Show Summary Details
More options …

Editor-in-Chief: Radulescu, Vicentiu / Squassina, Marco

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 6.636

CiteScore 2018: 5.03

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 3.215
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 3.225

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2018: 3.18

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2191-950X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 9, Issue 1

# Global well-posedness of nonlinear wave equation with weak and strong damping terms and logarithmic source term

Wei Lian
/ Runzhang Xu
• Corresponding author
• College of Automation, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, People’s Republic of China
• College of Mathematical Sciences, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, People’s Republic of China
• Other articles by this author:
Published Online: 2019-07-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/anona-2020-0016

## Abstract

The main goal of this work is to investigate the initial boundary value problem of nonlinear wave equation with weak and strong damping terms and logarithmic term at three different initial energy levels, i.e., subcritical energy E(0) < d, critical initial energy E(0) = d and the arbitrary high initial energy E(0) > 0 (ω = 0). Firstly, we prove the local existence of weak solution by using contraction mapping principle. And in the framework of potential well, we show the global existence, energy decay and, unlike the power type nonlinearity, infinite time blow up of the solution with sub-critical initial energy. Then we parallelly extend all the conclusions for the subcritical case to the critical case by scaling technique. Besides, a high energy infinite time blow up result is established.

## 1 Introduction and main results

In this paper, we study initial boundary value problem of nonlinear wave equation with weak and strong damping terms and logarithmic source term

$utt−Δu−ωΔut+μut=uln⁡|u|,(x,t)∈Ω×(0,∞),$(1.1)

$u(x,t)=0,x∈∂Ω,t≥0,$(1.2)

$u(x,0)=u0(x),ut(x,0)=u1(x),x∈Ω,$(1.3)

where Ω ⊂ ℝn (n ≥ 1) is a bounded domain with a smooth boundary Ω,

$ω≥0,μ>−ωλ1,$(1.4)

λ1 being the first eigenvalue of the operator −Δ under homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions.

The undamped hyperbolic equation

$utt−Δu=f(u),$(1.5)

was introduced by D’Alembert [1] to model the propagation of waves along vibrating elastic string. By introducing the potential well, the global existence and finite time blow up of solution to (1.5) with E(0) < d were proved by Payne and Sattinger in [2], [3] respectively.

The nonlinear wave equation with linear weak damping term was considered by Levine and Serrin [4] in abstract form

$Putt+A(u)+Q(t,ut)=F(u)$(1.6)

and they proved the nonexistence of global solution for the negative initial energy, i.e., E(0) < 0. Later, Pucci and Serrin [5] extended this results to E(0) < D1, where D1 is positive. Vitillaro [6] studied the similar problem replacing the linear weak damping term by the nonlinear one

$utt−Δu+b|ut|m−2ut=c|u|p−2u$(1.7)

and derived the conditions of initial data leading to finite time blow up of the solution for E(0) ≤ E1.

For the initial boundary value problem of classical strongly damped wave equation

$utt−Δu−Δut=f(u),$(1.8)

Webb [7] gave the local existence uniqueness, global existence and the asymptotic behavior of the solution. For the initial boundary value problem of strongly damped semilinear wave equation

$utt−ωΔut−Δu+ϕ(u)=f,$(1.9)

Pata and Squassina [8] proved the existence of the universal attractor, in the presence of a quite general nonlinearity of critical growth. Moreover, they obtained the asymptotic behavior of the solutions in dependence of the damping coefficient.

For the wave equation with both linear weak and strong damping terms, we can directly go to [9] for the most recent progress. Gazzola and Squassina [9] proved that the initial boundary value problem of the weak and strong damping hyperbolic equation

$utt−Δu+μut−ωΔut=|u|p−2u,$(1.10)

has a unique local solution, and the global existence and nonexistence results were also proved for E(0) ≤ d. Also, the finite time blow up of solution with high energy E(0) > d (ω = 0, μ > 0) was obtained.

The logarithmic nonlinearity is of much interest in physics, since it appears naturally in inflation cosmology and super symmetric filed theories, quantum mechanics and nuclear physics [10], [11]. Haraux and Cazenave[12] proved the existence and uniqueness of solution for the Cauchy problem for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation

$iut+Δu+Vu+kulog⁡|u|2=0inRN×R+$(1.11)

and for the nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation

$utt−Δu=kulog⁡|u|2inR3×R+.$(1.12)

Górka [13] obtained that the initial boundary value problem of logarithmic Klein-Gordon equation

$utt−uxx+u=εulog⁡|u|2,x∈O,t∈[0,T),u(x,0)=u0(x),ut(x,0)=u1(x),x∈O,u(x,t)=0,x∈∂O,t∈[0,T),$(1.13)

where 𝓞 is a finite interval V = [a, b], admits global weak solutions for all (u0, u1) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$ × L2 and ε ∈ [0, 1] in one-dimensional case.

The weak damping with logarithmic wave equation

$utt−Δu+ut+u+|u|2u=uln⁡|u|2$(1.14)

was introduced by Hiramatsu [14] to model the dynamics of Q-ball in theoretical physics. Then its initial boundary value problem was considered by Han in [15]

$utt−Δu+u+ut+|u|2u=uln⁡|u|2,x∈Ω,t∈[0,T),u(x,0)=u0(x),ut(x,0)=u1(x),x∈Ω,u(x,t)=0,x∈∂Ω,t∈[0,T)$(1.15)

and the global existence of weak solutions was proved, for all (u0, u1) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$ × L2 in ℝ3. By constructing an appropriate Lyapunov function, Zhang and Liu [16] obtained the exponential decay estimates of energy with E(0) < d for all (u0, u1) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$ × L2, I(u0) > 0.

Al-Gharabli and Messaoudi [17] proved the global existence and the exponential decay of solutions of the following plate equation

$utt+Δ2u+u+ut=kuln⁡|u|,x∈Ω,t>0,u(x,t)=∂u∂v(x,t)=0,x∈∂Ω,t≥0,u(x,0)=u0(x),ut(x,0)=u1(x),x∈Ω,$(1.16)

for all (u0, u1) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{2}\end{array}$(Ω) × L2(Ω) and 0 < E(0) < d, I(u0) > 0. Later, Al-Gharabli and Messaoudi [18] considered a general damping h(ut) instead of a linear ut one considered in [17], where h is a function having a polynomial growth near the origin. They established the global existence and the general decay of solutions for all (u0, u1) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{2}\end{array}$(Ω) × L2(Ω), 0 < E(0) < d and I(u0) > 0.

As shown in the previous works, the dynamical behaviors of solutions are quite different when with presence of different nonlinearities, i.e., power type and logarithmic type. To be specific, with the presence of logarithmic term, the finite time blow up of solution don’t occur anymore which means the Nehari manifold in the initial energy space $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$ no longer plays a role as a threshold separating global and non-global existence of solution. And instead in this article the results show that Nehari manifold can be viewed as a threshold which indicates the decay or infinite time blow up of solutions. In order to investigate and describe the dynamical behavior of solution that strongly relied on the initial data, we focus on the logarithmic term in three initial data levels, i.e., subcritical energy E(0) < d, critical initial energy E(0) = d and the arbitrary high initial energy E(0) > 0 (ω = 0).

The present paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents some notations and preliminaries. In section 3, we state our main results. Section 4 prove the local existence of solution. Section 5 prove the global existence, asymptotic behavior and infinite time blow up of solution for E(0) < d. In section 6, the global existence, asymptotic behavior and blowup of solution for E(0) = d is proved. At last, in Section 7, we prove the infinite time blowup result for E(0) > 0 (ω = 0).

## 2 Notations and primary lemmas

In this section, we present some preliminaries to prove the main results. We denote the inner product and the norm on $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω) by (⋅,⋅) and ∥∇⋅∥, respectively. The symbol ∥⋅∥ will indicate the norm on L2(Ω). Moreover, we denote by 〈⋅,⋅〉 the duality pairing between H−1(Ω) and $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω). For any v, w$\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), we have

$(v,w)∗=ω∫Ω∇v∇w+μ∫Ωvw$

and

$∥v∥∗=(v,v)∗12.$

By (1.4), ∥⋅∥* is an equivalent eccentric module over $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω).

First, for problem (1.1)-(1.3) we introduce the energy functional

$E(t)=12∥ut∥2+12∥∇u∥2−12∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx+14∥u∥2,$(2.1)

the potential energy functional

$J(u)=12∥∇u∥2−12∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx+14∥u∥2$(2.2)

and the Nehari functional

$I(u)=∥∇u∥2−∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx.$(2.3)

By a direct computation,

$J(u)=12I(u)+14∥u∥2.$(2.4)

By I(u) we define the potential well (stable set)

$W={u∈H01(Ω)∣I(u)>0}∪{0},$(2.5)

the outer space of potential well (unstable set)

$V={u∈H01(Ω)∣I(u)<0}$(2.6)

and the Nehari manifold

$N={u∈H01(Ω)∖{0}∣I(u)=0}.$(2.7)

The depth of potential well is defined as

$d=infu∈NJ(u).$(2.8)

On the other hand, as the difference between two types of nonlinearities, assumptions on the power type nonlinearity don’t work on the logarithmic one. Consequently, introducing the logarithmic Sobolev inequality and revisiting the corresponding estimates is a necessity to handle logarithmic nonlinear term u ln ∣u∣. The following logarithmic Sobolev inequality was introduced by [20], Chapter 8.14 (also see [19] for a different proof).

#### Lemma 2.1

[19, 20] If uH1(ℝn) and a > 0. Then

$2∫Rn|u(x)|2ln⁡(|u(x)|∥u∥)dx+n(1+ln⁡a)∥u∥2≤a2π∫Rn|∇u(x)|2dx.$

For u$\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), we can define u(x) = 0 for x ∈ ℝnΩ. Then uH1(ℝn), that is to say, for a general domain Ω, we have following logarithmic Sobolev inequality,

$2∫Ω|u(x)|2ln⁡(|u(x)|∥u∥)dx+n(1+ln⁡a)∥u∥2≤a2π∫Ω|∇u(x)|2dx,$(2.9)

where u$\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω) and a > 0.

#### Lemma 2.2

Assume that u$\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω)∖{0}. Then we have

1. $\begin{array}{}\underset{\lambda \to 0}{lim}\end{array}$ J(λu) = 0 and $\begin{array}{}\underset{\lambda \to +\mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ J(λu) = −∞;

2. There exists a unique λ* = λ*(u) such that $\begin{array}{}\frac{d}{d\lambda }J\left(\lambda u\right){|}_{\lambda ={\lambda }^{\ast }}=0,\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}where\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}{\lambda }^{\ast }=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\parallel \mathrm{\nabla }u{\parallel }^{2}-{\int }_{\mathit{\Omega }}{u}^{2}\mathrm{ln}|u|dx}{\parallel u{\parallel }^{2}}\right)\end{array}$

3. J(λu) is increasing on the interval (0, λ*), decreasing on the interval (λ*, +∞) and attains its maximum unique λ* ∈ (0, +∞) such that

$I(λu)>0,0<λ<λ∗,=0,λ=λ∗,<0,λ∗<λ<+∞.$

#### Proof

1. We get

$J(λu)=λ22∥∇u∥2−λ22∫Ωu2ln⁡|λu|dx+λ24∥u∥2=λ22∥∇u∥2−λ22∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx−λ22ln⁡|λ|∥u∥2+λ24∥u∥2=λ22∥∇u∥2−∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx−ln⁡|λ|∥u∥2+12∥u∥2,$(2.10)

which tells $\begin{array}{}\underset{\lambda \to 0}{lim}\end{array}$ J(λu) = 0 and $\begin{array}{}\underset{\lambda \to +\mathrm{\infty }}{lim}\end{array}$ J(λu) = −∞.

2. A direct computation on (2.10) yields

$ddλJ(λu)=λ∥∇u∥2−λ∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx−λln⁡|λ|∥u∥2=λ∥∇u∥2−∫Ωu2ln⁡|λu|dx,$(2.11)

which means $\begin{array}{}\frac{d}{d\lambda }J\left(\lambda u\right){|}_{\lambda ={\lambda }^{\ast }}=0,\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\text{where}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}{\lambda }^{\ast }=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\parallel \mathrm{\nabla }u{\parallel }^{2}-{\int }_{\mathit{\Omega }}{u}^{2}\mathrm{ln}|u|dx}{\parallel u{\parallel }^{2}}\right)\end{array}$.

3. The conclusion (iii) directly follows from

$I(λu)=λ2∥∇u∥2−λ2∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx−λ2ln⁡|λ|∥u∥2=λdJ(λu)dλ$

and conclusion (ii).□

#### Lemma 2.3

Let u$\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω) and $\begin{array}{}r:=\left(2\pi {\right)}^{\frac{n}{4}}{e}^{\frac{n}{2}}.\end{array}$

1. If 0 < ∥u∥ ≤ r, then I(u) ≥ 0;

2. If I(u) < 0, thenu∥ > r;

3. If I(u) = 0 andu∥ = 0, thenu∥ ≥ r.

#### Proof

1. Using the logarithmic Sobolev inequality (2.9), for a > 0, we get

$I(u)=∥∇u∥2−∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx=∥∇u∥2−∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|∥u∥+ln⁡∥u∥dx≥1−a22π∥∇u∥2+n(1+ln⁡a)2∥u∥2−∥u∥2ln⁡∥u∥.$(2.12)

Taking $\begin{array}{}a=\sqrt{2\pi },\end{array}$ we gain

$I(u)≥(n(2+ln⁡(2π))4−ln⁡∥u∥)∥u∥2.$(2.13)

If 0 < ∥u∥ ≤ r, then $\begin{array}{}\frac{n\left(2+\mathrm{ln}\left(2\pi \right)\right)}{4}\end{array}$ ≥ ln ∥u∥, which gives I(u) ≥ 0.

2. From (2.13) and I(u) < 0, we can see that

$(n(2+ln⁡(2π))4−ln⁡∥u∥)∥u∥2<0,$

which means

$∥u∥>(2π)n4en2=r.$

1. This conclusion is similar to the proof of (ii).

#### Lemma 2.4

The depth of potential well d in (2.8) satisfies

$d≥14(2π)n2en.$(2.14)

#### Proof

From the definition of d in (2.8) and Lemma 2.3 in (iii), it follows that u ∈ 𝓝. As a result, we obtain

$0=I(u)≥(n(2+ln⁡(2π))4−ln⁡∥u∥)∥u∥2,$(2.15)

which implies

$∥u∥≥(2π)n4en2.$(2.16)

By virtue of (2.4), I(u) = 0 and (2.16), we obtain

$J(u)=12I(u)+14∥u∥2=14∥u∥2≥14(2π)n2en,$(2.17)

which gives (2.14).□

#### Lemma 2.5

Let u be a solution of problem (1.1)-(1.3), then E(t) is a non-increasing function with respect to t.

#### Proof

Multiplying Eq. (1.1) by ut and integrating it over Ω × [s, t), we can obtain

$E(t)+∫st∥ut(τ)∥∗2dτ=E(s).$(2.18)

Thus, the proof is completed.□

#### Definition 2.6

Function u = u(x, t) is called a weak solution of problem (1.1)-(1.3) over Ω × [0, T], if

$u∈C([0,T],H01(Ω))∩C1([0,T],L2(Ω))∩C2([0,T],H−1(Ω)),$

utL2([0, T], $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω)) and there holds

$〈utt(t),η〉+∫Ω∇u(t)∇ηdx+ω∫Ω∇ut(t)∇ηdx+μ∫Ωut(t)ηdx=∫Ωu(t)ln⁡|u(t)|ηdx,∀η∈H01(Ω),a.e.t∈[0,T),$(2.19)

where u(x, 0) = u0(x) in $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), ut(x, 0) = u1(x) in L2(Ω).

## 3 Main results

In this section, we state our main results about problem (1.1)-(1.3).

#### Theorem 3.1

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω) and (1.4) holds. Then there exists a time T > 0 such that problem (1.1)-(1.3) admits a unique weak solution u on [0, T] satifying

$u∈C([0,T],H01(Ω))∩C1([0,T],L2(Ω))∩C2([0,T],H−1(Ω)).$

#### Theorem 3.2

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω) and (1.4) holds. Assume that E(0) < d, then when u0(x) ∈ W, problem (1.1)-(1.3) admits a global weak solution u(t) ∈ L(0, +∞;$\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω)) with ut(t) ∈ L(0, +∞;L2(Ω)) for 0 ≤ t < ∞.

#### Theorem 3.3

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω) and (1.4) holds. Assume that E(0) < d, then when u0(x) ∈ W, there exist two positive constants Ĉ and ξ independent of t such that

$0

#### Theorem 3.4

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω) and (1.4) holds. Assume that E(0) < d, then when u0(x) ∈ V, the existence time of solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3) is infinite and

$limt→+∞∥u(t)∥2=+∞.$

#### Theorem 3.5

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω) and (1.4) holds. Assume that E(0) = d, then when u0(x) ∈ W, problem (1.1)-(1.3) admits a global weak solution u(t) ∈ L(0, +∞;$\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω)) with utL(0, +∞;L2(Ω)) for 0 ≤ t < ∞.

#### Theorem 3.6

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω) and (1.4) holds. Assume that E(0) = d, then when u0(x) ∈ W, there exist two positive constants Ĉ and ξ independent of t such that

$0

#### Theorem 3.7

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω) and (1.4) holds. Assume that E(0) = d, then when u0(x) ∈ V, the existence time of solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3) is infinite and

$limt→+∞∥u(t)∥2=+∞.$

#### Theorem 3.8

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω). Assume that ω = 0, μ ≥ 0 and u0(x), u1(x) satisfy that

1. u02 > 4E(0) > 0,

2. (u0(x), u1(x)) > 0,

3. u0(x) ∈ V,

then the existence time of solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3) is infinite and

$limt→+∞∥u(t)∥2=+∞.$

#### Remark 3.9

When E(0) ≤ d, we derive the global well-posedness and the decay of solution provided u0(x) ∈ W. However when E(0) > 0 and u0(x) ∈ W, it is still open that whether global solution exists.

## 4 Local existence

For a fixed T > 0, consider the space

$H=C([0,T],H01(Ω))∩C1([0,T],L2(Ω)),$

endowed with the norm

$∥u∥H2=maxt∈[0,T](∥∇u(t)∥2+∥ut(t)∥2).$(4.1)

## 4.1 Proof of Theorem 3.1

To establish the uniqueness and existence of local solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3), we first prove the following lemma.

#### Lemma 4.1

For any T > 0 and u ∈ 𝓗, there exists a unique

$v∈C([0,T],H01(Ω))∩C1([0,T],L2(Ω))∩C2([0,T],H−1(Ω))$(4.2)

such that vtL2([0, T], $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$ (Ω)) solves the linear problem

$vtt−Δv−ωΔvt+μvt=uln⁡|u|,x∈Ω,t∈[0,T),v(x,0)=u0(x),vt(x,0)=u1(x),x∈Ω,v(x,t)=0,x∈∂Ω,t∈[0,T),$(4.3)

where u0(x) and u1(x) are defined in (1.3).

#### Proof

(4.3) is an inhomogenous linear problem for v, carrying a good energy structure. Therefore it suffices to show that the forcing term is L2, so that one can apply a standard Galerkin method to extract a solution. So we estimate Ω(u ln ∣u∣)2dx. First by a direct calculation and sobolev inequality, we have

$∫Ω(uln⁡|u|)2dx=∫{x∈Ω;|u(x)|≤1}uln⁡|u|2dx+∫{x∈Ω;|u(x)|>1}uln⁡|u|2dx≤e−2|Ω|+n−222∫{x∈Ω;|u(x)|>1}u2nn−2dx≤e−2|Ω|+n−222c∗2nn−2∥∇u∥2nn−2,$(4.4)

where c* is the best constant of the Sobolev embedding $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\left(\mathit{\Omega }\right)↪{L}^{\frac{2n}{n-2}}\left(\mathit{\Omega }\right).\end{array}$ Next we claim the uniqueness. Arguing by contradiction, we suppose that there exist two solutions v and w such that (4.3) hold. Then by subtracting the obtained two equations and testing with vt-wt, we can derive

$∥∇v(t)−∇w(t)∥2+∥vt(t)−wt(t)∥2+2∫0t∥vt(τ)−wt(τ)∥∗2dτ=0,$

which directly says wv. So we complete the proof.□

Take (u0(x),u1(x)) satisfying (1.4), set R2 = 2(∥∇ u02 + ∥u12) and consider

$UT={u∈H:u(x,0)=u0(x),ut(x,0)=u1(x),∥u∥H≤R},∀T>0.$(4.5)

Again Lemma 4.1 simplifies that for ∀ u ∈ 𝓤T, there exists v = Φ(u) such that v is the unique solution to problem (4.3). Next we prove that for a suitable T > 0, Φ is a contractive map satisfying Φ(𝓤T) ⊂ 𝓤T.

First we can conclude that

$∥∇v(t)∥2+∥v˙(t)∥2+2∫0t∥vt(τ)∥∗2dτ=∥∇u0∥2+∥u1∥2+2∫0t∫Ωu(τ)ln⁡|u(τ)|vt(τ)dxdτ.$(4.6)

where v = Φ(u) is the corresponding solution, to problem (4.3) for fixed u ∈ 𝓤T.

Similar to the arguments of (4.6), we can derive that

$2∫0t∫Ωu(τ)ln⁡|u(τ)|vt(τ)dxdτ≤∫0t(∥u(τ)ln⁡|u(τ)|∥2+∥v˙h(τ)∥2)dτ.$(4.7)

Hence, (4.7) becomes

$2∫0t∫Ωu(τ)ln⁡|u(τ)|vt(τ)dxdτ≤cTR2n(n−2)+2∫0t∥v˙h(τ)∥∗2dτ,$(4.8)

for all t ∈ (0, T]. Combining (4.6) with (4.7) and taking the maximum over [0, T] gives

$∥v∥H2≤12R2+cTR2n(n−2).$(4.9)

Choosing T sufficiently small, we get ∥v𝓗R, which shows that Φ(𝓤T) ⊂ 𝓤T.

Now taking w1 and w2 in 𝓤T, subtracting the two equations (4.3) for v1 = Φ(w1) and v2 = Φ(w2), and setting v = v1v2 we obtain for all η$\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω) and a.e. t ∈ [0, T]

$〈vtt(t),η〉+∫Ω∇v(t)∇ηdx+ω∫Ω∇vt(t)∇ηdx+μ∫Ωvt(t)ηdx=∫Ωw1(t)ln⁡|w1(t)|−w2(t)ln⁡|w2(t)|ηdx=∫Ωξ(t)(w1(t)−w2(t))ηdx,$(4.10)

where

$0≤ξ(t)≤(ln⁡|w1(t)+w2(t)|+1)(w1(t)+w2(t))ln⁡|w1(t)+w2(t)|.$

Therefore, taking η = vt in (4.10) and arguing as above, gives

$∥Φ(w1)−Φ(w2)∥H2=∥v∥H2≤cR4n(n−2)T∥w1−w2∥H2≤δ∥w1−w2∥H2$

for some δ < 1 as long as T is sufficiently small. So by the Contraction Mapping Principle, we can conclude that problem (1.1)-(1.3) admits a unique solution.

## 5.1 Global existence for E(0) < d

We first prove the invariant set W under the flow of problem (1.1)-(1.3).

#### Lemma 5.1

(Invariant set W when E(0) < d) Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω) and u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω). If E(0) < d and u0(x) ∈ W, then we have

$u(t)∈W$(5.1)

and

$∥u∥2<4dfor allt∈[0,T).$(5.2)

#### Proof

Let u(t) be the weak solution of problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) < d, u0(x) ∈ W and T be the maximum existence time of u(t). From Lemma 2.5 we have

$E(t)≤E(0)(5.3)

namely,

$12∥ut(t)∥2+J(u(t))=E(t)(5.4)

Arguing by contradiction, we suppose that there exists the first t0 ∈ (0, T) such that I(u(t0)) = 0 and I(u(t)) > 0 for 0 ≤ t < t0, i.e.,

$∥∇u(t0)∥2=∫Ωu(t0)2ln⁡|u(t0)|dx.$(5.5)

From the definition of 𝓝, then we have u(t0) ∈ 𝓝, which implies that J(u(t0)) ≥ d. From (2.8) and the definition of E(t), it holds that

$E(t0)=12∥ut(t0)∥2+J(u(t0))≥d,$

which contradicts (5.3). Then u(t) ∈ W for all t ∈ [0, T), which together with (5.4) and (2.17) gives

$d>E(t)=12∥ut(t)∥2+J(u)=12∥ut(t)∥2+12I(u)+14∥u∥2≥14∥u∥2.$

Thus, the proof of Lemma 5.1 is completed.□

Now let us turn to prove the existence of global solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) < d.

#### Proof of Theorem 3.2

From Lemma 5.1 it implies u(t) ∈ W for any t ∈ [0, T). By (2.18), we get

$12∥ut∥2+12∥∇u∥2+14∥u∥2≤E(0)+∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx,$(5.6)

which together with the Logarithmic Sobolev inequality leads to

$∥ut∥2+(1−a22π)∥∇u∥2+n(1+ln⁡a)+12∥u∥2≤C1+∥u∥2ln⁡∥u∥.$(5.7)

Here and in the sequel we denote by Ci > 0, i = 1, 2, 3 as constants. Choosing 0 < a < $\begin{array}{}\sqrt{2\pi }\end{array}$ that

$1−a22π>0,$

we get

$∥ut∥2+∥∇u∥2+∥u∥2≤C2(1+∥u∥2ln⁡∥u∥2).$(5.8)

Recalling Lemma 5.1, we have

$∥u∥2<4d.$

Hence, from inequality (5.8) it follows that

$∥ut∥2+∥∇u∥2+∥u∥2≤C3,$

where C3 > 0 is a constant independent of t. Therefore similar as the proof of Lemma 4.1 we know that problem (1.1)-(1.3) admits a global weak solution.□

## 5.2 Asymptotic behavior for E(0) < d

Next, we can now prove the asymptotic behavior of the solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3), which relies on the construction of a Lyapunov functional by performing a suitable modification of the energy.

#### Proof of Theorem 3.3

First, we define

$L(t):=E(t)+ε∫Ωutudx+εω2∥∇u∥2,$(5.9)

where ε > 0 will be chosen later. From Lemma 5.1 and (2.1)-(2.3) it implies that

$0(5.10)

It is easy to see that L(t) and E(t) are equivalent in the sense that there exist two positive constants β1 > 0 and β2 > 0 depending on ε such that

$β1E(t)≤L(t)≤β2E(t)fort≥0.$(5.11)

Taking the derivative of L(t) with respect to time yields

$dL(t)dt=−ω∥∇ut∥2−μ∥ut∥2+ε∥ut∥2−ε∥∇u∥2+ε∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx−εμ∫Ωutudx,$(5.12)

together with Eq.(1.1). Now, we estimate the last term on the right hand side of (5.12) as follows. By using Young’s inequality, we obtain,

$∫Ωutudx≤14δ∥ut∥2+δ∥u∥2,δ>0.$(5.13)

Substituting (5.13) into (5.12) with (2.1) gives that

$dL(t)dt≤−MεE(t)−ω∥∇ut∥2+Mε2+ε−μ+εμ4δ∥ut∥2+Mε4+εμδ∥u∥2+εM2−1∥∇u∥2+ε1−M2∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx,∀M>0.$(5.14)

By logarithmic Sobolev inequality, we have

$dL(t)dt≤−MεE(t)−ω∥∇ut∥2+Mε2+ε−μ+εμ4δ∥ut∥2+Mε4+εμδ+ε1−M2(ln⁡∥u∥−n2(1+ln⁡a))∥u∥2+ε1−M2(a22π−1)∥∇u∥2.$(5.15)

Recalling (2.1), (2.4) and E(t) ≤ E(0) < d, we get

$ln⁡∥u∥2(5.16)

Now, choosing M < 2, and ε small enough such that

$Mε2+ε−μ+εμ4δ<0.$

Then inequality (5.15) becomes

$dL(t)dt≤Mε4+εμδ+ε21−M2ln⁡(4d)−n(1+ln⁡a)∥u∥2−MεE(t)+ε1−M2(a22π−1)∥∇u∥2.$(5.17)

Since 0 < M < 2 and J(u) ≤ E(0) < d, by taking

$e2αn≤a2≤2π,$

where $\begin{array}{}\alpha =\mathrm{ln}\left(4d\right)+\frac{M+\mu \delta }{2-M}-n,\end{array}$ and taking δ > 0 small enough such that

$a22π−1≤0$(5.18)

and

$Mε4+εμδ+ε21−M2ln⁡(4d)−n(1+ln⁡a)≤0,$(5.19)

then we have

$dL(t)dt≤−MεE(t),∀t>0.$(5.20)

Further, by virtue of (5.11), let $\begin{array}{}\xi =\frac{M\epsilon }{{\beta }_{2}},\end{array}$ (5.20) becomes

$dL(t)dt≤−ξL(t),∀t>0,$(5.21)

namely,

$L(t)≤Ce−ξt,∀t>0,$(5.22)

which together with (5.11) shows

$00.$(5.23)

This completes the proof.□

## 5.3 Blow-up for E(0) < d

To prove the blow-up results for problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) < d, we first give the invariant set V. Similar to Lemma 5.1, we also have the following lemma.

#### Lemma 5.2

(Invariant set V when E(0) < d) Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω) and u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω). If E(0) < d and u0(x) ∈ V, then we have

$u(t)∈V$(5.24)

and

$∥u∥2>4dfor allt∈[0,T).$(5.25)

Now we turn to show that the blow up in infinite time for problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) < d.

#### Proof of Theorem 3.4

Let u(x, t) be a weak solution of problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) < d, I(u0) < 0. Arguing by contradiction, we suppose that the solution u is global. Then for any T > 0 we may consider the auxiliary function G : [0, T] → ℝ+ defined by

$G(t):=∥u∥2+∫0t∥u(τ)∥∗2dτ+(T−t)∥u0∥∗2.$(5.26)

Since G(t) > 0 is positive over [0, T] and continuous, there exists a ρ > 0 (independent of the choice of T) such that

$G(t)≥ρ for allt∈[0,T].$(5.27)

Furthermore,

$G′(t)=2∫Ωuutdx+∥u∥∗2−∥u0∥∗2=2∫Ωuutdx+2∫0t(u(τ)ut(τ))∗dτ$(5.28)

and

$G″(t)=2〈utt,u〉+2∥ut∥2+2(u,ut)∗for a.e.t∈[0,T].$(5.29)

Testing Eq. (1.1) with u and plugging the result into (5.29) we obtain

$G″(t)=2∥ut∥2−∥∇u∥2+∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dxfor a.e.t∈[0,T].$(5.30)

Therefore, we get

$G(t)G″(t)−(G′(t))2=2G(t)∥ut∥2−∥∇u∥2+∫Ωu2ln⁡|u|dx+4η(t)−(G(t)−(T−t)∥u0∥∗2)∥ut∥2+∫0t∥ut(τ)∥∗2dτ,$

where

$η(t)=∥u∥2+∫0t∥u(τ)∥∗2dτ∥ut∥2+∫0t∥ut(τ)∥∗2dτ−∫Ωuutdx+∫0t(u(τ),ut(τ))∗dτ2.$

By Schwarz inequality, we can get

$∥u∥2∥ut∥2≥∫Ωuutdx2,∫0t∥u(τ)∥∗2dτ∫0t∥ut(τ)∥∗2dτ≥∫0t(u(τ),ut(τ))∗dτ2$

and

$∫Ωuutdx∫0t(u(τ),ut(τ))∗dτ≤∥u∥∫0t∥u(τ)∥∗2dτ12∥ut∥∫0t∥u(τ)∥∗2dτ12.$

These three inequalities entail η(t) ≥ 0 for any t ∈ [0, T]. As a consequence, we reach the following differential inequality

$G(t)G″(t)−(G′(t))2≥G(t)ξ(t)for a.e.t∈[0,T],$(5.31)

where ξ:[0, T] → ℝ+ is the map defined by

$ξ(t):=−2∥ut∥2−2I(u)−4∫0t∥ut(τ)∥∗2dτ.$(5.32)

From Lemma 2.5, Lemma 5.2, (2.4) and E(0) < d, we know

$ξ(t)=4J(u(t))−4E(t)−2I(u(t))−4∫0t∥ut(τ)∥∗2dτ=∥u∥2−4E(t)−4∫0t∥ut(τ)∥∗2dτ≥∥u∥2−4E(0)>∥u∥2−4d>0.$(5.33)

Since E(0) < d, there exists δ > 0 (independent of T) such that

$ξ(t)≥δfor allt≥0.$(5.34)

Hence, by (5.27) and (5.34), it follows that

$G(t)G″(t)−(G′(t))2≥ρδ>0for a.e.t∈[0,T],$

which means G(t)G″(t) − (G′(t))2 > 0. On the other hand, by directly calculation, we can see that

$(ln⁡G(t))′=G′(t)G(t)$(5.35)

and

$(ln⁡G(t))″=G(t)G″(t)−(G′(t))2G2(t)>0.$(5.36)

By (5.36), we know that (ln G(t))′ is increasing with respect to t, using this fact, integrating (5.35) from t0 to t, we have

$(ln⁡G(t))′=(ln⁡G(t0))′+∫t0tG(t)G″(t)−(G′(t))2G2(t)dτ$

and

$ln⁡|G(t)|−ln⁡|G(t0)|=∫t0t(ln⁡G(τ))′dτ=∫t0tG′G(τ)dτ≥G′(t0)G(t0)(t−t0),$

where 0 ≤ t0t. Then

$G(t)≥G(t0)exp(G′(t0)G(t0)(t−t0)).$

Since G(0) = 0 and G′(0) > 0, we can take t0 sufficiently small such that G′(t0) > 0 and G(t0) > 0. Then for sufficiently large t,

$∥u∥2=G′(t)≥G′(t)G(t0)G(t)≥G′(t)exp(G′(t)G(t0)(t−t0))≥Ce2t,$

i.e.,

$limt→+∞G(t)=+∞.$

This shows that the weak solution u to problem (1.1)-(1.3) blows up at +∞.□

## 6 Critical initial energy

#### Lemma 6.1

If E(0) = d, then there exists a t0 ∈ (0, T) such that

$∫0t0∥uτ∥∗2dτ>0.$(6.1)

#### Proof

Arguing by contradiction we suppose that $\begin{array}{}{\int }_{0}^{t}\parallel {u}_{\tau }{\parallel }_{\ast }^{2}d\tau \equiv 0\end{array}$ for 0 ≤ t < T, which gives ∥ut∥ ≡ 0 for 0 ≤ t < T. So we can get u(t) ≡ u0(x), which contradicts the assumption of Lemma 6.1.□

## 6.1 Global existence for critical initial energy

#### Lemma 6.2

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω) and u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω). If E(0) = d and u0(x) ∈ W, then we have

$u(t)∈W.$(6.2)

#### Proof

We prove that u(t) ∈ W for 0 ≤ t < T. Arguing by contradiction we suppose that there exists a t0 ∈ (0, T) such that I(u(t0)) = 0 and ∥u(t0)∥ ≠ 0, which says J(u(t0) ≥ d. Hence, by

$12∥ut(t0)∥2+J(u(t0))+∫0t0∥uτ∥∗2dτ=E(0)=d,$

we get $\begin{array}{}{\int }_{0}^{{t}_{0}}\parallel {u}_{\tau }{\parallel }_{\ast }^{2}d\tau =0\end{array}$ and ∥ut2 = 0 for 0 ≤ tt0, which implies $\begin{array}{}\frac{du}{dt}=0\end{array}$ and u(x, t) = u0(x) for xΩ, 0 ≤ tt0. Thus we can conclude I(u(t0)) = I(u0) > 0, which contradicts I(u(t0)) = 0.□

Now we turn to prove the existence of global solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) = d.

#### Proof of Theorem 3.5

First Theorem 3.1 gives the existence of the local solution. From Lemma 6.1 we can get (6.1). By (2.18) and E(0) = d we obtain

$E(t0)=d−∫0t∥uτ∥∗2dτ

Moreover, from Lemma 6.2 it follows u(t0) ∈ W. Let v(t) = u(t + t0) and t ≥ 0, then v(t) is a solution of problem (1.1)-(1.3), which combining Theorem 3.2 says that T = +∞.□

## 6.2 Asymptotic behavior for E(0) = d

Next, we can now prove the asymptotic behavior of the solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) = d.

#### Proof of Theorem 3.6

From Theorem 3.5 it implies that there exists a t0 > 0 such that E(t0) < d, I(u(t0)) > 0 or ∥u(t0)∥ = 0, which together with Theorem 3.3 says,

$0

and

$0

where Ĉ* = Ĉeξt0.□

## 6.3 Infinite time blow up for the critical initial energy

#### Lemma 6.3

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω) and u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω). If E(0) = d and u0(x) ∈ V, then we have

$u(t)∈V.$(6.3)

#### Proof

Arguing by contradiction, we suppose that there exists a t0 ∈ (0, T) such that

$I(u)<0,0

and

$I(u(t0))=0,$

which together with (2.8) gives J(u(t0)) ≥ d. The remainder of this proof is similar to the proof of Lemma 6.2.□

Now we turn to show that the blow up in infinite time of the solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) = d.

#### Proof of Theorem 3.7

First Theorem 3.1 gives the existence of the local solution. By the similar arguments as those in the proof of Theorem 3.5, together with Lemma 6.1 and Lemma 6.3. we can set E(t0) < d and I(u(t0)) < 0. The remainder of the proof is the same as Theorem 3.4.□

## 7 Infinite time blow up for E(0) > 0 (ω = 0)

We first prove the following lemmas to obtain that the unstable set V is invariant with respect to t under the flow of problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) > 0, ω = 0 and μ ≥ 0.

#### Lemma 7.1

Let δ ∈ ℝ, T > 0 and let h be a Lipschitzian function over [0, T). Assume that h(0) ≥ 0, h′(t) + δ h(t) > 0 a.e. t ∈ (0, T). Then h(t) > 0, ∀ t ∈ (0, T).

#### Proof

Differentiating eδth(t) gives

$eδth(t)dt=δeδth(t)+eδth′(t)=eδt(h′(t)+δh(t))>0,$(7.1)

combining with h(0) ≥ 0, we know eδth(t) > e0h(0) ≥ 0. In other words, h(t) > 0 for all t ∈ (0, T).□

#### Lemma 7.2

Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω), ω = 0, μ ≥ 0 and (u0, u1) ≥ 0, then the map {t ↦ ∥u(t)∥2} is strictly increasing as long as u(t) ∈ V, where u(t) is the solution of problem (1.1)-(1.3).

#### Proof

Let

$H(t):=∥u∥2,$(7.2)

then we have

$H′(t)=2(u,ut)$

and

$H″(t)=2〈utt,u〉+2∥ut∥2.$

Notice that, for any t ∈ (0, T) we have

$〈utt,u〉=ddt(u,ut)−∥ut∥2.$(7.3)

And multiplying Eq. (1.1) by u yields

$〈utt,u〉+∥∇u∥2+μ(ut,u)=(uln⁡|u|,u).$(7.4)

Substituting (7.3) into (7.4) gives

$ddt((u,ut)+μ2∥u∥2)=∥ut∥2−I(u),$(7.5)

which shows

$d2dt2∥u∥2+μddt∥u∥2=2∥ut∥2−2I(u).$(7.6)

From u(t) ∈ V, (7.6) implies

$H″(t)+H′(t)>0,t∈[0,T).$

Obviously, from Lemma 7.1 and H′(0) = (u0(x), u1(x)) ≥ 0. We conclude that the map {t ↦ ∥u(t)∥2} is strictly increasing for all t ∈ (0, T).□

In the following, we show the invariance of the unstable set V under the flow of problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) > 0.

#### Lemma 7.3

(Invariant set V when E(0) > 0) Let u0(x) ∈ $\begin{array}{}{H}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), u1(x) ∈ L2(Ω) and u be a weak solution of problem (1.1)-(1.3) with the maximum existence time interval [0, T), T ≤ +∞. Assume that E(0) > 0, ω = 0 and the initial data satisfy

$∥u0∥2>4E(0),$(7.7)

then the solution u(t) of problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) > 0 belongs to V, provided that u0(x) ∈ V.

#### Proof

We prove u(t) ∈ V for t ∈ [0, T). Arguing by contradiction, we suppose that t0 ∈ (0, T) is the first time such that

$I(u(t0))=0$(7.8)

and

$I(u(t)<0fort∈[0,t0).$

Hence from Lemma 7.2 it follows that the map

$t↦∥u(t)∥2$

is strictly increasing on the interval [0, t0), which together with (7.2) gives that

$H(t)=∥u(t)∥2>∥u0∥2>4E(0),∀t∈(0,t0).$(7.9)

Moreover, from the continuity of u(t) in t, we obtain

$∥u(t0)∥2>4E(0).$(7.10)

Recalling (2.1) and (2.18), we have

$E(0)=E(t)+μ∫0t∥uτ∥2dτ=12∥ut∥2+12∥∇u∥2−12∫Ωuln⁡|u|dx+14∥u∥2+μ∫0t∥uτ∥2dτ=12∥ut∥2+12I(u)+14∥u∥2+μ∫0t∥uτ∥2dτ,$(7.11)

which together with (7.8), μ ≥ 0 shows that

$E(0)≥E(t0)+μ∫0t0∥uτ∥2dτ≥12∥ut(t0)∥2+12I(u(t0))+14∥u(t0)∥2=12∥ut(t0)∥2+14∥u(t0)∥2≥14∥u(t0)∥2.$(7.12)

Obviously (7.12) contradicts (7.10). So the proof is completed.□

In the end we present the infinite time blow up result of the solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3) with E(0) > 0.

#### Proof of Theorem 3.8

Recalling the auxiliary function G(t) in (5.26), similarly as the proof of Theorem 3.4, we have

$G′(t)G(t)−(G′(t))2≥G(t)G″(t)−4∥ut∥2+∫0t∥uτ(τ)∥∗2dτ≥G(t)−2∥ut∥2−2I(u)−4∫0t∥uτ(τ)∥∗2dτ$(7.13)

and

$ξ(t):=−2∥ut∥2−2I(u)−4∫0t∥uτ(τ)∥∗2dτ.$(7.14)

From (7.11) and (2.1)-(2.3), we can deduce (7.14) to

$ξ(t)=∥u∥2−4E(0).$(7.15)

At this point, (7.7) and (7.15) indicate that

$ξ(t)>σ>0.$(7.16)

Therefore by (7.13)-(7.16) and (5.27), we have

$G(t)G″(t)−(G′(t))2>ρσ>0,t∈[0,T).$

This tells us that

$limt→+∞G(t)=+∞.$

The remainder of the proof is similar to that of Theorem 3.4.□

## Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11871017), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation(2013M540270), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. And the authors are grateful for the insightful comments and constructive suggestions made by the referee, and also the support and contribution from Dr. Yuxuan Chen and Miss Longqi Shang.

## References

• [1]

I.R. D’Alembert, Recherches sur la courbe que forme une corde tendue mise en vibrations, Hist. & Mm. Acad. Roy. Sci. Toulouse. (1747), no. 3, 214-249. Google Scholar

• [2]

D.H. Sattinger, On global solution of nonlinear hyperbolic equations, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 30, (1968), 148-172.

• [3]

L.E. Payne and D.H. Sattinger, Saddle points and instability of nonlinear hyperbolic equations, Israel J. Math. 22, (1975), 273-303.

• [4]

H.A. Levine and J. Serrin, Global nonexistence theorems for quasilinear evolution equations with dissipation, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 137, (1997), no. 4, 341-361.

• [5]

P. Pucci and J. Serrin, Global nonexistence for abstract evolution equations with positive initial energy, J. Differential Equations. 150, 1998, 1, 203-214.

• [6]

E. Vitillaro, Global existence theorems for a class of evolution equations with dissipation, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 49, (1999), no. 2, 155-182. Google Scholar

• [7]

G.F. Webb, Existence and asymptotic behavior for a strongly damped nonlinear wave equation, Canad. J. Math. 23, (1980), no. 3, 631-643. Google Scholar

• [8]

V. Pata and M. Squassina, On the strongly damped wave equation, Comm. Math. Phys. 253, (2005), no. 3, 511-533.

• [9]

F. Gazzola and M. Squassina, Global solutions and finite time blow up for damped semilinear wave equations, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 32, (2006), no. 2, 185-207. Google Scholar

• [10]

J.D. Barrow and P. Parsons, Inflationary models with logarithmic potentials, Physiol Rev. D 52, (1995) no. 10, 5576-5587.

• [11]

K. Enqvist and J. McDonald, Q-balls and baryogenesis in the MSSM, Phys. Lett. 425, (1998), no. 3-4, 309-321.

• [12]

T. Cazenave and A. Haraux, Équations dévolution avec non linéarité logarithmique, Annales de la Faculté des sciences de Toulouse, (1980), no. 1, 21-51. Google Scholar

• [13]

P. Górka, Logarithmic Klein-Gordon equation, Acta Phys. Pol. 40, (2009), no. 1, 59-71. Google Scholar

• [14]

T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi, Numerical study of Q-ball formation in gravity mediation, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys1. 90, (2011), 229-238. Google Scholar

• [15]

X. Han, Global existence of weak solutions for a logarithmic wave equation arising from Q-ball dynamics, Bull. Korean Math. Soc. 50, (2013), no. 1, 275-283.

• [16]

H.W. Zhang, G.W. Liu, Q.Y. Hu, Exponential decay of energy for a Logarithmic wave quation, J. Partial Differential Equations. 28, 2015, no. 3, 269-277.

• [17]

M.M. Al-Gharabli and S.A. Messaoudi, The existence and the asymptotic behavior of a plate equation with frictional damping and a logarithmic source term, J. Math. Anal. Appl 454, (2017), no. 5, 1-14.

• [18]

M.M. Al-Gharabli and S.A. Messaoudi, Existence and a general decay result for a plate equation with nonlinear damping and a logarithmic source term, J. Evol. Equ. 454, (2017), no. 4, 1-21.

• [19]

L. Gross, Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities, Amer. J. Math. 97, (1976), 1061-1083. Google Scholar

• [20]

E.H. Lieb and M. Loss, Analysis, volume 14 of graduate studies in mathematics, Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, RI, 2001. Google Scholar

Accepted: 2019-01-18

Published Online: 2019-07-04

Published in Print: 2019-03-01

Citation Information: Advances in Nonlinear Analysis, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 613–632, ISSN (Online) 2191-950X, ISSN (Print) 2191-9496,

Export Citation