_{x}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t),if|α|=0,\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),\quad\text{if}\quad|\alpha|=0,
|B1211|=\displaystyle|B_{1211}|= |txα(m0u0),xα(bεu)xεtxα(m0u0),xαux|\displaystyle\ \left|-\langle\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(m_{0}u_{0}),\partial^{\alpha}_{x}(b-\varepsilon u)\rangle_{x}-\varepsilon\langle\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(m_{0}u_{0}),\partial^{\alpha}_{x}u\rangle_{x}\right|
\displaystyle\lesssim (tu0Hx|α|m0Hx|α|+u0Hx|α|tm0Hx|α|)xα(bεu)Lx2\displaystyle\ \left(\|\partial_{t}u_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\|m_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}+\|u_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\|\partial_{t}m_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\right)\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
+ε(tu0Hx|α|m0Hx|α|xuHx|α|1+tm0Hx|α|u0Hx|α|xuHx|α|1)\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\left(\|\partial_{t}u_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\|m_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}u\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}+\|\partial_{t}m_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\|u_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}u\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}\right)
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t),if|α|1,\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),\quad\text{if}\quad|\alpha|\geq 1,

which then implies that

B121112(t)𝒟(t),B_{1211}\lesssim\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),

while for B1212B_{1212}, we have

|B1212|=\displaystyle|B_{1212}|= |tu0+txm0,bεuxεtu0+txm0,ux|\displaystyle\ \left|-\langle\partial_{t}u_{0}+\partial_{t}\nabla_{x}m_{0},b-\varepsilon u\rangle_{x}-\varepsilon\langle\partial_{t}u_{0}+\partial_{t}\nabla_{x}m_{0},u\rangle_{x}\right|
\displaystyle\leq 124ε2bεuLx22+Ctu0+txm0Lx22+εtu0+txm0H˙x1uH˙x1\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|b-\varepsilon u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\|\partial_{t}u_{0}+\partial_{t}\nabla_{x}m_{0}\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\partial_{t}u_{0}+\partial_{t}\nabla_{x}m_{0}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}_{x}}\|u\|_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}
\displaystyle\leq 124ε2bεuLx22+C(tu0,txm0)Lx22+μ24xuLx22\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|b-\varepsilon u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\|(\partial_{t}u_{0},\partial_{t}\nabla_{x}m_{0})\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{\mu}{2^{4}}\|\nabla_{x}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}^{2}
\displaystyle\leq C𝒟ma(t)+124ε2bεuLx22+μ24xuLx22,if|α|=0,\displaystyle\ C\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\frac{1}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|b-\varepsilon u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{\mu}{2^{4}}\|\nabla_{x}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}},\quad\text{if}\quad|\alpha|=0,
|B1212|=\displaystyle|B_{1212}|= |txαu0+txα+βm0,xα(bεu)xεtxαu0+txα+βm0,xαux|\displaystyle\ \left|-\langle\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}+\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}m_{0},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\rangle_{x}-\varepsilon\langle\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}+\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}m_{0},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}\right|
\displaystyle\leq 124ε2xα(bεu)Lx22+C(txαu0,txα+βm0)Lx22+μ24xαuLx22\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\|(\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0},\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}m_{0})\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{\mu}{2^{4}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\leq C𝒟ma(t)+124ε2xα(bεu)Lx22+μ24xαuLx22,if|α|1,\displaystyle\ C\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\frac{1}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{\mu}{2^{4}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}},\quad\text{if}\quad|\alpha|\geq 1,

which leads to

|B1212|C𝒟ma(t)+124ε2xα(bεu)Lx22+μ24(xu,xαu)Lx22.|B_{1212}|\leq\ C\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\frac{1}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{\mu}{2^{4}}\|(\nabla_{x}u,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}.

By substituting the estimates of B1211B_{1211} and B1212B_{1212} into (3.24), we obtain

|B121|C𝒟ma(t)+124ε2xα(bεu)Lx22+μ24(xu,xαu)Lx22+C12(t)𝒟(t).|B_{121}|\leq\ C\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\frac{1}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\nabla_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{\mu}{2^{4}}\|(\nabla_{x}u,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.25)

We can also apply the similar argument as for B113B_{113}, and find B122B_{122} to be bounded by

|B122|=|xα[1Mdivv(ug1M+ugM)],xαgx,v|12(t)𝒟(t).\displaystyle|B_{122}|=\ \left|-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(ug_{1}\sqrt{M}+ug\sqrt{M})\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}g\rangle_{x,v}\right|\lesssim\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.26)

Combining (3.23), (3.25), and (3.26), we have

|B12|124ε2xα(bεu)Lx22+μ24(xu,xαu)Lx22+C(𝒟ma(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)).|B_{12}|\leq\ \frac{1}{2^{4}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{\mu}{2^{4}}\|(\nabla_{x}u,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\left(\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right). (3.27)

Recalling the definition of R2R_{2} in (3.3), we can divided B13B_{13} as follows: for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

B13=\displaystyle B_{13}= Aεxα+β[(1+h0)γ]xα+β[(1+h0+ερ)γ],xαux\displaystyle\ \frac{A}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}\big[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma}\big]-\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}\big[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma}\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}
=\displaystyle= Aεxα[(1+h0+ερ)γ]xα[(1+h0)γ],xαdivxux\displaystyle\frac{A}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma}\big]-\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma}\big],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u\rangle_{x}
=\displaystyle= AεBγα,xαdivxu+Aγ[(1+h0+ερ)γ1(1+h0)γ1]xαρ,xαdivxux\displaystyle\frac{A}{\varepsilon}\langle B_{\gamma}^{\alpha},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u\rangle+A\gamma\langle\big[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}\big]\partial^{\alpha}_{x}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u\rangle_{x}
+Aγ[(1+h0)γ11]xαρ,xαdivxuxB19,\displaystyle+A\gamma\langle\big[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}-1\big]\partial^{\alpha}_{x}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u\rangle_{x}-B_{19},

where BγαB_{\gamma}^{\alpha} is defined as in (3.18) and B19B_{19} has been given in (3.20).
By applying the Lemma 3.1, we can have the following estimate of B13B_{13}, for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

|B13+B19|\displaystyle|B_{13}+B_{19}|\lesssim 1εBγ0Lx2xuLx2+(1+h0+ερ)γ1(1+h0)γ1Lx3ρLx6xuLx2\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\|B_{\gamma}^{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\|\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
+(1+h0)γ11Lx3ρLx6xuLx2\displaystyle\ +\|(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}-1\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\|\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim ρHx1xρLx2xuLx2+ερHx1xρLx2xuLx2+h0Hx1xρLx2xuLx2\displaystyle\ \|\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|h_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t),if|α|=0\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),\quad\text{if}\quad|\alpha|=0
|B13+B19|\displaystyle|B_{13}+B_{19}|\lesssim 1εBγαLx2xα+βuLx2+(1+h0+ερ)γ1(1+h0)γ1LxxαρLx2xα+βuLx2\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\|B_{\gamma}^{\alpha}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
+(1+h0)γ11LxxαρLx2xα+βuLx2\displaystyle\ +\|(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}-1\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim ρHx2(xρ,xh0)Hx3xα+βuLx2+ερHx2xρLx2xα+βuLx2\displaystyle\ \|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|(\nabla_{x}\rho,\nabla_{x}h_{0})\|_{H^{3}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
+h0Hx2xρLx2xα+βuLx2\displaystyle\ +\|h_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t),if|α|1.\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),\quad\text{if}\quad|\alpha|\geq 1.

Therefore, we have

|B13+B19|12(t)𝒟(t).|B_{13}+B_{19}|\lesssim\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.28)

By further noticing the definition of R3R_{3} in (3.3) and considering (A.2), we can apply the similar argument of estimating B11B_{11} into B14B_{14}, B15B_{15}, B17B_{17}, and B18B_{18} such that

|B14|+|B15|+|B17|+|B18|12(t)𝒟(t),|B_{14}|+|B_{15}|+|B_{17}|+|B_{18}|\lesssim\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t), (3.29)

On the other hand, for rest term B16B_{16}, we have

B16=1|α~||α|Cα,α~xα~h0txαα~u0,xαu0xε1|α~||α|Cα,α~xα~ρtxαα~u0,xαu0x,B_{16}=\ -\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}C_{\alpha,\tilde{\alpha}}\langle\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}h_{0}\,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}u_{0},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}\rangle_{x}-\varepsilon\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}C_{\alpha,\tilde{\alpha}}\langle\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}\rho\,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}u_{0},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}\rangle_{x},

from which, we find that B16B_{16} only exists when |α|1|\alpha|\geq 1, and can be bounded by

|B16|\displaystyle|B_{16}|\lesssim xαh0Lx2tu0Hx2xαuLx2+1|α~||α|1xα~h0Lx4txαα~u0Lx4xαu0Lx2\displaystyle\ \|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{t}u_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|-1}\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}u_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim εxαρLx2tu0Hx2xαuLx2+Cε1|α~||α|1xα~ρLx4txαα~u0Lx4xαu0Lx2\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{t}u_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\varepsilon\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|-1}\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}u_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t).\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t).

Therefore, we deduce that

|B16|12(t)𝒟(t).|B_{16}|\lesssim\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.30)

Putting all the estimates (3.22), (3.27), (3.28), (3.29) and (3.30) into (3.20), the proof can be finally completed by summing up for all 0|α|40\leq|\alpha|\leq 4.

To estimate tu\partial_{t}u, we give the following lemma about mi,K,2(t)\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,2}(t) and 𝒟mi,K,2(t)\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,2}(t) defined in (3.7) and (3.8).

Lemma 3.3.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 and (3.11), then, for any 0tT0\leq t\leq T,

12ddtmi,K,2(t)+C2𝒟mi,K,2(t)C~2(𝒟mi,K,1(t)+𝒟mi,K,3(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)),\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,2}(t)+C_{2}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,2}(t)\leq\tilde{C}_{2}\left(\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,3}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right), (3.31)

where the constants C~2,C2>0\tilde{C}_{2},\,C_{2}>0 are independent of ε\varepsilon, δ\delta, δ1\delta_{1} and TT.

Proof.

By applying xα\partial_{x}^{\alpha} to both-hand-sides of the remainder system (3.2)2\eqref{Remainder equations}_{2} with 0|α|40\leq|\alpha|\leq 4, multiplying it by txαu\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u and integrating over 3\mathbb{R}^{3}, we have, for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

12ddt[μxα+βuLx22+(μ+λ)xαdivxuLx22]+1+h0+ερtxαuLx22\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left[\mu\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+(\mu+\lambda)\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\right]+\|\sqrt{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}\,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}} (3.32)
=1εxα(bεu),txαuxB211|α~||α|Cα,α~(xα~h+εxα~ρ)txαα~u,txαuxB22\displaystyle=\underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u),\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{21}}\underbrace{-\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}C_{\alpha,\tilde{\alpha}}\langle(\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}h+\varepsilon\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}\rho)\,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}u,\,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{22}}
xα[(1+h0+ερ)(uxu0+u0xu)],txαuxB23+1εxαR2,txαuxB24+xαR3,txαuxB25.\displaystyle\quad\underbrace{-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\left[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)(u\cdot\nabla_{x}u_{0}+u_{0}\cdot\nabla_{x}u)\right],\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{23}}+\underbrace{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}R_{2},\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{24}}+\underbrace{\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}R_{3},\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{25}}.

For B21B_{21}, we have

|B21|143txαuLx22+Cε2xα(bεu)Lx22143txαuLx22+C𝒟mi,K,1(t),|B_{21}|\leq\frac{1}{4^{3}}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{C}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\leq\frac{1}{4^{3}}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t), (3.33)

where 𝒟mi,K,1(t)\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t) is defined in (3.7).

For B22B_{22},

|B22|\displaystyle|B_{22}|\lesssim 1|α~||α|(xα~h0Lx4+εxα~ρLx4)txαα~uLx4txαuLx2\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}\left(\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\right)\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}u\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}} (3.34)
\displaystyle\lesssim 1|α~||α|(xα~h0Hx1+εxα~ρHx1)txαα~uLx4txαuLx2\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}\left(\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}h_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\right)\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}u\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t),\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),

where the Ho¨\ddot{\textup{o}}lder inequality and Sobolev embedding are used.

We obtain the estimate for B23B_{23} and B25B_{25} by using the similar argument as for B22B_{22},,

|B23|+|B25|12(t)𝒟(t)\displaystyle|B_{23}|+|B_{25}|\lesssim\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t) (3.35)

Recalling the definition of R2R_{2} in (3.3), and applying (A.2) and Lemma 3.1, we can estimate B24B_{24}, for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

|B24|=\displaystyle|B_{24}|= Aεxα+β[(1+h0+ερ)γ]xα+β[(1+h)γ],txαux\displaystyle-\frac{A}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}\big[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma}\big]-\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}\big[(1+h)^{\gamma}\big],\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x} (3.36)
=\displaystyle= Aεxα+1[(1+h0+ερ)γ]xα+1[(1+h0)γ]γε(1+h0+ερ)γ1xα+βρ,txαux\displaystyle-\frac{A}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha+1}\big[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma}\big]-\partial_{x}^{\alpha+1}\big[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma}\big]-\gamma\varepsilon(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}\rho,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}
Aγ[(1+h0+ερ)γ1(1+h0)γ1]xα+βρ,txαux\displaystyle-A\gamma\langle\big[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}\big]\partial^{\alpha+\beta}_{x}\rho,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}
Aγ[(1+h0)γ11]xα+βρ,txαuxAγxα+βρ,txαux\displaystyle-A\gamma\langle\big[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}-1\big]\partial^{\alpha+\beta}_{x}\rho,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}-A\gamma\langle\partial^{\alpha+\beta}_{x}\rho,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\rangle_{x}
\displaystyle\leq 143txαuLx22+Cxα+βρLx22+C12(t)𝒟(t)\displaystyle\frac{1}{4^{3}}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}\rho\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)
\displaystyle\leq 143txαuLx22+C(𝒟mi,K,3(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)),\displaystyle\frac{1}{4^{3}}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\big(\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,3}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\big),

where 𝒟mi,K,3(t)\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,3}(t) is defined in (3.7).

Combining with (3.32), (3.33), (3.34), (3.35), and (3.36) as well as considering (A.1), we have, for 0|α|40\leq|\alpha|\leq 4 and |β|=1|\beta|=1,

12ddt[μxα+βuLx22+(μ+λ)xαdivxuLx22]+14txαuLx22(𝒟mi,K,1(t)+𝒟mi,K,3(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)).\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\big[\mu\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+(\mu+\lambda)\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\big]+\frac{1}{4}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\\ \lesssim\ \left(\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,3}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right). (3.37)

Summing up the above inequality with 0|α|40\leq|\alpha|\leq 4, the proof can be completed. ∎

To close the energy estimate of the remainder system (3.2)-(3.4), we also need to study the dissipation of ρ\rho, i.e., the estimate of mi,K,3(t)\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,3}(t) and 𝒟mi,K,3(t)\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,3}(t).

Lemma 3.4.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 and (3.11), then, for any 0tT0\leq t\leq T,

12ddtmi,K,3(t)+C3𝒟mi,K,3(t)C~3(𝒟mi,K,1(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)),\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,3}(t)+C_{3}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,3}(t)\leq\tilde{C}_{3}\left(\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right), (3.38)

where the constants C~3,C3>0\tilde{C}_{3},\,C_{3}>0 are independent of ε\varepsilon, δ\delta, δ1\delta_{1} and TT.

Proof.

We start with the following calculation: for 1|α|41\leq|\alpha|\leq 4 and |β|=1|\beta|=1,

ddtxαρ[xαρ2+(1+h0+ερ)22μ+λxαβu]dx\displaystyle\frac{d}{dt}\int\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\cdot\left[\frac{\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho}{2}+\frac{(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}}{2\mu+\lambda}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u\right]dx (3.39)
=\displaystyle= xαρ,txαρxB31+12μ+λ(1+h0+ερ)2txαρ,xαβu0xB32\displaystyle\underbrace{\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\rangle_{x}}_{B_{31}}+\underbrace{\frac{1}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u_{0}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{32}}
+12μ+λ(1+h0+ερ)2xαρ,txαβuxB33+22μ+λ(1+h0+ερ)(th0+εtρ)xαρ,xαβuxB34.\displaystyle+\underbrace{\frac{1}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{33}}+\underbrace{\frac{2}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)(\partial_{t}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{t}\rho)\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u\rangle_{x}}_{B_{34}}.

For B31B_{31}, by substituting (3.2)3\eqref{Remainder equations}_{3} and considering (3.11), we have, for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

B31=\displaystyle B_{31}= xαρ,xαdivx[(1+h0+ερ)u]xxαρ,xαdivx(ρu0)x\displaystyle-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)u]\rangle_{x}-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}(\rho u_{0})\rangle_{x} (3.40)
=\displaystyle= xαρ,xαdivxu(1+h0+ερ)xxαρ,(xαh0+εxαρ)divxux+ε2divxu,(xαρ)2x\displaystyle-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\rangle_{x}-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho)\textup{div}_{x}u\rangle_{x}+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\langle\textup{div}_{x}u,(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho)^{2}\rangle_{x}
xαρ,xαu(xh0+εxρ)xxαρu,xα+βh0xCα,1xαρxu,xαh0+εxαρx\displaystyle-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u(\partial_{x}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}\rho)\rangle_{x}-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho u,\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}h_{0}\rangle_{x}-C_{\alpha,1}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\partial_{x}u,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\rangle_{x}
Cα,1xαρ,xαβdivxu(xh0+εxρ)x\displaystyle-C_{\alpha,1}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}\textup{div}_{x}u\cdot(\partial_{x}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}\rho)\rangle_{x}
1|α~||α|2Cα,α~xαρ,xα~divxu(xαα~h0+εxαα~ρ)x\displaystyle-\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|-2}C_{\alpha,\tilde{\alpha}}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}\textup{div}_{x}u(\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}\rho)\rangle_{x}
1|α~||α|1Cα,α~xαρ,xα~u(xα+βα~h0+εxα+βα~ρ)x\displaystyle-\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|-1}C_{\alpha,\tilde{\alpha}}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}u(\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta-\tilde{\alpha}}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta-\tilde{\alpha}}\rho)\rangle_{x}
\displaystyle\leq xαρ,xαdivxu(1+h0+ερ)x+C12(t)𝒟(t).\displaystyle-\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\rangle_{x}+C\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t).

Similar to the estimate of B31B_{31}, for B34B_{34}, we have

B34=divx[(1+h0+ερ)u]xαρ,xα1uxdivx(ρu0)xαρ,xα1ux12(t)𝒟(t).B_{34}=-\langle\textup{div}_{x}[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)u]\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-1}u\rangle_{x}-\langle\textup{div}_{x}(\rho u_{0})\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-1}u\rangle_{x}\lesssim\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.41)

For B32B_{32},

B32=\displaystyle B_{32}= 12μ+λxα[u(1+h0+ερ)],xαu(1+h0+ερ)2xB321\displaystyle\underbrace{\frac{1}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\big[u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\big],\partial^{\alpha}_{x}u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{321}}
+22μ+λxα[u(1+h0+ερ)],xαβu(xh0+εxρ)(1+h0+ερ)xB322,\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad+\underbrace{\frac{2}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}[u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)],\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u(\partial_{x}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}\rho)(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\rangle_{x}}_{B_{322}},

with |β|=1|\beta|=1.
Furthermore, B321B_{321} is bounded by

B321\displaystyle B_{321}\lesssim xuHx|α|12+CuHx2xαh0+εxαρLx2xαρLx2\displaystyle\ \|\partial_{x}u\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}^{2}+C\|u\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
+1|α~||α|1xα~uHx1xαα~h0+εxαα~ρHx1xαρLx2\displaystyle\ \qquad\qquad\qquad+\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|-1}\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}u\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 𝒟mi,K,1(t)+12(t)𝒟(t),\displaystyle\ \mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),

and for B322B_{322}, by considering (A.1), we have, for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

B322=\displaystyle B_{322}= 22μ+λxα[u(1+h0+ερ)],xαβu(xh0+εxρ)(1+h0+ερ)x\displaystyle\ \frac{2}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}[u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)],\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u(\partial_{x}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}\rho)(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\rangle_{x}
\displaystyle\lesssim xα[u(1+h0+ερ)]Lx2xαβu(xh0+εxρ)Lx2\displaystyle\ \|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}[u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)]\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u(\partial_{x}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}\rho)\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim [xαuLx2+uLxxα(1+h0+ερ)Lx2]xαβuLx4xh0+εxρLx4\displaystyle\ \left[\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|u\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\right]\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}
+1|α~||α|1xα~uLx4xαα~(1+h0+ερ)Lx4xαβuLx4xh0+εxρLx4\displaystyle\ +\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|-1}\|\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}u\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t).\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t).

Therefore, we obtain

B32𝒟mi,K,1(t)+12(t)𝒟(t).B_{32}\lesssim\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.42)

Recalling the remainder system (3.2)2\eqref{Remainder equations}_{2}, B33B_{33} can be divided into five parts as follow: for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

B33=\displaystyle B_{33}= 12μ+λxαρ,xαβ(u0xu+uxu0)(1+h0+ερ)2xB331\displaystyle\ \underbrace{-\frac{1}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}(u_{0}\cdot\nabla_{x}u+u\cdot\nabla_{x}u_{0})(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{331}}
12μ+λxαρ,xαβ(11+h0+ερLu)(1+h0+ερ)2xB332\displaystyle\ \underbrace{-\frac{1}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}\left(\frac{1}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}Lu\right)(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{332}}
+1(2μ+λ)εxαρ,xαβ[11+h0+ερ(bεu)](1+h0+ερ)2xB333\displaystyle\ +\underbrace{\frac{1}{(2\mu+\lambda)\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}\left[\frac{1}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}(b-\varepsilon u)\right](1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{333}}
+1(2μ+λ)εxαρ,xαβ(11+h0+ερR2)(1+h0+ερ)2xB334\displaystyle\ +\underbrace{\frac{1}{(2\mu+\lambda)\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}\left(\frac{1}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}R_{2}\right)(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{334}}
+12μ+λxαρ,xαβ(11+h0+ερR3)(1+h0+ερ)2xB335.\displaystyle\ +\underbrace{\frac{1}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}\left(\frac{1}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}R_{3}\right)(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{335}}.

For B331B_{331}, we have

B331\displaystyle B_{331}\lesssim xαρLx2xαβ(u0xu+uxu0)Lx2\displaystyle\ \|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}(u_{0}\cdot\nabla_{x}u+u\cdot\nabla_{x}u_{0})\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim [(u0,u)Hxα+(u0,u)Hx2]xαρLx2[(xu0,xu)Hx|α|1+(xu0,xu)Hx2]\displaystyle\ \left[\|(u_{0},u)\|_{H^{\alpha}_{x}}+\|(u_{0},u)\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\right]\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\left[\|(\nabla_{x}u_{0},\nabla_{x}u)\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}+\|(\nabla_{x}u_{0},\nabla_{x}u)\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\right]
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t),\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),

with |β|=1|\beta|=1.

By considering the Lemma 3.1, we find, for B332B_{332},

B332\displaystyle B_{332}\leq C1|α~||α|2xαρLx2Bα~Lx4xαβα~LuLx412μ+λxαρ,L(xαβu)(1+h0+ερ)x\displaystyle\ C\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|-2}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|B^{\tilde{\alpha}}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta-\tilde{\alpha}}Lu\|_{L^{4}_{x}}-\frac{1}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,L(\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u)(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\rangle_{x}
\displaystyle\leq CxαρLx2(xh0Hxα2+εxρHx|α|2)xuHx|α|1+xαρ,xαdivxu(1+h0+ερ)x\displaystyle\ C\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}(\|\partial_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{\alpha-2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\partial_{x}\rho\|_{H^{|\alpha|-2}_{x}})\|\partial_{x}u\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}+\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\rangle_{x}
+μ2μ+λxαβρ,(xαdivxuΔxxαβu0)(xh0+εxρ)x\displaystyle\ +\frac{\mu}{2\mu+\lambda}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}\rho,(\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u-\Delta_{x}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u_{0})(\partial_{x}h_{0}+\varepsilon\partial_{x}\rho)\rangle_{x}
\displaystyle\leq C12(t)𝒟(t)+xαρ,xαdivxu(1+h0+ερ)x,\displaystyle\ C\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)+\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\rangle_{x},

with |β|=1|\beta|=1.

By recalling the definition of R2R_{2} in (3.3) and considering (A.1), the dissipation of xαρ\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho can be manifested in B335B_{335}, i.e., there exists a constant C>0C_{*}>0 such that

B335=\displaystyle B_{335}= A(2μ+λ)εxαρ,{xα[(1+h0+ερ)γ]xα[(1+h0)γ]}(1+h0+ερ)x\displaystyle\ -\frac{A}{(2\mu+\lambda)\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\Big\{\partial_{x}^{\alpha}[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma}]-\partial_{x}^{\alpha}[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma}]\Big\}(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\rangle_{x}
A(2μ+λ)ε1|α~||α|1xαρ,xα~(11+h0+ερ){xαα~[(1+h0+ερ)γ]\displaystyle\ -\frac{A}{(2\mu+\lambda)\varepsilon}\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|-1}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\tilde{\alpha}}\left(\frac{1}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}\right)\Big\{\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma}]
xαα~[(1+h0)γ]}(1+h0+ερ)2x\displaystyle\ -\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma}]\Big\}(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\rangle_{x}
\displaystyle\leq 2CxαρLx22A(2μ+λ)ε(1+h0+ερ)xαρ,BγαxB3351\displaystyle\ -2C_{*}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\underbrace{-\frac{A}{(2\mu+\lambda)\varepsilon}\langle(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,B^{\alpha}_{\gamma}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{3351}}
A(2μ+λ)ε1|α~||α|1Cα,α~(1+h0+ερ)2xαρ,Bα~Bγαα~xB3352\displaystyle\underbrace{-\frac{A}{(2\mu+\lambda)\varepsilon}\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|-1}C_{\alpha,\tilde{\alpha}}\langle(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,B^{\tilde{\alpha}}B^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}_{\gamma}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{3352}}
Aγ2μ+λ1|α~||α|1Cα,α~(1+h0+ερ)γ+1xαρ,Bα~xαα~ρxB3353,\displaystyle\underbrace{-\frac{A\gamma}{2\mu+\lambda}\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|-1}C_{\alpha,\tilde{\alpha}}\langle(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma+1}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,B^{\tilde{\alpha}}\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}\rho\rangle_{x}}_{B_{3353}},

where BγαB^{\alpha}_{\gamma} is defined in (3.18).

In terms of estimates of B3351B3353B_{3351}-B_{3353}, we need to use inequalities (3.14) and (3.17) in Lemma 3.1,

i=13|B335i|12(t)𝒟(t),\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{3}|B_{335i}|\lesssim\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),

where (A.2) is also utilized in the last inequality of estimate of B3352B_{3352} and B3353B_{3353} above.
Hence, we find

B3352CxαρLx22+C12(t)𝒟(t).B_{335}\leq\ -2C_{*}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t).

Recalling the definition of R3R_{3} in (3.3) and applying (3.14) in the Lemma 3.1, we obtain the following estimates of B333B_{333} and B334B_{334}: for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

B333=\displaystyle B_{333}= 1(2μ+λ)εxαρ,xαβ[11+h0+ερ(bεu)](1+h0+ερ)2x\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{(2\mu+\lambda)\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}\left[\frac{1}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}(b-\varepsilon u)\right](1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}\rangle_{x}
\displaystyle\leq CxαρLx22+Cε2xαβ(bεu)Lx22\displaystyle\ C_{*}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{C}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}(b-\varepsilon u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}
+Cε1|α~||α|xαρLx2Bα~βLx4xαβα~(bεu)Lx4\displaystyle\ \qquad\qquad+\frac{C}{\varepsilon}\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|B^{\tilde{\alpha}-\beta}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta-\tilde{\alpha}}(b-\varepsilon u)\|_{L^{4}_{x}}
\displaystyle\leq CxαρLx22+C(𝒟mi,K,1(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)),\displaystyle\ C_{*}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\left(\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right),
B334=\displaystyle B_{334}= xαρ,xα(R31+h0+ερ)x\displaystyle\ -\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\left(\frac{R_{3}}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}\right)\rangle_{x}
\displaystyle\lesssim xαρLx2BαLx2R3Lx+xαρLx2B0LxxαR3Lx2\displaystyle\ \|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|B^{\alpha}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|R_{3}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}+\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|B^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}R_{3}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
+1|α~||α|xαρLx2Bα~Lx4xαα~R3Lx4\displaystyle\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\sum_{1\leq|\tilde{\alpha}|\leq|\alpha|}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|B^{\tilde{\alpha}}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}}R_{3}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t),\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t),

where (A.2) is utilized in the last inequality.

Combining the estimates of B331B_{331} - B335B_{335} above, we obtain

B33CxαρLx22+xαρ,xαdivxu(1+h0+ερ)x+C(𝒟mi,K,1(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)).B_{33}\leq-C_{*}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)\rangle_{x}+C\left(\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right). (3.43)

Then, by plugging the estimates (3.40), (3.41), (3.42), and (3.43) into (3.39), we obtain that, for |β|=1|\beta|=1,

12ddtxαρLx22+12μ+λddtxαρxαβu(1+h0+ερ)2dx+CxαρLx22(𝒟mi,K,1(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)).\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{1}{2\mu+\lambda}\frac{d}{dt}\int\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\cdot\partial_{x}^{\alpha-\beta}u(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{2}dx+C_{*}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\rho\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}\\ \lesssim\big(\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\big). (3.44)

The proof can be finally completed by summing up the inequality above with 1|α|41\leq|\alpha|\leq 4.

In the following lemma, we deduce a priori estimate of the mixed partial derivative of gg, or more precisely, (𝐈𝐏)g(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g (since gHx,v4(𝐈𝐏)gHx,v4+gLv2Hx4\|g\|_{H^{4}_{x,v}}\sim\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{H^{4}_{x,v}}+\|g\|_{L^{2}_{v}H^{4}_{x}}, hence we only need to estimate (𝐈𝐏)gHx,v4\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{H^{4}_{x,v}}). To achieve this, we first apply the projection operator 𝐈𝐏\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P} to both-hand-sides of (3.2)1\eqref{Remainder equations}_{1} in the remainder system, which leads to

t(𝐈𝐏)g+1ε2(𝐈𝐏)g=1ε(𝐈𝐏)R0+(𝐈𝐏)R1,\displaystyle\partial_{t}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g+\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})R_{0}+(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})R_{1}, (3.45)

where the fact g=(𝐈𝐏)g+𝐏1g\mathcal{L}g=\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g+\mathbf{P}_{1}g in (1.7) is used, and R0,R1R_{0},\,R_{1} are defined in (3.3).

Lemma 3.5.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 and (3.11), then, for any 0tT0\leq t\leq T,

12ddtmi,K,4(t)+C4𝒟mi,K,4(t)C~4(𝒟mi,K,1(t)+𝒟mi,F(t)+𝒟ma(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)),\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,4}(t)+C_{4}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,4}(t)\leq\tilde{C}_{4}\left(\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right), (3.46)

where the constants C~4,C4>0\tilde{C}_{4},\,C_{4}>0 are independent of ε\varepsilon, δ\delta, δ1\delta_{1} and TT.

Proof.

Applying xαvβ\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta} with 1|α|+|β|4,|β|11\leq|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq 4,\,|\beta|\geq 1 to (3.45), multiplying it by xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)g\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g, and integrating over (x,v)3×3(x,v)\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\times\mathbb{R}^{3}, we obtain, for |β1|=1|\beta_{1}|=1 and |β2|=2|\beta_{2}|=2,

12ddtxαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+C0ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gν2\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+\frac{C_{0}}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{\nu} (3.47)
\displaystyle\leq Cβ,12ε2vxαvββ1(𝐈𝐏)g,xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB41Cβ,22ε2xαvββ2(𝐈𝐏)g,xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB42\displaystyle\underbrace{-\frac{C_{\beta,1}}{2\varepsilon^{2}}\langle v\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{41}}\underbrace{-\frac{C_{\beta,2}}{2\varepsilon^{2}}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{2}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{42}}
+1εxαvβ(𝐈𝐏)R0,xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB43+xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)R1,xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB44,\displaystyle+\underbrace{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})R_{0},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{43}}+\underbrace{\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})R_{1},\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{44}},

where a direct calculation

xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)g=[xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)g]+Cβ,12vxαvββ1(𝐈𝐏)g+Cβ,22xαvββ2(𝐈𝐏)g,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g=\mathcal{L}[\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g]+\frac{C_{\beta,1}}{2}v\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g+\frac{C_{\beta,2}}{2}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{2}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g,

and (1.10) are used.

For B41B_{41} and B42B_{42},

|B41|+|B42|=\displaystyle|B_{41}|+|B_{42}|= Cβ,12ε2vxαvββ1(𝐈𝐏)g,xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,v\displaystyle-\frac{C_{\beta,1}}{2\varepsilon^{2}}\langle v\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v} (3.48)
+Cβ,22ε2xαvββ2(𝐈𝐏)g,xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,v\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{C_{\beta,2}}{2\varepsilon^{2}}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{2}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}
\displaystyle\leq c026ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gν2+Cε2xαvββ1(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22,\displaystyle\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{6}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{\nu}^{2}+\frac{C}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}},

where |β1|=1|\beta_{1}|=1 and |β2|=2|\beta_{2}|=2.

Recalling R0R_{0} in (3.3) and (𝐈𝐏0)(𝐈𝐏)g=(𝐈𝐏)g(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P}_{0})(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g=(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g in (1.9), B43B_{43} is divided into the following five parts:

B43=\displaystyle B_{43}= 1εxαvβ(𝐈𝐏)(vxg1),xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB4311εxαvβ(𝐈𝐏)(vxg),xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB432\displaystyle\underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})(v\cdot\nabla_{x}g_{1}),\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{431}}\underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})(v\cdot\nabla_{x}g),\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{432}} (3.49)
1εxαvβ(𝐈𝐏)[1Mdivv(u0g1M)],xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB433\displaystyle\underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(u_{0}g_{1}\sqrt{M})\right],\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{433}}
1εxαvβ(𝐈𝐏)[1Mdivv(u0gM)],xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB434\displaystyle\underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(u_{0}g\sqrt{M})\right],\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{434}}
+1εxαvβ(𝐈𝐏)[1Mdivv(um0M)],xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB435.\displaystyle+\underbrace{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(um_{0}M)\right],\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{435}}.

For B431B_{431}, by plugging in the definition of g1g_{1},

|B431|\displaystyle|B_{431}|\leq 1εxαvβ(vxg1)Lx,v2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v2\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(v\cdot\nabla_{x}g_{1})\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}} (3.50)
\displaystyle\leq c026ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+C(𝒟ma(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)).\displaystyle\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{6}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+C\left(\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right).

For B432B_{432}, we have

|B432|=\displaystyle|B_{432}|= |1εxαvβ(𝐈𝐏)(vxg),xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,v|\displaystyle\ \left|-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})(v\cdot\nabla_{x}g),\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}\right|
=\displaystyle= |1εxαvβ[vx(𝐈𝐏)g],xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB43211εxαvβ[vx𝐏g],xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB4322\displaystyle\ \Big|\underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}[v\cdot\nabla_{x}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{4321}}\underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}[v\cdot\nabla_{x}\mathbf{P}g],\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{4322}}
+1εxαvβ𝐏(vxg),xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,vB4323|,\displaystyle\ +\underbrace{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}\mathbf{P}(v\cdot\nabla_{x}g),\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{4323}}\Big|,

where B4321B_{4321} and B4322B_{4322} can be estimated as follows: for |β1|=1|\beta_{1}|=1,

|B4321|=\displaystyle|B_{4321}|= |Cβ,1εxα+β1vββ1(𝐈𝐏)g,xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,v|\displaystyle\ \left|-\frac{C_{\beta,1}}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta_{1}}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}\right|
\displaystyle\leq c028ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+Cxα+β1vββ1(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22,\displaystyle\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{8}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+C\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta_{1}}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}},
|B4322|=\displaystyle|B_{4322}|= |1εxαvβ[(vxa+vv:xb)M],xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,v|\displaystyle\ \left|-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}[(v\cdot\nabla_{x}a+v\otimes v:\nabla_{x}b)\sqrt{M}],\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}\right|
\displaystyle\leq c028ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+C(xα+β1a,xβ+β1b)Lx,v22\displaystyle\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{8}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+C\|(\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta_{1}}a,\partial_{x}^{\beta+\beta_{1}}b)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}
\displaystyle\leq c028ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+C𝒟mi,F(t),\displaystyle\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{8}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+C\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t),

furthermore, noting that

𝐏(vxg)=\displaystyle\mathbf{P}(v\cdot\nabla_{x}g)= 𝐏[vx𝐏g]+𝐏[vx(𝐈𝐏)g]\displaystyle\ \mathbf{P}[v\cdot\nabla_{x}\mathbf{P}g]+\mathbf{P}[v\cdot\nabla_{x}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g]
=\displaystyle= (vxa+divxb)M+𝐏[vx(𝐈𝐏)g]\displaystyle\ (v\cdot\nabla_{x}a+\textup{div}_{x}b)\sqrt{M}+\mathbf{P}[v\cdot\nabla_{x}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g]
=\displaystyle= [vxa+divxb+3vx(𝐈𝐏)gMdv+v3vx(𝐈𝐏)gvMdv]M,\displaystyle\ \left[v\cdot\nabla_{x}a+\textup{div}_{x}b+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}v\cdot\nabla_{x}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\sqrt{M}dv+v\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}v\cdot\nabla_{x}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})gv\sqrt{M}dv\right]\sqrt{M},

we find, for B4323B_{4323},

|B4323|=\displaystyle|B_{4323}|= |1εxαvβ𝐏vxg,xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,v|\displaystyle\ \left|\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}\mathbf{P}v\cdot\partial_{x}g,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\nabla_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}\right|
\displaystyle\leq c028ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+C(xα+β1a,xαdivxb)Lx22+Cxα+β1(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22\displaystyle\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{8}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+C\|(\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta_{1}}a,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}b)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}
\displaystyle\leq c028ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+C(𝒟ma,F(t)+𝒟mi,K,1(t)),\displaystyle\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{8}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+C\left(\mathcal{D}_{ma,F}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)\right),

therefore, we obtain, for |β1|=1|\beta_{1}|=1,

|B432|c026ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+C[xα+β1vββ1(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+𝒟ma,F(t)+𝒟mi,K,1(t)].|B_{432}|\leq\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{6}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+C\left[\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta_{1}}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+\mathcal{D}_{ma,F}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)\right]. (3.51)

By considering the fact that

𝐏[1Mdivv(u0g1M)]=0,𝐏[1Mdivv(u0gM)]=vu0aM,\mathbf{P}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(u_{0}g_{1}\sqrt{M})\right]=0,\quad\mathbf{P}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(u_{0}g\sqrt{M})\right]=-v\cdot u_{0}a\sqrt{M},

we can obtain the following estimates for B433B_{433}, B343B_{343} and B435B_{435}, respectively,

|B433|+|B434|12(t)𝒟ma(t).\displaystyle|B_{433}|+|B_{434}|\lesssim\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t). (3.52)
|B435|=\displaystyle|B_{435}|= |1εxαvβ[1Mdivv(um0M)],xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,v\displaystyle\ \Big|-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(um_{0}M)\right],\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v} (3.53)
+1εxαvβ(vum0M),xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gx,v|\displaystyle\ \qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(v\cdot um_{0}\sqrt{M}),\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\rangle_{x,v}\Big|
\displaystyle\leq 1εxαvβ[1Mdivv(um0M)]Lx,v2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v2\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\textup{div}_{v}(um_{0}M)\right]\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}
+1εxαvβ(vum0M)Lx,v2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v2\displaystyle\ \qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(v\cdot um_{0}\sqrt{M})\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{L^{2}_{x,v}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟ma(t).\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t).

By substituting the estimates of B431B_{431} to B435B_{435} above into (3.49), we can obtain, for |β1|=1|\beta_{1}|=1,

|B43|C[xα+β1vββ1(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+𝒟ma,F(t)+𝒟mi,K,1(t)+12(t)𝒟ma(t)]+c025ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22.|B_{43}|\leq\ C\left[\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta_{1}}\partial_{v}^{\beta-\beta_{1}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+\mathcal{D}_{ma,F}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)\right]\\ +\frac{c_{0}}{2^{5}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}. (3.54)

Next, recalling the definition of R1R_{1} in (3.3), we can follow a similar estimate of B43B_{43} and obtain that, for B44B_{44},

|B44|c026ε2xαvβ(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22+C(𝒟ma,F(t)+12(t)𝒟ma(t)).|B_{44}|\leq\ \frac{c_{0}}{2^{6}\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{v}^{\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}}+C\left(\mathcal{D}_{ma,F}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)\right). (3.55)

Though note that the quantity Cε2xαvβ1(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22\frac{C}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\nabla_{x}^{\alpha}\nabla_{v}^{\beta-1}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}} in (3.48) is still not under control, however, by observing that the order of vv-derivatives in this quantity is |β|1|\beta|-1, we can take summation over |β||\beta| and substitute the estimates (3.48), (3.54), (3.55) into (3.47), we finally obtain

12ddtmi,K,4(t)+C1,4𝒟mi,K,4(t)𝒟mi,K,1(t)+𝒟mi,F(t)+𝒟ma(t)+12(t)𝒟(t).\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,4}(t)+C_{1,4}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,4}(t)\lesssim\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.56)

3.3.2. Estimates of fluid part of the remainder system

The goal of this subsection is to obtain the energy estimate of the fluid part of the remainder system (3.2). To achieve this, we propose the following hyperbolic-parabolic coupled system: for 1i,j31\leq i,j\leq 3,

{εta+divxb=0,tbi+1εxia+1ε2(biεui)+1εj=13Γij[xj(𝐈𝐏)g]=1εR4i+R5i,\left\{\begin{aligned} &\varepsilon\partial_{t}a+\textup{div}_{x}b=0,\\[4.0pt] &\partial_{t}b_{i}+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\partial_{x_{i}}a+\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}(b_{i}-\varepsilon u_{i})+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{j=1}^{3}\Gamma_{ij}[\partial_{x_{j}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g]=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}R_{4i}+R_{5i},\\[4.0pt] \end{aligned}\right. (3.57)

where Γij(g)\Gamma_{ij}(g), R4iR_{4i}, and R5iR_{5i} are defined as follows:

R4i=\displaystyle R_{4i}= u0ia+uim0,\displaystyle\ u_{0i}a+u_{i}m_{0}, (3.58)
R5i=\displaystyle R_{5i}= [t(u0im0)+uia+tu0i+txim0],\displaystyle\ -\big[\partial_{t}(u_{0i}m_{0})+u_{i}a+\partial_{t}u_{0i}+\partial_{t}\partial_{x_{i}}m_{0}\big],
Γij(g)=\displaystyle\Gamma_{ij}(g)= g(vivj1)M𝑑v.\displaystyle\ \int g(v_{i}v_{j}-1)\sqrt{M}dv.

Note that, in contrast with the hyperbolic-parabolic coupled system in [9], there is no gradient term of bb in the new system above, since 1ε2xbHx31ε2xbεxuHx3+xuHx3\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\nabla_{x}b\|_{H^{3}_{x}}\leq\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\nabla_{x}b-\varepsilon\nabla_{x}u\|_{H^{3}_{x}}+\|\nabla_{x}u\|_{H^{3}_{x}}, and the terms 1ε2xbεxuHx3\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\nabla_{x}b-\varepsilon\nabla_{x}u\|_{H^{3}_{x}}, xuHx3\|\nabla_{x}u\|_{H^{3}_{x}} have been included in the dissipative parts shown in Lemma 3.2.

Now, we are in a position to present the following lemma about the energy estimate of the fluid part in the remainder system (3.2).

Lemma 3.6.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 and (3.11), then, for any 0tT0\leq t\leq T,

12ddtmi,F(t)+C5𝒟mi,F(t)C~5(𝒟mi,K,1(t)+𝒟ma(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)),\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{E}_{mi,F}(t)+C_{5}\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t)\leq\tilde{C}_{5}\left(\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right), (3.59)

where the constants C~5,C5>0\tilde{C}_{5},\,C_{5}>0 are independent of ε\varepsilon, δ\delta, δ1\delta_{1} and TT.

Proof.

By applying the derivative operator xα\partial_{x}^{\alpha} with 0|α|30\leq|\alpha|\leq 3 to both-hand-sides of the hyperbolic-parabolic system (3.57)2\eqref{Pg-a-b}_{2}, then multiplying it by xαxia\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}a, and integrating over x3x\in\mathbb{R}^{3}, we obtain,

xα+βaLx22=\displaystyle\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}= i=13xαxia,xαxiax\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}a,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}a\rangle_{x} (3.60)
=\displaystyle= εddt3xα+βaxαbdx+εi=13xαxita,xαbixB71\displaystyle\ -\varepsilon\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}b\,dx+\underbrace{\varepsilon\sum_{i=1}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}\partial_{t}a,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}b_{i}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{71}}
1εi=13xαxia,xα(biεui)xB72i,j=13xαxia,xαxi(𝐈𝐏)g(vivj1)Mx,vB73\displaystyle\ \underbrace{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{i=1}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}a,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b_{i}-\varepsilon u_{i})\rangle_{x}}_{B_{72}}\underbrace{-\sum_{i,j=1}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}a,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g(v_{i}v_{j}-1)\sqrt{M}\rangle_{x,v}}_{B_{73}}
+i=13xαxia,xαR4ixB74+i=13xαxia,xαR5ixB75,\displaystyle\ +\underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}a,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}R_{4i}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{74}}+\underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}a,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}R_{5i}\rangle_{x}}_{B_{75}},

for 0|α|30\leq|\alpha|\leq 3 and |β|=1|\beta|=1.
By substituting ta\partial_{t}a by (3.57)1\eqref{Pg-a-b}_{1}, we have, for B71B_{71},

|B71|=|i=13xαxidivxb,xαbix|=xαdivxbLx22,|B_{71}|=\left|-\sum_{i=1}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}\textup{div}_{x}b,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}b_{i}\rangle_{x}\right|=\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\textup{div}_{x}b\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}, (3.61)

and B72B_{72}, by using Young’s inequality, we have

|B72|=\displaystyle|B_{72}|= |1εi=13xαxia,xα(biεui)x|\displaystyle\ \left|-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{i=1}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}a,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b_{i}-\varepsilon u_{i})\rangle_{x}\right| (3.62)
\displaystyle\leq 116xα+βaLx22+Cε2xα(bεu)Lx22\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{16}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{C}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(b-\varepsilon u)\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\leq 116xα+βaLx22+C𝒟mi,K,1(t),\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{16}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t),

and, for B73B_{73},

|B73|\displaystyle|B_{73}|\leq 116xα+βaLx22+Cε2xα+β(𝐈𝐏)gLx,v22\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{16}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\frac{C}{\varepsilon^{2}}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x,v}} (3.63)
\displaystyle\leq 116xα+βaLx22+C𝒟mi,K,1(t),\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{16}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t),

Furthermore, recalling the definition of R4iR_{4i} and R5iR_{5i} in (3.58) and noting (3.11), we have

|B74|=\displaystyle|B_{74}|= i=13xαxia,xα(u0ia+uim0)x\displaystyle\ \sum_{i=1}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}a,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}(u_{0i}a+u_{i}m_{0})\rangle_{x} (3.64)
\displaystyle\lesssim xα+βaLx2u0Hx|α|xaHx|α|1+Cxα+βaLx2m0Hx|α|xuHx|α|1\displaystyle\ \|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|u_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}a\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}+C\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|m_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}u\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim 12(t)𝒟(t)),\displaystyle\ \mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)),

and

|B75|=\displaystyle|B_{75}|= |i=13xαxia,xα[t(u0im0)+uia+tu0i+txim0]x|\displaystyle\ \left|-\sum_{i=1}^{3}\langle\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\partial_{x_{i}}a,\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}\left[\partial_{t}(u_{0i}m_{0})+u_{i}a+\partial_{t}u_{0i}+\partial_{t}\partial_{x_{i}}m_{0}\right]\rangle_{x}\right| (3.65)
\displaystyle\lesssim xα+βaLx2(tu0Hx|α|xm0Hx|α|1+tm0Hx|α|xu0Hx|α|1)\displaystyle\ \|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\left(\|\partial_{t}u_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}m_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}+\|\partial_{t}m_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|}_{x}}\|\partial_{x}u_{0}\|_{H^{|\alpha|-1}_{x}}\right)
+xα+βaLx2txαu0Lx2txα+1m0Lx2\displaystyle\ +\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha+1}m_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\leq 116xα+βaLx22+C(txαu0Lx22+txα+βm0Lx22)+C12(t)𝒟(t)\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{16}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C(\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha}u_{0}\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|\partial_{t}\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}m_{0}\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}})+C\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)
\displaystyle\leq 116xα+βaLx22+C(𝒟ma(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)).\displaystyle\ \frac{1}{16}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+C\left(\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right).

Hence, by inserting the estimate of B71B_{71} - B75B_{75} into (3.60), we find

78xα+βaLx22+εddt3xα+βaxαbdx𝒟ma(t)+𝒟mi,K,1(t)+12(t)𝒟(t).\displaystyle\frac{7}{8}\|\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\|^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\partial_{x}^{\alpha+\beta}a\,\partial_{x}^{\alpha}b\,dx\ \lesssim\ \mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.66)

The proof can be finally completed by summing up with |α|=0,1,2,3|\alpha|=0,1,2,3 in (3.66).

3.4. Proof of total energy estimate

In this subsection, we present the detailed proof of the total energy estimate, i.e., Proposition 3.2, by collecting the previous energy estimate Lemmas 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 altogether.

Noting the definitions of mi,F(t),mi,K,3(t)\mathcal{E}_{mi,F}(t),\,\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,3}(t) and mi,K,1(t)\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,1}(t) in (3.7), we can find that there exists a constant C~6>0\tilde{C}_{6}>0 such that

|m,F(t)+mi,K,3(t)|C~6mi,K,1(t).|\mathcal{E}_{m,F}(t)+\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,3}(t)|\leq\tilde{C}_{6}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,1}(t). (3.67)

Next, we prove the total energy estimate (3.12) by the following four steps:

Step 1: To eliminate 𝒟mi,K,3(t)\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,3}(t) in (3.31) of the Lemma 3.3, we choose a constant λ~1>0\tilde{\lambda}_{1}>0 large enough such that

C~32λ~1C~2,\frac{\tilde{C}_{3}}{2}\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\geq\ \tilde{C}_{2}, (3.68)

where C~3\tilde{C}_{3} is the constant in Lemma 3.4.

By taking (3.31)+λ~1×(3.38)+(3.59)\eqref{Step two}+\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\times\eqref{Step three}+\eqref{Last step}, we find that there exists constants C7,C~7>0C_{7},\tilde{C}_{7}>0 such that

12ddt(λ~1mi,K,2(t)+mi,K,3(t)+mi,F(t))+C7(i=23𝒟mi,K,i(t)+𝒟mi,F(t))C~7(𝒟mi,K,1(t)+𝒟ma(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)).\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,2}(t)+\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,3}(t)+\mathcal{E}_{mi,F}(t)\right)+C_{7}\left(\sum_{i=2}^{3}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,i}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t)\right)\\[4.0pt] \leq\tilde{C}_{7}\left(\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right). (3.69)

Step 2: To eliminate 𝒟mi,K,1(t)\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t) in inequality (3.69), we choose a constant λ~2>0\tilde{\lambda}_{2}>0 large enough such that

C1λ~22(C~7+λ~1)(C~6+1),\frac{C_{1}\tilde{\lambda}_{2}}{2}\geq\left(\tilde{C}_{7}+\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\right)\left(\tilde{C}_{6}+1\right), (3.70)

where C1C_{1}, C~7\tilde{C}_{7}, C~6\tilde{C}_{6} are constants in Lemma 3.2, (3.69), and (3.67) respectively.

Then, by applying λ~2×(3.19)+(3.69)\tilde{\lambda}_{2}\times\eqref{Step one}+\eqref{First time}, there exist C8,C~8>0C_{8},\tilde{C}_{8}>0 such that

12ddt(λ~2mi,K,1(t)+λ~1mi,K,2(t)+mi,K,3(t)+mi,F(t))+C8(i=13𝒟mi,K,i(t)+𝒟mi,F(t))C~8(𝒟ma(t)+12(t)𝒟(t)).\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\tilde{\lambda}_{2}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,2}(t)+\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,3}(t)+\mathcal{E}_{mi,F}(t)\right)\\[4.0pt] +C_{8}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{3}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,i}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t)\right)\leq\tilde{C}_{8}\left(\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)+\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t)\right). (3.71)

Step 3: To eliminate 𝒟ma(t)\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t) in inequality (3.71), we choose choose a constant λ~3>0\tilde{\lambda}_{3}>0 large enough such that

C02λ~3C~8,\frac{C_{0}}{2}\tilde{\lambda}_{3}\geq\tilde{C}_{8}, (3.72)

where C0C_{0} is the constant in Proposition 1.1.

Then, by using (3.71)+λ~3×(1.12)\eqref{Second time}+\tilde{\lambda}_{3}\times\eqref{Macro-part}, it turns out that one can find C9,C~9>0C_{9},\tilde{C}_{9}>0 such that

12ddt(λ~2mi,K,1(t)+λ~1mi,K,2(t)+mi,K,3(t)+mi,F(t)+λ~3ma(t))+C9(i=13𝒟mi,K,i(t)+𝒟mi,F(t)+𝒟ma(t))C~912(t)𝒟(t).\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\big(\tilde{\lambda}_{2}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,2}(t)+\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,3}(t)+\mathcal{E}_{mi,F}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{3}\mathcal{E}_{ma}(t)\big)\\[4.0pt] +C_{9}\big(\sum_{i=1}^{3}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,i}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)\big)\leq\tilde{C}_{9}\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.73)

Step 4: To eliminate 𝒟mi,K,1(t),𝒟mi,F(t),𝒟ma(t)\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,1}(t),\,\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t),\,\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t) in inequality (3.46) of Lemma 3.5, we choose a constant λ~4>0\tilde{\lambda}_{4}>0 large enough such that

C8λ~42C~4,\frac{C_{8}\tilde{\lambda}_{4}}{2}\geq\tilde{C}_{4}, (3.74)

where C~4\tilde{C}_{4} is the constant in Lemma 3.5.

Therefore, by applying λ~4×(3.73)+(3.46)\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\times\eqref{Third time}+\eqref{Step four}, we can show that there exist C10,C~10>0C_{10},\,\tilde{C}_{10}>0 such that

12ddt(λ~4λ~2mi,K,1(t)+λ~4λ~1mi,K,2(t)+λ~4mi,K,3(t)+mi,K,4(t)+λ~4mi,F(t)+λ~4λ~3ma(t))+C10(i=14𝒟mi,K,i(t)+𝒟mi,F(t)+𝒟ma(t))C~1012(t)𝒟(t).\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\tilde{\lambda}_{2}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,2}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,3}(t)+\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,4}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\mathcal{E}_{mi,F}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\tilde{\lambda}_{3}\mathcal{E}_{ma}(t)\right)\\[4.0pt] +C_{10}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{4}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,i}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t)\right)\leq\tilde{C}_{10}\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.75)

Thus, by defining

(t)\displaystyle\mathcal{E}(t) :=λ~4λ~2mi,K,1(t)+λ~4λ~1mi,K,2(t)+λ~4mi,K,3(t)+mi,K,4(t)+λ~4mi,F(t)+λ~4λ~3ma(t),\displaystyle=\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\tilde{\lambda}_{2}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,1}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,2}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,3}(t)+\mathcal{E}_{mi,K,4}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\mathcal{E}_{mi,F}(t)+\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\tilde{\lambda}_{3}\mathcal{E}_{ma}(t),
𝒟(t)\displaystyle\mathcal{D}(t) :=i=14𝒟mi,K,i(t)+𝒟mi,F(t)+𝒟ma(t),\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{4}\mathcal{D}_{mi,K,i}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{mi,F}(t)+\mathcal{D}_{ma}(t),

and re-naming λi\lambda_{i}, i=1,,6i=1,\cdots,6 as follows:

λ1:=λ~4λ~2,λ2:=λ~4λ~1,λ3:=λ~4,λ4:=1,λ5:=λ~4,λ6:=λ~4λ~3,\displaystyle\lambda_{1}=\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\tilde{\lambda}_{2},\quad\lambda_{2}=\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\tilde{\lambda}_{1},\quad\lambda_{3}=\tilde{\lambda}_{4},\quad\lambda_{4}=1,\quad\lambda_{5}=\tilde{\lambda}_{4},\quad\lambda_{6}=\tilde{\lambda}_{4}\tilde{\lambda}_{3}, (3.76)

we obtain

12d(t)dt+C10𝒟(t)C~1012(t)𝒟(t).\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\mathcal{E}(t)}{dt}+C_{10}\mathcal{D}(t)\leq\tilde{C}_{10}\mathcal{E}^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\mathcal{D}(t). (3.77)

Thus, the total energy estimate (3.12) can be finally obtained by integration in time as well as considering the Proposition 1.1, (3.10) and (3.11).

4. Proof of main results

4.1. Proof of Theorem 1.1

In this subsection, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.1 by extending the local well-posedness to global-in-time.

Let TεT^{*}_{\varepsilon} denote the maximal existence time for the solution to the Cauchy problem (3.2) for any given 0<εε00<\varepsilon\leq\varepsilon_{0} with ε0\varepsilon_{0} given in Proposition 3.1 with M0M_{0} replaced by δ1\delta_{1}. Proposition 3.1 implies that Tε>0T^{*}_{\varepsilon}>0. If Tε=T^{*}_{\varepsilon}=\infty for any given ε\varepsilon, the global existence of the solutions is obtained. For otherwise, i.e., Tε(0,)T^{*}_{\varepsilon}\in(0,\infty) for some ε(0,ε0)\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}), we will prove that it leads to a contradiction by continuity argument.

In fact, using the initial assumption 𝔼(0)δ\mathbb{E}(0)\leq\delta in Theorem 1.1 and the continuity of 𝔼(t)\mathbb{E}(t) in (0,Tε)(0,T_{\varepsilon}^{*}), then there exists a T¯ε(0,Tε)\bar{T}_{\varepsilon}^{*}\in(0,T_{\varepsilon}^{*}) such that

sup0tT¯ε(gHx,v42+(u,ρ)Hx42)δ1,\sup_{0\leq t\leq\bar{T}_{\varepsilon}^{*}}\big(\|g\|_{H^{4}_{x,v}}^{2}+\|(u,\rho)\|_{H^{4}_{x}}^{2}\big)\leq\delta_{1}, (4.1)

where δ1>max{δ,2Cδ}\delta_{1}>\max\{\delta,2C^{*}\delta\} for some constants δ,C\delta,\,C^{*} given in (1.18) and Corollary 3.1.

Then using Corollary 3.1, we have

sup0tT¯ε𝔼(t)=sup0tT¯ε(gHx,v42+(u,ρ)Hx42+m0Hx62+(u0,h0)Hx52)Cδ<12δ1.\sup_{0\leq t\leq\bar{T}_{\varepsilon}^{*}}\mathbb{E}(t)=\sup_{0\leq t\leq\bar{T}_{\varepsilon}^{*}}\big(\|g\|_{H^{4}_{x,v}}^{2}+\|(u,\rho)\|_{H^{4}_{x}}^{2}+\|m_{0}\|_{H^{6}_{x}}^{2}+\|(u_{0},h_{0})\|_{H^{5}_{x}}^{2}\big)\leq C^{*}\delta<\frac{1}{2}\delta_{1}. (4.2)

By using the standard continuity argument, (4.1) and (4.2) yield that

g(t)Hx,v42+(u,ρ)(t)Hx42δ1,\|g(t)\|_{H^{4}_{x,v}}^{2}+\|(u,\rho)(t)\|_{H^{4}_{x}}^{2}\leq\delta_{1}, (4.3)

for all t[0,Tε)t\in[0,T^{*}_{\varepsilon}), provided that 𝔼(0)δ\mathbb{E}(0)\leq\delta where max{δ,2Cδ}<δ1\max\{\delta,2C^{*}\delta\}<\delta_{1}.

Choosing T0=TεTε(δ1)2T^{*}_{0}=T^{*}_{\varepsilon}-\frac{T_{\varepsilon}(\delta_{1})}{2} as initial time where Tε(δ1)T_{\varepsilon}(\delta_{1}) is determined by Proposition 3.1 and (4.3), we obtain from Proposition 3.1 that the solution can be extended to [0,Tε+Tε(δ1)2)[0,T_{\varepsilon}^{*}+\frac{T_{\varepsilon}(\delta_{1})}{2}) for any given 0<εε0:=ε0(δ1)0<\varepsilon\leq\varepsilon_{0}:=\varepsilon_{0}(\delta_{1}), which is a contradiction with the definition of TεT_{\varepsilon}^{*}. Thus Tε=T_{\varepsilon}^{*}=\infty. The proof of the global existence of the solution is complete. Since the proof of the uniqueness is standard, we omit the detail for brevity.

4.2. Proof of Corollary 1.1

In this subsection, we present the proof of Corollary 1.1 by using the Sobolev embedding theorems.

By recalling the expansion form of fεf^{\varepsilon}

fε=(1+m0)M+ε[(vu0)(1+m0)vxm0]M+εgM,f^{\varepsilon}=(1+m_{0})M+\varepsilon[(v\cdot u_{0})(1+m_{0})-v\cdot\nabla_{x}m_{0}\big]M+\varepsilon g\sqrt{M},

and applying the Sobolev embedding H2LH^{2}\hookrightarrow L^{\infty}, we have

|fε(1+m0)M|\displaystyle|f^{\varepsilon}-(1+m_{0})M|\leq supt0fε(1+m0)MLxLv\displaystyle\ \sup_{t\geq 0}\|f^{\varepsilon}-(1+m_{0})M\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}L^{\infty}_{v}} (4.4)
\displaystyle\lesssim supt0fε(1+m0)MHx2Hv2\displaystyle\ \sup_{t\geq 0}\|f^{\varepsilon}-(1+m_{0})M\|_{H^{2}_{x}H^{2}_{v}}
\displaystyle\lesssim εsupt0[(vu0)(1+m0)vxm0]M+gMHx2Hv2\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\sup_{t\geq 0}\|[(v\cdot u_{0})(1+m_{0})-v\cdot\nabla_{x}m_{0}\big]M+g\sqrt{M}\|_{H^{2}_{x}H^{2}_{v}}
\displaystyle\lesssim εsupt0[(vu0)(1+m0)vxm0]MHx2Hv2+εsupt0gMHx2Lv2\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\sup_{t\geq 0}\|\left[(v\cdot u_{0})(1+m_{0})-v\cdot\nabla_{x}m_{0}\right]M\|_{H^{2}_{x}H^{2}_{v}}+\varepsilon\sup_{t\geq 0}\|g\sqrt{M}\|_{H^{2}_{x}L^{2}_{v}}
+εsupt0v[(𝐈𝐏)gM]Hx2Hv1+εsupt0v(𝐏gM)Hx2Hv1\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\sup_{t\geq 0}\|\nabla_{v}\left[(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\sqrt{M}\right]\|_{H^{2}_{x}H^{1}_{v}}+\varepsilon\sup_{t\geq 0}\|\nabla_{v}(\mathbf{P}g\sqrt{M})\|_{H^{2}_{x}H^{1}_{v}}
\displaystyle\lesssim εsupt0[u0Hx2(1+m0Hx2)+xm0Hx2+gHx2Lv2\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\sup_{t\geq 0}\Big[\|u_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}(1+\|m_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}})+\|\nabla_{x}m_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}+\|g\|_{H^{2}_{x}L^{2}_{v}}
+v(𝐈𝐏)gHx2Hv1+(a,b)Hx2]\displaystyle\ +\|\nabla_{v}(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g\|_{H^{2}_{x}H^{1}_{v}}+\|(a,b)\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\Big]
\displaystyle\lesssim ε,\displaystyle\varepsilon,

where the decomposition g=(𝐈𝐏)g+𝐏g=(𝐈𝐏)g+(a+vb)Mg=(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g+\mathbf{P}g=(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{P})g+(a+v\cdot b)\sqrt{M} is utilized. Similarly, considering the expansion form uε=u0+εuu^{\varepsilon}=u_{0}+\varepsilon u and ρε=(1+h0)+ερ\rho^{\varepsilon}=(1+h_{0})+\varepsilon\rho, we also obtain

|uεu0|εsupt0uLxεsupt0uHx2ε,|ρε(1+h0)|εsupt0ρLxεsupt0ρHx2ε,\begin{split}|u^{\varepsilon}-u_{0}|\leq&\ \varepsilon\sup_{t\geq 0}\|u\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\lesssim\varepsilon\sup_{t\geq 0}\|u\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\lesssim\varepsilon,\\[4.0pt] |\rho^{\varepsilon}-(1+h_{0})|\leq&\ \varepsilon\sup_{t\geq 0}\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\lesssim\varepsilon\sup_{t\geq 0}\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\lesssim\varepsilon,\end{split} (4.5)

where the uniform boundedness of all quantities, i.e., (g,u)(g,u), (m0,u0,h0)(m_{0},u_{0},h_{0}), (a,b)(a,b), is guaranteed by the global-in-time energy estimate (1.19).

Appendix A Proof of Lemma 3.1

In the appendix, we present the complete proof of the important Lemma 3.1 in dealing with the pressure term.

Proof.

By (1.13), and Sobolev embedding relation, we can find that

12sup0tT1+h0Lx32.\frac{1}{2}\leq\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\|1+h_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\leq\frac{3}{2}.

Also, noticing the 0<ε10<\varepsilon\leq 1 and (3.11), then we can obtain

14sup0tT1+h0+ερLx2.\displaystyle\frac{1}{4}\leq\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\|1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\leq 2. (A.1)

By using (3.11) and 0<ε10<\varepsilon\leq 1, we have

ε(ρLx+xρHx1+xρHx2)38.\varepsilon\left(\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}+\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}+\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\right)\leq\frac{3}{8}. (A.2)

We only prove the inequality (3.14) in the case of 1|α|41\leq|\alpha|\leq 4 and p=2p=2.

For the sake of convenience, we denote xk\nabla^{k}_{x} as any xx-partial derivative xα\partial^{\alpha}_{x} with the multi-index |α|=k|\alpha|=k\in\mathbb{N}.

Applying (3.11), (A.1) and (A.2), we have

x(11+h0+ερ)Lx2\displaystyle\|\nabla_{x}\left(\frac{1}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}\right)\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\lesssim xh0Lx2+εxρLx2,\displaystyle\ \|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}},
x2(11+h0+ερ)Lx2\displaystyle\|\nabla_{x}^{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho}\right)\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\lesssim (x2h0Lx2+εx2ρLx2)+(xh0Lx4+εxρLx4)2\displaystyle\ \left(\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\right)+\left(\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\right)^{2}
\displaystyle\lesssim i=12(xh0Hx1i+εixρHx1i)\displaystyle\ \sum_{i=1}^{2}(\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}^{i}+\varepsilon^{i}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}^{i})
\displaystyle\lesssim xh0Hx1+εxρHx1,\displaystyle\ \|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}},
x3(11+h+ερ)Lx2\displaystyle\|\nabla_{x}^{3}\left(\frac{1}{1+h+\varepsilon\rho}\right)\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\lesssim (x3h0Lx2+εx3ρLx2)+(x2h0Lx4+εx2ρLx4)(xh0Lx4+εxρLx4)\displaystyle\ \left(\|\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}^{3}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\right)+\left(\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\right)\left(\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\right)
+(xh0Lx6+εxρLx6)3\displaystyle\ +\left(\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\right)^{3}
\displaystyle\lesssim i=13(xh0Hx2i+εixρHx2i)\displaystyle\ \sum_{i=1}^{3}\left(\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}^{i}+\varepsilon^{i}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}^{i}\right)
\displaystyle\lesssim xh0Hx2+εxρHx2,\displaystyle\ \|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}},
x4(11+h+ερ)Lx2\displaystyle\|\nabla_{x}^{4}\left(\frac{1}{1+h+\varepsilon\rho}\right)\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\lesssim (x4h0Lx2+εx4ρLx2)+(x3h0Lx4+εx3ρLx4)(xh0Lx4+εxρLx4)\displaystyle\ \left(\|\nabla_{x}^{4}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}^{4}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\right)+\left(\|\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}^{3}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\right)\left(\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\right)
+(x2h0Lx4+εx2ρLx4)2+(xh0Lx+εxρLx)(xh0Lx6+εxρLx6)3\displaystyle+\left(\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\right)^{2}+\left(\ \|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\right)\left(\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\right)^{3}
\displaystyle\lesssim i=14(xh0Hx3i+εixρHx3i)\displaystyle\ \sum_{i=1}^{4}\left(\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{3}_{x}}^{i}+\varepsilon^{i}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{3}_{x}}^{i}\right)
\displaystyle\lesssim xh0Hx3+εxρHx3,\displaystyle\ \|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{3}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{3}_{x}},

For any γ~\tilde{\gamma}\in\mathbb{R}, we first claim that

|(1+h0)γ~1||h0|,\left|(1+h_{0})^{\tilde{\gamma}}-1\right|\lesssim|h_{0}|, (A.3)

for Bγ~0B_{\tilde{\gamma}}^{0},

|Bγ~0|=|(1+h0+ερ)γ~(1+h0)γ~γ~ε(1+h0+ερ)γ~1ρ|ε2|ρ2|,\left|B^{0}_{\tilde{\gamma}}\right|=\left|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}}-(1+h_{0})^{\tilde{\gamma}}-\tilde{\gamma}\varepsilon(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}-1}\rho\right|\lesssim\varepsilon^{2}|\rho^{2}|, (A.4)

and

|(1+h0+ερ)γ~(1+h0)γ~|ε|ρ|.\left|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}}-(1+h_{0})^{\tilde{\gamma}}\right|\lesssim\varepsilon|\rho|. (A.5)

We prove the claims above by the Taylor expansion.

If γ~=0\tilde{\gamma}=0 or γ~=1\tilde{\gamma}=1, (A.3) and (A.4) are correct.

If γ~0\tilde{\gamma}\neq 0 and γ~1\tilde{\gamma}\neq 1. To prove (A.3), we denote ψ1(s)=(1+sh0)γ~1\psi_{1}(s)=(1+sh_{0})^{\tilde{\gamma}}-1 with 0s10\leq s\leq 1 and then

ψ1(s)=\displaystyle\psi^{\prime}_{1}(s)= γ~(1+sh0)γ~1h0,\displaystyle\ \tilde{\gamma}(1+sh_{0})^{\tilde{\gamma}-1}h_{0},
ψ1′′(s)=\displaystyle\psi^{\prime\prime}_{1}(s)= γ~(γ~1)(1+sh0)γ~2h02.\displaystyle\ \tilde{\gamma}(\tilde{\gamma}-1)(1+sh_{0})^{\tilde{\gamma}-2}h_{0}^{2}.

By furthering using the Taylor expansion, we find that there exists a constant ξ1(0,1)\xi_{1}\in(0,1) such that

|(1+h0)γ~1|=|ψ1(1)ψ1(0)|=\displaystyle|(1+h_{0})^{\tilde{\gamma}}-1|=|\psi_{1}(1)-\psi_{1}(0)|= |ψ1(0)+12ψ1′′(ξ1)|\displaystyle|\psi^{\prime}_{1}(0)+\frac{1}{2}\psi^{\prime\prime}_{1}(\xi_{1})|
\displaystyle\lesssim |h0|+|h0|2\displaystyle\ |h_{0}|+|h_{0}|^{2}
\displaystyle\lesssim (|h0|+sup0tTh0Lx|h0|)|h0|.\displaystyle\ \left(|h_{0}|+\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\|h_{0}\|_{L_{x}^{\infty}}|h_{0}|\right)\lesssim\ |h_{0}|.

To prove the inequality (A.4), we denote ψ2(s)=(1+h0+sερ)γ~\psi_{2}(s)=(1+h_{0}+s\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}} with 0s10\leq s\leq 1 and then

ψ2(s)=\displaystyle\psi^{\prime}_{2}(s)= γ~(1+h0+sερ)γ~1ερ,\displaystyle\tilde{\gamma}(1+h_{0}+s\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}-1}\varepsilon\rho,
ψ2′′(s)=\displaystyle\psi^{\prime\prime}_{2}(s)= γ~(γ~1)(1+h0+sερ)γ~2ε2ρ2.\displaystyle\tilde{\gamma}(\tilde{\gamma}-1)(1+h_{0}+s\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}-2}\varepsilon^{2}\rho^{2}.

Therefore, still using the Taylor expansion, there exists a constant ξ2,ξ3(0,1)\xi_{2},\xi_{3}\in(0,1) such that

|Bγ~0|\displaystyle|B^{0}_{\tilde{\gamma}}| =|(1+h0+ερ)γ~(1+h0)γ~γ~ε(1+h0+ερ)γ~1ρ|\displaystyle\ =|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}}-(1+h_{0})^{\tilde{\gamma}}-\tilde{\gamma}\varepsilon(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}-1}\rho|
=|ψ2(1)ψ2(0)ψ2(1)|\displaystyle\ =|\psi_{2}(1)-\psi_{2}(0)-\psi_{2}^{\prime}(1)|
=|(ψ2(0)ψ2(1))+12ψ2′′(ξ2)|\displaystyle\ =|(\psi^{\prime}_{2}(0)-\psi_{2}^{\prime}(1))+\frac{1}{2}\psi^{\prime\prime}_{2}(\xi_{2})|
=|ψ2′′(ξ3)+12ψ2′′(ξ2)|\displaystyle\ =|\psi_{2}^{\prime\prime}(\xi_{3})+\frac{1}{2}\psi^{\prime\prime}_{2}(\xi_{2})|
ε2|(1+h0+ξ2ερ)γ~2+(1+h0+ξ3ερ)γ~2||ρ2|\displaystyle\ \lesssim\varepsilon^{2}|(1+h_{0}+\xi_{2}\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}-2}+(1+h_{0}+\xi_{3}\varepsilon\rho)^{\tilde{\gamma}-2}||\rho^{2}|
ε2|ρ2|,\displaystyle\ \lesssim\varepsilon^{2}|\rho^{2}|,

where (3.11) is used.

Observing the proof of the claim (A.4) and using (A.2), it is easy to obtain (A.5).

By applying the estimate (A.1) and (A.3), we have

(1+h0)γ11Lx\displaystyle\|(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}-1\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}} h0Lxh0Hx2,\displaystyle\lesssim\|h_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\lesssim\|h_{0}\|_{H^{2}_{x}},
(1+h0)γ11Hx1\displaystyle\|(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}-1\|_{H^{1}_{x}} (1+h0)γ11Lx2+x[(1+h0)γ11]Lx2\displaystyle\leq\|(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}-1\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|\nabla_{x}[(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}-1]\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
h0Lx2+xh0Lx2\displaystyle\lesssim\|h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
h0Hx1.\displaystyle\lesssim\|h_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}.

By (A.1), (A.5) and (3.11), we have

(1+h0+ερ)γ1(1+h0)γ1LxερLxερHx2,\displaystyle\ \|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\lesssim\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\lesssim\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}},
(1+h0+ερ)γ1(1+h0)γ1Hx1\displaystyle\ \|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}
\displaystyle\leq (1+h0+ερ)γ1(1+h0)γ1Lx2+x[(1+h0+ερ)γ1(1+h0)γ1]Lx2\displaystyle\ \|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\left\|\nabla_{x}\big[(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-1}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-1}\right]\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim [ερLx2+(1+h0+ερ)γ2(1+h0)γ2Lx2xh0Lx+εxρLx2]\displaystyle\ \left[\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho)^{\gamma-2}-(1+h_{0})^{\gamma-2}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\right]
\displaystyle\lesssim ερHx1.\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}.

Notice that

Bγ1=\displaystyle B_{\gamma}^{1}= γBγ10xh0+P2,11ερxh0,\displaystyle\ \gamma B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\nabla_{x}h_{0}+P_{2,11}\varepsilon\rho\nabla_{x}h_{0}, (A.6)
Bγ2=\displaystyle B_{\gamma}^{2}= γBγ10x2h0+γ(γ1)Bγ20(xh0)2+[P2,21x2h0ρ+P2,22(xh0)2ρ+P2,23xh0xρ\displaystyle\ \gamma B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}+\gamma(\gamma-1)B_{\gamma-2}^{0}(\nabla_{x}h_{0})^{2}+\big[P_{2,21}\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\rho+P_{2,22}(\nabla_{x}h_{0})^{2}\rho+P_{2,23}\nabla_{x}h_{0}\nabla_{x}\rho
+P2,24(xρ)2ε]ε,\displaystyle\ +P_{2,24}(\nabla_{x}\rho)^{2}\varepsilon\big]\varepsilon,
Bγ3=\displaystyle B_{\gamma}^{3}= γBγ10x3h0+γ(γ1)Bγ20x2h0xh0+γ(γ1)(γ2)Bγ30(xh0)3\displaystyle\ \gamma B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}+\gamma(\gamma-1)B_{\gamma-2}^{0}\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\nabla_{x}h_{0}+\gamma(\gamma-1)(\gamma-2)B_{\gamma-3}^{0}(\nabla_{x}h_{0})^{3}
+[P2,31x3h0ρ+P2,32x2h0xh0ρ+P2,33(xh0)3ρ+P2,34x2h0xρ+P2,35xh0x2ρ\displaystyle\ +\big[P_{2,31}\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\rho+P_{2,32}\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\nabla_{x}h_{0}\rho+P_{2,33}(\nabla_{x}h_{0})^{3}\rho+P_{2,34}\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\nabla_{x}\rho+P_{2,35}\nabla_{x}h_{0}\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho
+P2,36xh0(xρ)2ε+P2,37(xρ)3ε2]ε,\displaystyle\ +P_{2,36}\nabla_{x}h_{0}(\nabla_{x}\rho)^{2}\varepsilon+P_{2,37}(\nabla_{x}\rho)^{3}\varepsilon^{2}\big]\varepsilon,
Bγ4=\displaystyle B_{\gamma}^{4}= γBγ10x4h0+γ(γ1)Bγ20x3h0xh0+γ(γ1)(γ2)Bγ30(x2h0)2\displaystyle\ \gamma B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\nabla_{x}^{4}h_{0}+\gamma(\gamma-1)B_{\gamma-2}^{0}\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\nabla_{x}h_{0}+\gamma(\gamma-1)(\gamma-2)B_{\gamma-3}^{0}(\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0})^{2}
+γ(γ1)(γ2)(γ3)Bγ40(xh0)4+[P2,41x4h0ρ+P2,42x3h0xh0ρ+P2,43(x2h0)2ρ\displaystyle\ +\gamma(\gamma-1)(\gamma-2)(\gamma-3)B_{\gamma-4}^{0}(\nabla_{x}h_{0})^{4}+\big[P_{2,41}\nabla_{x}^{4}h_{0}\rho+P_{2,42}\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\nabla_{x}h_{0}\rho+P_{2,43}(\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0})^{2}\rho
+P2,44(xh0)4ρ+P2,45x3h0xρ+P2,46x2h0x2ρ+P2,47xh0x3ρ+P2,48x2h0(xρ)2ε\displaystyle\ +P_{2,44}(\nabla_{x}h_{0})^{4}\rho+P_{2,45}\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\nabla_{x}\rho+P_{2,46}\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho+P_{2,47}\nabla_{x}h_{0}\nabla_{x}^{3}\rho+P_{2,48}\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}(\nabla_{x}\rho)^{2}\varepsilon
+εP2,49(xh0)2(xρ)2+εP2,50xh0x2ρxρ+ε2P2,51xh0(xρ)3+ε3P2,52(xρ)4]ε,\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon P_{2,49}(\nabla_{x}h_{0})^{2}(\nabla_{x}\rho)^{2}+\varepsilon P_{2,50}\nabla_{x}h_{0}\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho\nabla_{x}\rho+\varepsilon^{2}P_{2,51}\nabla_{x}h_{0}(\nabla_{x}\rho)^{3}+\varepsilon^{3}P_{2,52}(\nabla_{x}\rho)^{4}\big]\varepsilon,

where P2,ijP_{2,ij} are polynomials of 1+h0+ερ1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho, i.e., P2,ij=P2,ij(1+h0+ερ)P_{2,ij}=P_{2,ij}(1+h_{0}+\varepsilon\rho) for any i,ji,j and BγαB^{\alpha}_{\gamma} is defined in (3.18).

For Bγ0B_{\gamma}^{0}, we have

Bγ0Lx2\displaystyle\|B_{\gamma}^{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}} ε2ρ2Lx2ε2ρLx3ρLx6ερHx1xρLx2,\displaystyle\ \lesssim\ \varepsilon^{2}\|\rho^{2}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\lesssim\ \varepsilon^{2}\|\rho\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\|\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\lesssim\ \varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}, (A.7)
Bγ0Lx3\displaystyle\|B_{\gamma}^{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}} ε2ρLx62ερHx1xρLx2,\displaystyle\ \lesssim\ \varepsilon^{2}\|\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{2}\lesssim\ \varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}},

where (A.4) is used.

Therefore, by using the estimates in (A.4) and (A.7), for Bγ1B_{\gamma}^{1},

Bγ1Lx2\displaystyle\|B_{\gamma}^{1}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\lesssim Bγ10Lxxh0Lx2+ερLxxh0Lx2\displaystyle\ \|B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim ερHx2xh0Lx2,\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}},
Bγ1Lx3\displaystyle\|B_{\gamma}^{1}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\lesssim Bγ10Lxxh0Lx3+ερLxxh0Lx3\displaystyle\ \|B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim ερHx2xh0Hx1,\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}},

for Bγ2B_{\gamma}^{2},

Bγ2Lx2\displaystyle\|B_{\gamma}^{2}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\lesssim Bγ10Lxx2h0Lx2+Bγ20Lxxh0Lx42+ερLxx2h0Lx2+ερLx6xh0Lx62\displaystyle\ \|B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|B_{\gamma-2}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}^{2}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{2}
+ερLx4xh0Lx4+ε2xρLx4xρLx4\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\varepsilon^{2}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}
+εxρHx1xh0Hx1+ε2xρHx1xρHx1\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{H^{1}_{x}}+\varepsilon^{2}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{H^{1}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim ερHx2(xh0,xρ)Hx1,\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|(\nabla_{x}h_{0},\nabla_{x}\rho)\|_{H^{1}_{x}},
Bγ2Lx3\displaystyle\|B_{\gamma}^{2}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\lesssim Bγ10Lxx2h0Lx3+Bγ20Lxxh0Lx62+ερLxx2h0Lx3+ερLxxh0Lx62\displaystyle\ \|B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}+\|B_{\gamma-2}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{2}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{2}
+ερLx6xh0Lx6+ε2xρLx6xρLx6\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\varepsilon^{2}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}
\displaystyle\lesssim ερHx2(xh0,xρ)Hx2,\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|(\nabla_{x}h_{0},\nabla_{x}\rho)\|_{H^{2}_{x}},

for Bγ3B_{\gamma}^{3},

Bγ3Lx2\displaystyle\|B_{\gamma}^{3}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\lesssim Bγ10Lxx3h0Lx2+Bγ20Lxx2h0Lx4xh0Lx4+Bγ30Lxxh0Lx63\displaystyle\ \|B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|B_{\gamma-2}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\|B_{\gamma-3}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{3}
+ερLxx3h0Lx2+ερLx6x2h0Lx6xh0Lx6+ερLxxh0Lx63+εxρLx4x2h0Lx4\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{3}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}
+εx2ρLx4xρLx4+ε2xρLx62xh0Lx6+ε3xρLx63\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\varepsilon^{2}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{2}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\varepsilon^{3}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{3}
\displaystyle\lesssim ερHx2(xh0,xρ)Hx2,\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{2}_{x}}\|(\nabla_{x}h_{0},\nabla_{x}\rho)\|_{H^{2}_{x}},
Bγ3Lx3\displaystyle\|B_{\gamma}^{3}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}\lesssim Bγ10Lxx3h0Lx3+Bγ20Lxx2h0Lx6xh0Lx6+Bγ30Lxxh0Lxh0Lx62\displaystyle\ \|B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}+\|B_{\gamma-2}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\|B_{\gamma-3}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{2}
+ερLxx3h0Lx3+ερLxx2h0Lx6xh0Lx6+ερLxxh0Lxxh0Lx62\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\|_{L^{3}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{2}
+εxρLx6x2h0Lx6+εx2ρLx6xρLx6+ε2xρLxxρLx6xh0Lx6\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\varepsilon^{2}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}
+ε3xρLxxρLx62\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon^{3}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{2}
\displaystyle\lesssim ερHx3(xh0,xρ)Hx3,\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{3}_{x}}\|(\nabla_{x}h_{0},\nabla_{x}\rho)\|_{H^{3}_{x}},

and for the last term Bγ4B_{\gamma}^{4},

Bγ4Lx2\displaystyle\|B_{\gamma}^{4}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\lesssim Bγ10Lxx4h0Lx2+Bγ20Lxx3h0Lx4xh0Lx4+Bγ30Lxx2h0Lx42\displaystyle\ \|B_{\gamma-1}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{4}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\|B_{\gamma-2}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}+\|B_{\gamma-3}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}^{2}
+Bγ40Lxxh0Lxxh0Lx63+ερLxx4h0Lx2+ερLx6x3h0Lx6xh0Lx6\displaystyle\ +\|B_{\gamma-4}^{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{3}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{4}h_{0}\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{3}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}
+ερLx6x2h0Lx62+ερLxxh0Lxxh0Lx63+εxρLxx3ρLx2+εx2ρLx4x2h0Lx4\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{2}+\varepsilon\|\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{3}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{3}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}+\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho\|_{L^{4}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{4}_{x}}
+εx3ρLx2xh0Lx+ε2xρLx62x2h0Lx6+ε2x2ρLx6xh0Lx6\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon\|\nabla_{x}^{3}\rho\|_{L^{2}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}+\varepsilon^{2}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{2}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\varepsilon^{2}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}
+ε2xρLx6x2ρLx6xh0Lx6+ε3xh0LxxρLx63+ε4xρLxxρLx63\displaystyle\ +\varepsilon^{2}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}^{2}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{6}_{x}}+\varepsilon^{3}\|\nabla_{x}h_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{3}+\varepsilon^{4}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{\infty}_{x}}\|\nabla_{x}\rho\|_{L^{6}_{x}}^{3}
\displaystyle\lesssim ερHx3(xh0,xρ)Hx3,\displaystyle\ \varepsilon\|\rho\|_{H^{3}_{x}}\|(\nabla_{x}h_{0},\nabla_{x}\rho)\|_{H^{3}_{x}},

where (A.2) and (3.11) are utilized.

Acknowledgment

H. Wen was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China #12471209\#12471209 and by Guangzhou Basic and Applied Research Projects SL2024A04J01206.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  • [1] J. Ballew, Mathematical topics in fluid-particle interaction, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2014. Thesis (Ph.D.)–University of Maryland, College Park.
  • [2]  , Asymptotic analysis for a homogeneous bubbling regime Vlasov-Fokker-Planck/Navier-Stokes system, Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 71 (2020), pp. Paper No. 131, 22.
  • [3] C. Baranger, L. Boudin, P.-E. Jabin, and S. Mancini, A modeling of biospray for the upper airways, in CEMRACS 2004—mathematics and applications to biology and medicine, vol. 14 of ESAIM Proc., EDP Sci., Les Ulis, 2005, pp. 41–47.
  • [4] S. Berres, R. Bürger, K. H. Karlsen, and E. M. Tory, Strongly degenerate parabolic-hyperbolic systems modeling polydisperse sedimentation with compression, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 64 (2003), pp. 41–80.
  • [5] G. Bolliat, C. M. Dafermos, P. D. Lax, and T. P. Liu, Recent mathematical methods in nonlinear wave propagation, vol. 1640 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin; Centro Internazionale Matematico Estivo (C.I.M.E.), Florence, 1996. Lectures given at the 1st C.I.M.E. Session held in Montecatini Terme, May 23–31, 1994, Fondazione CIME/CIME Foundation Subseries.
  • [6] D. Bresch, P. B. Mucha, and E. Zatorska, Finite-energy solutions for compressible two-fluid Stokes system Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 232 (2019), no. 2, 987–1029.
  • [7] R. Caflisch and G. C. Papanicolaou, Dynamic theory of suspensions with Brownian effects, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 43 (1983), pp. 885–906.
  • [8] J. A. Carrillo, Y.-P. Choi, and T. K. Karper, On the analysis of a coupled kinetic-fluid model with local alignment forces, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire, 33 (2016), pp. 273–307.
  • [9] J. A. Carrillo, R. Duan, and A. Moussa, Global classical solutions close to equilibrium to the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck-Euler system, Kinet. Relat. Models, 4 (2011), pp. 227–258.
  • [10] J. A. Carrillo and T. Goudon, Stability and asymptotic analysis of a fluid-particle interaction model, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 31 (2006), pp. 1349–1379.
  • [11] J. A. Carrillo , T. K. Karper, and K. Trivisa, On the dynamics of a fluid-particle interaction model: the bubbling regime, Nonlinear Anal., 74 (2011), pp. 2778–2801.
  • [12] Y.-P. Choi and J. Jung, Asymptotic analysis for Vlasov-Fokker-Planck/compressible Navier-Stokes equations with a density-dependent viscosity, in Hyperbolic problems: theory, numerics, applications, vol. 10 of AIMS Ser. Appl. Math., Am. Inst. Math. Sci. (AIMS), Springfield, MO, [2020] ©2020, pp. 145–163.
  • [13] S. Ding, B. Huang, and Q. Li, Global existence and decay estimates for the classical solutions to a compressible fluid-particle interaction model, Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B (Engl. Ed.), 39 (2019), pp. 1525–1537.
  • [14] S. Ding, B. Huang, and H. Wen, Global well-posedness of classical solutions to a fluid-particle interaction model in 3\mathbb{R}^{3}, J. Differential Equations, 263 (2017), pp. 8666–8717.
  • [15] R. Duan, M. Fornasier, and G. Toscani, A kinetic flocking model with diffusion, Comm. Math. Phys., 300 (2010), pp. 95–145.
  • [16] R. Duan and S. Liu, Cauchy problem on the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation coupled with the compressible Euler equations through the friction force, Kinet. Relat. Models, 6 (2013), pp. 687–700.
  • [17] R. Duan, S. Liu and T. Yang, The Boltzmann equation for plane Couette flow, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 27 (2025), pp. 1107–1183.
  • [18] S. Evje, and K.H. Karlsen, Global existence of weak solutions for a viscous two-phase model, J. Differential Equations 245 (2008), no. 9, pp.2660–2703.
  • [19] S. Evje, H. Wen, and C. Zhu, On global solutions to the viscous liquid-gas model with unconstrained transition to single-phase flow, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 27 (2017), no. 2, pp.323–346.
  • [20] D. Fang, R. Zi, and T. Zhang, Global classical large solutions to a 1D fluid-particle interaction model: the bubbling regime, J. Math. Phys., 53 (2012), pp. 033706, 21.
  • [21] Z. Fang, K. Qi, and H. Wen, The small deborah number limit for the fluid-particle flows: incompressible case, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 34 (2024), pp. 2265–2304.
  • [22] T. Goudon, P.-E. Jabin, and A. Vasseur, Hydrodynamic limit for the Vlasov-Navier-Stokes equations. I. Light particles regime, Indiana Univ. Math. J., 53 (2004), pp. 1495–1515.
  • [23]  , Hydrodynamic limit for the Vlasov-Navier-Stokes equations. II. Fine particles regime, Indiana Univ. Math. J., 53 (2004), pp. 1517–1536.
  • [24] B. Huang, S. Ding, and H. Wen, Local classical solutions of compressible Navier-Stokes-Smoluchowski equations with vacuum, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S, 9 (2016), pp. 1717–1752.
  • [25] N. Jiang, L. Xiong, and T.-F. Zhang, Hydrodynamic limits of the kinetic self-organized models, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 48 (2016), pp. 3383–3411.
  • [26] M. Kalousek, S. Mitra, S. Necasova, The existence of a weak solution for a compressible multicomponent fluid structure interaction problem, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 184 (2024), pp. 118–189.
  • [27] R. R. Huilgol, On the concept of the Deborah number, Trans. Soc. Rheol., 19 (1975), pp. 297–306.
  • [28] F. Li, Y. Mu, and D. Wang, Strong solutions to the compressible Navier-Stokes-Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equations: global existence near the equilibrium and large time behavior, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 49 (2017), pp. 984–1026.
  • [29] H.-L. Li, S. Liu, and T. Yang, The Navier-Stokes-Vlasov-Fokker-Planck system in bounded domains, J. Stat. Phys., 186 (2022), pp. Paper No. 42, 32.
  • [30] P.-L. Lions, Mathematical topics in fluid mechanics. Vol. 2, vol. 10 of Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998. Compressible models, Oxford Science Publications.
  • [31] A. Matsumura and T. Nishida, Initial-boundary value problems for the equations of motion of compressible viscous and heat-conductive fluids, Comm. Math. Phys., 89 (1983), pp. 445–464.
  • [32] A. Mellet and A. F. Vasseur, Global weak solutions for a Vlasov-Fokker-Planck/Navier-Stokes system of equations, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 17 (2007), pp. 1039–1063.
  • [33]  , Asymptotic analysis for a Vlasov-Fokker-Planck/compressible Navier-Stokes system of equations, Comm. Math. Phys., 281 (2008), pp. 573–596.
  • [34] Y. Mu and D. Wang, Global well-posedness and optimal large-time behavior of strong solutions to the non-isentropic particle-fluid flows, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 59 (2020), pp. Paper No. 110, 42.
  • [35] A. Novotny, and M. Pokorny, Weak solutions for some compressible multicomponent fluid models, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 235 (2020), no. 1, pp.355–403.
  • [36] Y. Sone, Molecular gas dynamics, Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology, Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2007. Theory, techniques, and applications.
  • [37] A. Vasseur, H. Wen, and C. Yu, Global weak solution to the viscous two-fluid model with finite energy, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 125 (2019), pp. 247–282.
  • [38] H. Wen, On global solutions to a viscous compressible two-fluid model with unconstrained transition to single-phase flow in three dimensions, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 60 (2021), pp. 247–282.
  • [39] D. Wang and C. Yu, Global weak solution to the inhomogeneous Navier-Stokes-Vlasov equations, J. Differential Equations, 259 (2015), pp. 3976–4008.
  • [40] F. A. Williams, Combustion Theory, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 2 ed., 1985.
  • [41] C. Yu, Global weak solutions to the incompressible Navier-Stokes-Vlasov equations, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 100 (2013), pp. 275–293.