
Citation: Eve-Agnès Fiorentino, Sheldon Warden, Maksim Bano, Pascal Sailhac, Thomas Perrier. One-off geophysical detection of chlorinated DNAPL during remediation of an industrial site: a case study[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(1): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021001
[1] | Sergei Avdonin, Julian Edward . An inverse problem for quantum trees with observations at interior vertices. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2021, 16(2): 317-339. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021008 |
[2] | Travis G. Draper, Fernando Guevara Vasquez, Justin Cheuk-Lum Tse, Toren E. Wallengren, Kenneth Zheng . Matrix valued inverse problems on graphs with application to mass-spring-damper systems. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2020, 15(1): 1-28. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2020001 |
[3] | Robert Carlson . Dirichlet to Neumann maps for infinite quantum graphs. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2012, 7(3): 483-501. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2012.7.483 |
[4] | Kirill D. Cherednichenko, Alexander V. Kiselev, Luis O. Silva . Functional model for extensions of symmetric operators and applications to scattering theory. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2018, 13(2): 191-215. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2018009 |
[5] | Arnaud Ducrot, Michel Langlais, Pierre Magal . Multiple travelling waves for an SI-epidemic model. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8(1): 171-190. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.171 |
[6] | Franco Cardin, Alberto Lovison . Finite mechanical proxies for a class of reducible continuum systems. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2014, 9(3): 417-432. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2014.9.417 |
[7] | Iryna Pankratova, Andrey Piatnitski . Homogenization of convection-diffusion equation in infinite cylinder. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2011, 6(1): 111-126. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2011.6.111 |
[8] | Kun-Peng Jin, Can Liu . RETRACTED ARTICLE: Decay estimates for the wave equation with partial boundary memory damping. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2024, 19(3): 1402-1423. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2024060 |
[9] | Feiyang Peng, Yanbin Tang . Inverse problem of determining diffusion matrix between different structures for time fractional diffusion equation. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2024, 19(1): 291-304. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2024013 |
[10] | Hyeontae Jo, Hwijae Son, Hyung Ju Hwang, Eun Heui Kim . Deep neural network approach to forward-inverse problems. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2020, 15(2): 247-259. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2020011 |
The heart is an electrically controlled mechanical pump which drives blood flow through the circulatory system vessels (through deformation of its walls), where electrical impulses trigger mechanical contraction (of various chambers of heart) and whose dysfunction is incompatible with life. The coordinated contraction of heart and the maintenance of heartbeat are controlled by a complex network of interconnected cardiac cells electrically coupled by gap junctions and voltage-gated ion channels. The evaluation of bioelectrical activity in heart is then a very complex process which uses different phenomenological mechanism and subject to various perturbations, and physiological and pathophysiological variations.
The electrical system of a normal heart is highly organized in a steady rhythmic pattern. This normal heartbeat is called sinus rhythm. Irregular or abnormal heartbeats, called arrhythmias, are caused by a change in propagation and/or formation of electrical impulses, that regulate a steady heartbeat, causing a heartbeat that is too fast or too slow, that can remain stable or become chaotic (irregular and disorganized). Many times, arrhythmias are harmless and can occur in healthy people without heart disease; however, some of these rhythms can be serious and require special and efficiency treatments. Fibrillation is one type of arrhythmia and is considered the most serious cardiac rhythm disturbance. It occurs when the heart beats with rapid, erratic electrical impulses (highly disorganized almost chaotic activation). This leads to quivering (or fibrillation) of heart chambers rather than normal contraction, which then leads the heart to lose its ability to pump enough blood through circulatory system. The treatment therapy of these diseases, when it becomes troublesome or when it can present a danger, often uses electrical impulses to stabilize cardiac function and restore the sinus rhythm, by implanting the patients with active cardiac devices (electrotherapy). For example, in case of cardiac rhythms that are too slow, the devices transmit electronic impulses and ensure that periodic contractions of heart are maintained at a hemodynamically sufficient rate; and in the case of a fast or irregular heart rate, the devices monitor heart rate and, if needed, treat episodes of tachyarrhythmia (including tachycardia and/or fibrillation) by transmitting automatically impulses to either give defibrillation shocks or cause overstimulation (via an ICDs*) or synchronize contraction of left and right ventricles.
* The so-called implantable cardioverter defibrillators
After cessation of a transient period of abnormal ventricular activation (arrhythmia or pacing) in which the myocardial repolarization is altered and delayed (such as with artificial pacemakers [82], tachyarrhythmias with wide QRS complexes, intermittent left bundle branch block or ventricular pre-excitation observed in Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome [45]), the heart remembers and mirrors its repolarization in the direction of vector of “abnormally” activated QRS complexes [66]. This remodeling of electrical properties of myocardium is characterized by persistent but reversible T-wave changes on the surface electrocardiogram (ECG). The scope, significance and direction of T-wave deviation depend on duration and direction of abnormal electrical activation. Moreover, these changes are often confused with pathological conditions manifesting with T-wave deviations, such as (acute) myocardial ischemia or infarction. This cumulative and complex phenomenon is named cardiac memory and can persist up for several weeks after normal ventricular conduction is restored. Heart is considered as network of cardiac oscillators communicating via gap junctions between neighboring cells and through voltage gated ion channels (that are activated by changes in electrical membrane potential near channel): this phenomenon alters patterns of gap junction distribution and generates changes in repolarization seen at the level of ionic-channel, ionic concentrations, ionic-current gating and action potential.
The existence of cardiac memory has been known for many years and resulted in a large number of publications, see for example [23,37,44,58,59,60,67,72,73,75] and the references therein. Yet despite all this, this phenomemon is under-recognized and there is still limited information regarding its physiological significance and practical clinical implications because this phenomenon is considered to be a relatively benign pathophysiologic finding. Unfortunately, the work of past few years has shown that despite the mostly benign nature of cardiac memory in healthy individuals under some conditions, it can be the trigger of more complex arrhythmias and then requires emergency care of the patient. Other works estimate that clinically administered antiarrhythmic drugs alter expression of cardiac memory and that generate changes in repolarization could in turn alter the effects of these drugs (see e.g. [4,63]). Moreover, cardiac memory may also lead to unnecessary and invasive diagnostic investigation that put patients under unnecessary risks (see e.g., [71]).
Then, recognition of cardiac memory as a serious potential cause of T-wave changes and the analysis of T-wave morphology (throughout the ECG during narrow- and wide-QRS rhythms) are critical to help differentiate T-wave changes due to myocardial ischemia from those induced by cardiac memory, and consequently sustainably establish the clinical relevance of this phenomenon, facilitates diagnosis and increases efficiency of cardiac disorders treatment.
Consequently, this has greatly emphasized the need for model and methodologies capable of predicting and understanding the dynamic mechanisms of different sources of electrical instability in heart like cardiac action potential (AP) repolarization alternans which is influenced by memory. At cellular level, alternans is generally manifests as cyclic, beat-to-beat alternations between long and short action potential and/or intracellular Ca transient, and is frequently associated with the development of ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. It is generally agreed that disturbances of bi-directional (mutual) relationship between transmembrane potential (or membrane voltage) ϕ and Ca-sensitive ionic currents play a key role in generation of alternans. Because membrane voltage ϕ is strongly affected by Ca-sensitive ionic currents and intracellular Ca loading in turn is strongly influenced by ϕ-dependent ionic currents. This complex bidirectional coupling influences and controls the amplitude and duration of action potentials (APD) through various time- and voltage-dependent ionic currents.
The classical bidomain system is commonly used for modeling propagation of electrophysiological waves in cardiac tissue. Motivated by above discussions, to take into account the critical effect of memory in propagation of electrophysiological waves, together with other critical cardiac material parameters, we propose and analyze a new bidomain model, that I name "memory bidomain system" by incorporating memory effects. In next section, we shall present derivation of this memory bidomain model.
Mathematical and computational cardiac electrophysiological modeling is now an important field in applied mathematics. Indeed, nowadays, heart and cardiovascular diseases are still the leading cause of death and disability all over the world. That is why we need to improve our knowledge about heart behavior, and more particularly about its electrical behavior. Consequently we want strong methods to compute electrical fluctuations in the myocardium to prevent cardiac disorders (as arrhythmia). Tissue-level cardiac electrophysiology, which can provide a bridge between electrophysiological cell models at smaller scales, and tissue mechanics, metabolism and blood flow at larger scales, is usually modeled using the coupled bidomain equations, originally derived in [78], which represent a homogenization of the intracellular and extracellular medium, where electrical currents are governed by Ohm's law (see also e.g. [46] for a review and an introduction to this field). The model was modified and extended to include heart tissue surrounded by a conductive bath or a conductive body (see e.g. [64] and [74]). From mathematical viewpoint, the classical bidomain system is commonly formulated in terms of intracellular and extracellular electrical potentials of anisotropic cardiac tissue (macroscale), ϕi and ϕe, (or, equivalently, extracellular potential ϕe and the transmembrane voltage ϕ=φi−φe) coupled with cellular state variables u describing cellular membrane dynamics and torso potential state variable ϕs. This is a system of non-linear partial differential equations (PDEs) coupled with ordinary differential equations (ODEs), in the physical region Ω (occupied by excitable cardiac tissue, which is an open, bounded, and connected subset of d-dimensional Euclidean space Rd, d≤3). The PDEs describe the propagation of electrical potentials and ODEs describe the electrochemical processes.
Cardiac memory can affect considerably the resulting electrical activity in heart and thus the cardiac disorders therapeutic treatment. It is then necessary to introduce the impact of memory on dynamical behaviors of such a system. Memory terms can cause dynamical instabilities (as Alternans) and give rise to highly complex behavior including oscillations and chaos.
In order to take into account the influence of cardiac memory and inward movement of u into the cell which prolongs depolarization phase of action potential, we propose a new bidomain model. In this new model, classical bidomain model has been modified via time fractional-order dynamical system, arising due to cellular heterogeneity, which are used to describe processes that exhibit memory. More precisely, the derived system with memory (or history), is a nonlinear coupled reaction-diffusion model in shape of a set of time fractional-order differential equations (FDE) coupled with a set of time fractional-order partial differential equations, in the torso-heart's spatial domain Ω (Figure 1) which is a bounded open subset with a sufficiently regular boundary ∂Ω, and during the final fixed time horizon T>0, as follows
cα∂α0+ϕ+I(.;ϕ,u)−div(Ki∇φi)=Ii, in QH=ΩH×(0,T)cα∂α0+ϕ+I(.;ϕ,u)+div(Ke∇φe)=−Ie, in QH−div(Ks∇φs)=0, in QB=ΩB×(0,T)∂β0+u+G(.;ϕ,u)=0, in QHsubject to initial and boundary conditions (1.4), | (1.1) |
or equivalently
cα∂α0+ϕ+I(.;ϕ,u)−div(Ki∇ϕ)=div(Ki∇φe)+Ii, in QH−div((Ke+Ki)∇φe)=div(Ki∇ϕ)+I, in QH−div(Ks∇φs)=0, in QB∂β0+u+G(.;ϕ,u)=0, in QHsubject to initial and boundary conditions(1.4). | (1.2) |
Here, ∂α0+ and ∂β0+ denote the forward Caputo fractional derivatives with α and β be real values in ]0,1] and the unknowns are the potentials φi, φe, φs and a single ionic variable u (e.g. gating variable, concentration, etc.).
The heart's spatial domain is represented by ΩH which is a bounded open subset, and by ΓH=∂ΩH we denote its piecewise smooth boundary. A distinction is made between the intracellular and extracellular tissues which are separated by the cardiac cellular membrane. The surrounding tissue within the thorax is modeled by a volume conduction ΩB with a piecewise smooth boundary ΓB=ΓH∪ΓT where ΓT is the thorax surface. The whole domain is denoted by the Ω=¯ΩH∪ΩB. In ΩH, the transmembrane potential is ϕ=φi−φe where φe and φi are the transmembrane, extracellular and intracellular potentials, respectively, and in ΩB, φs is thoracic medium electric potential. The parameter cα is cα=κCα>0, where Cα is the membrane capacitance per unit area and κ is the surface area-to-volume ratio (homogenization parameter). The membrane is assumed to be passive, so the capacitance Cα can be assumed to be not a function of state variables. Classically this membrane is assimilate to a simple parallel resistor-capacitor circuit. However various studies showed clearly that a passive membrane may be more appropriately modeled with a non-ideal capacitor, in which the current-voltage relationship is given by a fractional-order derivative (see e.g [84]). So, according to the passivity of tissue we can assimilate this membrane to electrical circuit with a resistor associate to the ionic current (Iion) and a capacitor associate to the capacitive current, Iαc=cα∂α0+ϕ, in parallel, with α usually ranging from 0.5 to 1 (Figure 2). Moreover, since the electrical restitution curve (ERC)† is affected by the action potential history through ionic memory, we have represented the memory via ionic variable u by a time fractional-order dynamic term ∂β0+u.
† which traditionally describes the recovery of APD as a function of the interbeat interval
The coupling between equations in ΩH and equation in ΩB (in systems (1.1) and (1.2)) is operate at the heart-torso interface ΓH. The continuity conditions at the interface can be given by
φe=φs, in ΣH=ΓH×(0,T)(Ke∇φe)⋅n=(Ks∇φs)⋅n,onΣH. | (1.3) |
where n is the outward normal to ΓH.
The tensors Ki and Ke are the conductivity tensors describing anisotropic intracellular and extracellular conductive media, and tensor Ks represents the conductivity tensor of thoracic medium. The electrophysiological ionic state u describes a cumulative way of effects of ion transport through cell membranes (which describes e.g., the dynamics of ion-channel and ion concentrations in different cellular compartments). The operator I is equal to κIion, where the nonlinear operator Iion describes the sum of transmembrane ionic currents across cell membrane with u. The nonlinear operator G is representing the ionic activity in myocardium. Functional forms for I and G are determined by an electrophysiological cell model. The source terms are Ii=κfi, Ie=κfe and I=Ii+Ie, where fi and fe describe intracellular and extracellular stimulation currents, respectively.
To close the system, we impose the following initial and boundary conditions
initial conditionsϕ(.,t=0)=ϕ0,u(.,t=0)=u0, in ΩHand boundary conditionsφe=φs, in ΣH(Ke∇φe)⋅n=(Ks∇φs)⋅n,onΣH(Ki∇φi)⋅n=0,onΣH(Ks∇φs)⋅nT=0,onΣT=ΓT×(0,T) | (1.4) |
where nT is the outward normal to ΓT.
In absence of a grounded electrode, the bidomain equations are a naturally singular problem since φe and φs, in system (1.2), only appear in the equations and boundary conditions through their gradients. Moreover, the states φe and φs are only defined up to the same constant. Such problems have compatibility conditions determining whether there are any solution to the PDEs. This is easily found by integrating the second and third equations of (1.2) over the domain and using the divergence theorem with boundary conditions. Then the following conservation of the total current is derived (a.e.in(0,T))
∫ΩHIdx=0. | (1.5) |
Consequently, we must choose current I such that the compatibility condition (1.5) is satisfied. For the choose of intracellular stimulus, it is natural and usual (as is common) to take Ii=−Ie (denoted in the sequel by fH) i.e., setting the total current I to zero. It is clear that this condition does not correspond to zero extracellular stimulus, but that the extracellular stimulus current and the intracellular stimulus current are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Moreover, the functions φe and φs are defined within a class of equivalence, regardless of the same time-dependent function. This function can be fixed, for example, by setting the condition, (a.e. in (0, T))
∫ΓHφedx=∫ΓHφsdx=pHwhere pH is a fixed time-dependent function. | (1.6) |
Remark 1.1. 1.Condition (1.6) is used for pressure in oceanography (see e.g. [15]).
2. The functions Ki, Ke, H and G depend on the fiber extension ratio.
3. We can suppose, for example, that fH is only a time dependent source and is of the form
fH(x,t)=θ(t)(χΩ(1)H(x)−χΩ(2)H(x)), | (1.7) |
where χΩ(i)H is the characteristic function of set Ω(i)H, i=1,2. The support regions Ω(1)H and Ω(2)H can be considered to represent an anode (positive electrode) and a cathode (negative electrode) respectively.
In recent years, various problems concerning biological rhythmic phenomena and memory processes which can be included in a cardiac model in many ways (via delay model or time fractional dynamical model), have been studied. Via delayed system we can cited e.g., [11,17,20,40,41,43,69] and the references therein. For problems associated with bidomain models with time-delay, the literature is limited, to our knowledge, to [8,9,27]. In these references, in order to take into account the influence of disturbance in data and the time-varying delays on propagation of electrophysiological waves in heart, the authors have developed a new mathematical model and have considered the theoretical analysis as well as numerical simulations (with real data) and validation of developed model. Via time fractional dynamical model, the literature is also limited, we can cite e.g. [26,31]. In [26], the authors study, using a minimal cardiac cell model, the effects of a fractional-order time diffusion for the voltage and for the ionic current gating. They have shown numerically the interest of modeling memory through fractional-order and that with the model it is able to analyze the influence of memory on some electrical properties as spontaneous activity and alternans. Concerning problems associated with classical bidomain models various methods and technique, as evolution variational inequalities approach, semi-group theory, Faedo-Galerkin method and others, the studies of well-posedness of solutions have been derived in the literature (see e.g., [12,16,18,19,24,80] and the references therein); for development of multiscale mathematical and computational modeling of bioelectrical activity in myocardial tissue and the formation of cardiac disorders (as arrhythmias), and their numerical simulations, which are based on methods as finite difference method, finite element method or lattice Boltzmann method, have been receiving a significant amount of attention (see e.g., [5,6,21,28,29,30,35,38,46,51,65,79,81] and the references therein).
The rest of paper is organized as follows. In next section, we give some preliminaries results useful in the sequel. In Section 3, some preliminaries results concerning fractional calculus are given and results on generalized Gronwall inequality to a coupled fractional differential equations are developed. In Section 4 we shall prove the existence, stability and uniqueness of weak solutions of derived model, under some hypotheses for data and some regularity of nonlinear operators. Numerical experiments, using a modified Lattice Boltzmann Method for numerical simulations of the derived memory bidomain systems, are described in Section 5. In Section 6, conclusions are discussed.
Let ℧⊂IRm, m≥1, be an open and bounded set with a smooth boundary and ℧T=℧×(0,T). We use the standard notation for Sobolev spaces (see [1]), denoting the norm of Wq,p(℧) (q∈IN, p∈[1,∞]) by ||.||Wq,p. In the special case p=2, we use Hq(℧) instead of Wq,2(℧). The duality pairing of a Banach space X with its dual space X′ is given by ⟨.,.⟩X′,X. For a Hilbert space Y the inner product is denoted by (.,.)Y and the inner product in L2(Ω) is denoted by (.,.). For any pair of real numbers r,s≥0, we introduce the Sobolev space Hr,s(℧T) defined by Hr,s(℧T)=L2(0,T;Hr(℧))∩Hs(0,T;L2(℧)), which is a Hilbert space normed by (||v||2L2(0,T;Hr(℧))+||v||2Hs(0,T;L2(℧)))1/2, where Hs(0,T;L2(℧)) denotes the Sobolev space of order s of functions defined on (0,T) and taking values in L2(℧), and defined (see [52]) by Hs(0,T;L2(℧))=[Hq(0,T,L2(℧)),L2(℧T)]θ, for s=(1−θ)q with θ∈(0,1) and q∈IN, and Hq(0,T;L2(℧))={v∈L2(℧T)|∂jv∂tj∈L2(℧T),for 1≤j≤q}. For a given Banach space X, with norm ‖.‖X, of functions integrable on ℧, we define its subspace X|IR={u∈X,∫℧u=0} that is a Banach space with norm ‖.‖X, and we denote by [u] the projection of u∈X on X|IR such that [u]=u−1mes(℧)∫℧udx (with mes(℧) standing for Lebesgue measure of ℧).
Lemma 2.1. (Poincaré-Wirtinger inequality) Assume that 1≤p≤∞ and that ℧ is a bounded connected open subset of IRd with a sufficiently regular boundary ∂Ω (e.g., a Lipschitz boundary). Then there exists a Poincaré constant C, depending only on Ω and p, such that for every function u in Sobolev space W1,p(℧), we have
‖[u]‖Lp(℧)≤C‖∇u‖Lp(℧). |
Remark 2.1. From the Poincaré-Wirtinger inequality, we can deduce that the H1 semi-norm and the H1 norm are equivalent in the space H1(℧)|IR.
Remark 2.2. Let q be a nonnegative integer. We have the following results (see e.g. [1])
(i) Hq(℧)⊂Lp(℧), ∀p∈[1,2mm−2q], with continuous embedding (with the exception that if 2q=m, then p∈[1,+∞[ and if 2q>m, then p∈[1,+∞]).
(ii) (Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities) There exists C>0 such that
||v||Lp(℧)≤C||v||θHq(℧)||v||1−θL2(℧),∀v∈Hq(℧), |
where 0≤θ<1 and p=2mm−2θq (with the exception that if q−m/2 is a nonnegative integer, then θ is restricted to 0).
Finally, we introduce the spaces:
● HH=L2(ΩH), VH=H1(ΩH), V=H1(Ω) (endowed with their usual norms) and UH=VH|IR,
● UHB={ψ∈H1(Ω)|∫ΩHψdx=0}.
We will denote by V′H (resp. U′H) the dual of VH (resp. of UH). We have the following continuous embeddings, where p≥2 if d=2 and 2≤p≤6 if d=3, p′ is such that 1p′+1p=1
VH⊂HH⊂V′H , UH⊂HH|IR⊂U′H,VH⊂Lp(ΩH)⊂HH≡(HH)′⊂Lp′(ΩH)⊂V′H | (2.1) |
and the injections VH⊂HH and UH⊂HH|IR are compact. We can now introduce the following spaces (where q>1, p≥2 and 1p+1p′=1)
Dp(0,T)=Lp(QH)∩L2(0,T;VH), and its dual D′p(0,T)=Lp′(QH)+L2(0,T;V′H)⊂Lp′(0,T;V′H). |
Remark 2.3. Space Dp(0,T) is equipped with norm: ||u||Dp=max(||u||Lp(QH),||u||L2(0,T;VH)) and its dual with norm: ||v||D′p=infv=v1+v2(||v1||Lp′(QH)+||v2||L2(0,T;V′H)).
Definition 2.1. A real valued function H defined on D×IRq, q≥1, is a Carathéodory function iff H(.;v) is measurable for all v∈IRq and H(y;.) is continuous for almost all y∈D.
Our study involves the following fundamental inequalities, which are repeated here for review:
(i) Hölder's inequality: ∫DΠi=1,kfidx≤Πi=1,k||fi||Lqi(D),
where ||fi||Lqi(D)=(∫D∣fi∣qidx)1/qiand∑1≤i≤k1qi=1.
(ii) Young's inequality (∀a,b>0 and ϵ>0): ab≤ϵpap+ϵ−q/pqbq,forp,q∈]1,+∞[and1p+1q=1.
(iii) Minkowski's integral inequality:
[∫Ω(∫t0∣f(x,s)∣ds)pdx]1/p≤∫t0(∫Ω∣f(x,s)∣pdx)1/pds,forp∈]1,+∞[andt>0. |
Finally, we denote by L(A;B) the set of linear and continuous operators from a vectorial space A into a vectorial space B, and by R∗ the adjoint operator to a linear operator R between Banach spaces.
From now on, we assume that the following assumptions hold for the nonlinear operators and tensor functions appearing in our model.
(H1) We assume that the conductivity tensor functions Kθ∈W1,∞(¯ΩH), θ∈{i,e} and Ks∈W1,∞(¯ΩB) are symmetric, positive definite matrix functions and that they are uniformly elliptic, i.e., there exist constants 0<K1<K2 such that (∀ψ∈IRd)
K1‖ψ‖2≤ψTKθψ≤K2‖ψ‖2in¯ΩH,K1‖ψ‖2≤ψTKsψ≤K2‖ψ‖2in¯ΩB. | (2.2) |
Remark 2.4. We can emphasize a specificity of tensors Ke and Ki (see e.g., [25]).
1. The tensors Ke(x) and Ki(x) have the same basis of eigenvectors Q(x)=(qk(x))1≤k≤d in IRd, which reflect the organization of muscle in fibers, and consequently Ki(x)=Q(x)Λi(x)Q(x)T and Ke(x)=Q(x)Λe(x)Q(x)T, where Λi(x)=diag((λi,k)1≤k≤d) and Λe(x)=diag((λe,k)1≤k≤d).
2. The muscle fibers are tangent to Γ so that (for θ∈{i,e}) : Kθn=λθ,dn,a.e., inΓ, with λθ,d(x)≥λ>0, λ a constant.
The operators I and G which describe electrophysiological behavior of the system can be taken as follows (affine functions with respect to u)
I(x,t;ϕ,u)=I0(x,t;ϕ)+I1(x,t;ϕ)u,G(x,t;ϕ,u)=I2(x,t;ϕ)+ℏ(x,t)u, | (2.3) |
where ℏ is a sufficiently regular function and I0(x,t;ϕ)=g1(x;ϕ)+g2(x,t;ϕ) with g1 is an increasing function on ϕ. Moreover, the operators I0, I1 and I2 appearing in I and G, are supposed to satisfy the following assumptions.
(H2)p The operators I0, I1 and I2 are Carathéodory functions from (Ω×IR)×IR into IR and continuous on ϕ (as in [12]). Furthermore, for some p≥2 if d=2 and p∈[2,6] if d=3, the following requirements hold
(i) there exist constants βi≥0(i=1,…,10) such that for any v∈IR
|I0(.;v)|≤β1+β2|v|p−1,|I1(.;v)|≤β3+β4|v|p/2−1,|I2(.;v)|≤β5+β6|v|p/2,|Eg(.;v)|≤β7+β8|v|p,|g2(.;v)|≤β9+β10|v|p−2, | (2.4) |
where Eg is the primitive of g1.
(ii) there exist constants μ1>0,μ2>0,μi≥0 (for i=3,7) such that for any (v,w)∈IR2:
μ1vI(.;v,w)+wG(.;v,w)≥μ2|v|p−μ3(μ1|v|2+|w|2)−μ4,Eg(.,v)≥μ5|v|p−μ6|v|2−μ7. | (2.5) |
In order to assure the uniqueness of solution we assume that
(H3) The Nemytskii operators I and G satisfy Carathéodory conditions and there exists some μ>0 such the operator Fμ:IR2→IR2 defined by
Fμ(.;v)=(μ(I(.;v))G(.;v)),∀v=(v,w)∈IR2, | (2.6) |
satisfies a one-sided Lipschitz condition (see e.g., [14,70]): there exists a constant CL>0 such that (∀vi=(vi,wi)∈IR2,i=1,2)
(Fμ(.;v1)−Fμ(.;v2))⋅(v1−v2)≥−CL‖v1−v2‖2. | (2.7) |
Lemma 2.2. ([9]) Assume that Fμ is differentiable with respect to (ϕ,u) and denote by λ1(ϕ,u)≤λ2(ϕ,u) the eigenvalues of symmetrical part of Jacobian matrix ∇Fμ(ϕ,u):
Qμ(ϕ,u)=12(∇Fμ(ϕ,u)T+∇Fμ(ϕ,u)). |
If there exists a constant CF independent of ϕ and u such as:
CF≤λ1(ϕ,u)≤λ2(ϕ,u), | (2.8) |
then Fμ satisfies the hypothesis (H3).
Lemma 2.3. ([9]) Let assumptions (2.3), (H1) and (H2)p be fulfilled. For (ϕ,u)∈Lp(Ω)×H and a.e., t, there exist constants Ci>0 (i=1,6) such that
‖I(.,t;ϕ,u)‖Lp′(ΩH)≤C1+C2‖ϕ‖p/p′Lp(ΩH)+C3‖u‖2/p′HH,‖G(.,t;ϕ,u)‖L2(ΩH)≤C4+C5‖ϕ‖p/2Lp(ΩH)+C6‖u‖HH, | (2.9) |
where p′ is such that 1p+1p′=1.
In this work we assume that p=4. The considered functions Ii, in this paper, include the three classical type models in which assumptions (H1),(H2)4 and (H3) are satisfied namely the Rogers-McCulloch [57] (RM), Fitz-Hugh-Nagumo [39] (FHN) and Aliev-Panfilov [61](LAP) models as follows. The function I0 is defined by a cubic reaction term of the form I0(.;v)=b1(.)v(v−r)(v−1), and the functions I1 and I2 are given by
(a) for RM type model :I1(.;v)=b2(.)v,I2(;,v)=−b3(.)v,(b) for FHN type model :I1(.;v)=b2(.),I2(;,v)=−b3(.)v,(c) for LAP type model :I1(.;v)=b2(.)v,I2(;,v)=b3(.)v(r+1−v), |
where bi∈W1,∞(Q), i=1,3, are sufficiently regular functions from Q into IR+,∗ and r∈[0,1]. We obtain easily the following Lemma.
Lemma 2.4. The following properties hold. For all v1, v2 in IR we have
I0(.;v1)−I0(.;v2)=b1(v1−v2)(v21+v22+v1v2−(r+1)(v1+v2)+r) and(a) for RM type model:I1(.;v1)−I1(.;v2)=b2(v1−v2),I2(.;v1)−I2(.;v2)=−b3(v1−v2),(b) for FHN type model:I1(.;v1)−I1(.;v2)=0,I2(.;v1)−I2(.;v2)=−b3(v1−v2),(c) for LAP type model:I1(.;v1)−I1(.;v2)=b2(v1−v2),I2(.;v1)−I2(.;v2)=b3(v1−v2)((r+1)−v1−v2). |
For the sake of simplicity, we shall write Ii(ψ), I(ψ,v) and G(ψ,v) in place of Ii(x,t;ψ), I(x,t;ψ,v) and G(x,t;ψ,v), respectively (for i=0,2).
Fractional differential equations have been studied by many investigations in recent years and the idea of defining a derivative of fractional order (non-integer order) dates back to Leibnitz [49]. Since 19th century, different authors have considered this problem e.g., Riemann, Liouville, Hadmard, Hardy, Littlewood and Caputo among others. Fractional integrals and derivatives have proved to be useful in real applications, since they arise naturally in many biological phenomena such as viscoelasticity, neurobiology and chaotic systems, see for instance [3,34,36,55,62,76,83].
The classical and the most used form of fractional calculus is given by the Riemann-Liouville and Caputo derivatives. In contrast to this nonlocal Riemann-Liouville derivative operator, when solving differential equations, is the use of Caputo fractional derivative [22] in which it is not necessary to define the fractional order initial conditions.
The object of this section is to give a brief introduction to some definitions and basic results in fractional calculus in the Riemann-Liouville sense and Caputo sense. Let γ∈]0,1] and X be a Banach space, we start from a formal level and assume the given functions f:t∈(a,T)→f(t)∈X and g:t∈(a,T)→f(t)∈X are sufficiently smooth (with −∞<a<T<∞).
Definition 3.1. The forward and backward Riemann-Liouville fractional integrals of fractional order γ on (a,T) are defined, respectively, by (t∈(a,T))
Iγa+[f](t)=1Γ(γ)∫ta(t−τ)γ−1f(τ)dτ,IγT−[f](t)=1Γ(γ)∫Tt(τ−t)γ−1f(τ)dτ, | (3.1) |
where Γ(z)=∫∞0eττz−1dτ is the Euler Γ-function.
The basic equality for the fractional integral is (from Fubini's Theorem and the relationship between Γ-function and β-function)
Iγ1a+[Iγ2a+[f]]=Iγ1+γ2a+[f] | (3.2) |
and holds for a Lp-function f (1≤p≤∞).
Definition 3.2. The forward Riemann-Liouville and Caputo derivatives of fractional order γ on (a,T) are defined, respectively, by (t∈(a,T))
Dγa+[f](t)=ddt(I1−γa+[f](t))=1Γ(1−γ)ddt(∫ta(t−τ)−γf(τ)dτ),∂γa+[f](t)=I1−γa+[df(t)dt]=1Γ(1−γ)∫ta(t−τ)−γdfdt(τ)dτ. | (3.3) |
From (3.2) we can deduce the following relation between fractional integral and Caputo derivative
f(t)=f(a)+Iγa+[∂γa+f](t)=f(a)+1Γ(γ)∫ta(t−τ)γ−1∂γa+f(τ)dτ. | (3.4) |
Definition 3.3. The backward Riemann-Liouville and Caputo derivatives of fractional order γ, on (a,T) are defined, respectively, by (t∈(a,T))
DγT−f(t)=−ddt(I1−γT−[f](t))=−1Γ(1−γ)ddt(∫Tt(τ−t)−γf(τ)dτ),∂γT−[f](t)=−I1−γT−[df(t)dt]=−1Γ(1−γ)∫Tt(τ−t)−γdfdt(τ)dτ. | (3.5) |
By substitution a→−∞, the following definition is obtained.
Definition 3.4. The Liouville-Weyl fractional integral and the Caputo fractional derivative on the real axis are defined, respectively, by (t∈(−∞,T))
Iγ−∞[f](t)=1Γ(γ)∫t−∞(t−τ)γ−1f(τ)dτ,∂γ−∞f(t)=I1−γ−∞[dfdt(t)]=1Γ(1−γ)∫t−∞(t−τ)−γdfdt(τ)dτ. | (3.6) |
Remark 3.1. 1. For γ→1 the forward (resp. backward) Riemann-Liouville and Caputo derivatives of fractional order γ of f converge to the classical derivative dfdt (resp. to −dfdt). Moreover, Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative of fractional order γ of constant function t→f(t)=k is not 0 since Dγa+f(t)=kΓ(1−γ)ddt(∫ta(t−τ)−γdτ)=k(t−a)−γΓ(1−γ).
2. It is possible to show that the difference between Riemann-Liouville and Caputo fractional derivatives depends only on the values of f on endpoints a and T. More precisely, for f∈C1([a,T],X) we have
Dγa+f(t)=∂γa+f(t)+f(a)(t−a)−γΓ(1−γ),DγT−f(t)=∂γT−f(t)+f(T)(T−t)−γΓ(1−γ). | (3.7) |
From [42], we have the following results
Lemma 3.1.. (Continuity properties of fractional integral in Lp spaces on (a,T))
The fractional integral Iγa+ is a continuous operator from
(i) Lp(a,T) into Lp(a,T), for any p≥1,
(ii) Lp(a,T) into Lr(0,T), for any p∈(1,1/γ) and r∈[1,p/(1−γp)],
(iii) Lp(a,T) into C0,γ−1/p([a,T]), for any p∈]1/γ,+∞[,
(iii) L1/γ(a,T) into Lp(a,T), for any p∈[1,+∞)
(iv) L∞(a,T) into C0,γ([a,T]).
From Lemma 3.1 and (3.4) we can deduce the following corollary.
Lemma 3.2. Let X be a Banach space and γ∈]0,1]. Suppose the Caputo derivative ∂γa+f∈Lp(a,T;X) and p>1γ, then f∈C0,γ−1/p([a,T];X).
We also need for our purposes the fractional integration by parts in the formulas (see for instance [2,47,86])
Lemma 3.3. Let 0<γ≤1 and p,q≥1 with 1/p+1/q≤1+γ. Then
(i) if g is a Lp-function on (a,T) and g is a Lq-function on (a,T), then
∫Ta(f(τ),Iγa+[g](τ))Xdτ=∫Ta(g(τ),IγT−[f](τ))Xdτ, |
(ii) if f∈IγT−(Lp) and g∈Iγa+(Lq), then
∫Ta(f(τ),Dγa+g(τ))Xdτ=∫Ta(g(τ),DγT−f(τ))Xdτ. |
Lemma 3.4. Let 0<γ≤1, and g be Lp-function on (a,T) (for p≥1) and f be absolutely continuous function on [a,T]. Then {
(i) ∫Ta(∂γa+f(τ),g(τ))Xdτ=−∫Ta(DγT−g(τ),f(τ))Xdτ+|(I1−γT−[g](τ),f(τ))X|Ta,
(ii) ∫Ta(Dγa+f(τ),g(τ))Xdτ=−∫Ta(DγT−g(τ),f(τ))Xdτ+(I1−γT−[g](T−),f(T))X,
(iii) ∫Ta(DγT−f(τ),g(τ))Xdτ=−∫Ta(Dγa+g(τ),f(τ))Xdτ−(I1−γa+[g](a+),f(a))X.
From [85], we can deduce the following Lemma.
Lemma 3.5. (A generalized Gronwall's inequality)
Assume γ>0, h is a nonnegative function locally integrable on (0,T) and b is a nonnegative, bounded, nondecreasing continuous function defined on [0,T). Let f be a nonnegative and locally integrable function on (0,T) with
f(t)≤h(t)+b(t)Iγ0+[f](t). |
Then (for t∈(0,T))
f(t)≤h(t)+∫t0∞∑k=1h(τ)(t−τ)kγ−1(b(t))kΓ(kγ)dτ. |
If in addition h is a nondecreasing function on (0,T), then
f(t)≤h(t)Eγ,1(b(t)tγ). |
The used function Eθ1,θ2 is the classical two-parametric Mittag-Leffler function (usually denoted by Eθ1 if θ2=1) which is defined by
Eθ1,θ2(z)=∞∑k=01Γ(kθ1+θ2)zk. | (3.8) |
The function Eθ1,θ2 is an entire function of the variable z for any θ1,θ2∈lC, Re(θ1)>0.
Next we declare a compactness theorem in Hilbert spaces. Assume that X0, X1 and X are Hilbert spaces with
X0↪X↪X1 being continuous and X0↪X is compact. | (3.9) |
The Fourier transform of f:IR→X1 is defined by ˆf(τ)=∫∞−∞exp(−2iπsτ)f(s)ds and we have Lemma (see e.g., [68])
Lemma 3.6. Let γ∈(0,1) and f be a L1-function in IR with compact support. Then
(i) ^Iγ−∞f(τ)=(2iπτ)−γˆf(τ),
(ii) ^∂γ−∞f(τ)=(2iπτ)γˆf(τ).
We define the Hilbert space Wγ(IR;X0,X1), for a given γ>0, by
Wγ(IR;X0,X1)={v∈L2(IR,X0)|∂γ−∞f∈L2(IR,X1)}, |
endowed with the norm
||v||Wγ=(||v||L2(IR,X0)+||∣τ∣γˆv||L2(IR,X1))1/2. |
For any subset K of IR, we define the subspace WγK of Wγ by
WγK(IR;X0,X1)={v∈Wγ(IR;X0,X1)|support of v⊂K}. |
From Lemma 3.6 and similar arguments to drive Theorem 2.2 in [77], we have the following compactness result.
Theorem 3.1. Let X0, X1 and X be Hilbert spaces with the injection (3.9). Then for any bounded set K and any γ>0, the injection of WγK(IR;X0,X1) into L2(IR;X) is compact.
In this section we present a new generalized Gronwall inequality with singularity in the context of a coupled fractional differential equations.
Theorem 3.2. Assume that γ1 and γ2 be in]0, 1] with γ2≤γ1 and Ψ, hi, for i=1,2, are nonnegative functions locally integrable on (0,T). If f and g are nonnegative functions locally integrable, with f(0)=f0, g(0)=g0, and satisfy the inequalities (for t∈(0,T))
∂γ10+f(t)≤h1(t)+c1(f(t)+g(t))+ηΨ(t),∂γ20+g(t)+ξΨ(t)≤h2(t)+c2(f(t)+g(t)), | (3.10) |
where ci>0, i=1,2, η≥0 and ξ≥0 are four constants with η≤ξΓ(γ1)Γ(γ2)T(γ1−γ2). Then we have the following estimate
F(t)≤F0Eγ2,1(d1tγ2)+∞∑k=0dk1Ikγ2+γ10+[h1](t)+∞∑k=0dk1I(k+1)γ20+[h2](t), | (3.11) |
where F=f+g, F0=f0+g0, d0=T(γ1−γ2)Γ(γ2)Γ(γ1) and d1=c1d0+c2.
The function E.,. is the Mittag-Leffler function which is defined by (3.8).
Proof. From (3.4) we can deduce that
Γ(γ1)(f(t)−f0)≤∫t0(t−τ)γ1−1h1(τ)dτ+c1∫t0(t−τ)γ1−1(f(τ)+g(τ))dτ+η∫t0(t−τ)γ1−1Ψ(τ)dτ,Γ(γ2)(g(t)−g0)≤∫t0(t−τ)γ2−1h2(τ)dτ+c2∫t0(t−τ)γ2−1(f(τ)+g(τ))dτ−ξ∫t0(t−τ)γ2−1Ψ(τ)dτ. | (3.12) |
Put F=f+g, then
(Γ(γ1)Γ(γ2))(F(t)−F0)≤∫t0(Γ(γ2)(t−τ)γ1−1h1(τ)+Γ(γ1)(t−τ)γ2−1h2(τ))dτ+∫t0(ηΓ(γ2)(t−τ)γ1−1−ξΓ(γ1)(t−τ)γ2−1)Ψ(τ)dτ+∫t0(c1Γ(γ2)(t−τ)γ1−1+c2Γ(γ1)(t−τ)γ2−1)F(τ)dτ. | (3.13) |
We can deduce that (since t∈(0,T) and γ1−γ2≥0)
(Γ(γ1)Γ(γ2))(F(t)−F0)≤Γ(γ2)∫t0(t−τ)γ1−1h1(τ)dτ+Γ(γ1)∫t0(t−τ)γ2−1h2(τ))dτ+(ηΓ(γ2)T(γ1−γ2)−ξΓ(γ1))∫t0(t−τ)γ2−1Ψ(τ)dτ+(c1Γ(γ2)T(γ1−γ2)+c2Γ(γ1))∫t0(t−τ)γ2−1F(τ)dτ. | (3.14) |
Since ηΓ(γ2)T(γ1−γ2)−ξΓ(γ1)≤0, then
(Γ(γ1)Γ(γ2))(F(t)−F0)≤Γ(γ2)∫t0(t−τ)γ1−1h1(τ)dτ+Γ(γ1)∫t0(t−τ)γ2−1h2(τ))dτ+(c1Γ(γ2)T(γ1−γ2)+c2Γ(γ1))∫t0(t−τ)γ2−1F(τ)dτ. | (3.15) |
Thus
F(t)≤F0+Iγ10+[h1](t)+Iγ20+[h2](t)+d1Iγ20+[F](t), | (3.16) |
where d0=T(γ1−γ2)Γ(γ2)Γ(γ1) and d1=c1Γ(γ2)T(γ1−γ2)+c2Γ(γ1)Γ(γ1)=c1d0+c2.
Finally, from Lemma 3.5 and relation (3.2), we get (since Ikγ20+[F](0)=F0Ikγ20+[.1]=F0tkγ2Γ(1+kγ2))
F(t)≤F0∞∑k=01Γ(1+kγ2)(d1tγ2)k+∞∑k=0dk1Ikγ2+γ10+[h1](t)+∞∑k=0dk1I(k+1)γ20+[h2](t). |
This completes the proof.
Corollary 3.1. Assume that assumptions of Theorem 3.2 hold, and that hi, for i=1,2, are nondecreasing functions on (0,T). Then, if f and g are nonnegative functions locally integrable, with f(0)=f0, g(0)=g0, and satisfy the inequalities (3.10), we have the following estimate
F(t)≤F0Eγ2,1(d1tγ2)+tγ1h1(t)Eγ2,γ1+1(d1tγ2)+tγ2h2(t)Eγ2,γ2+1(d1tγ2), | (3.17) |
where F=f+g, F0=f0+g0, d0=T(γ1−γ2)Γ(γ2)Γ(γ1) and d1=c1Γ(γ2)T(γ1−γ2)+c2Γ(γ1)Γ(γ1)=c1d0+c2.
Proof. Since hi, for i=1,2, are nondecreasing functions then
Ikγ2+γi0+[hi](t)≤hi(t)1Γ(kγ2+γi)∫t0(t−τ)kγ2+γi−1dτ=hi(t)1Γ(kγ2+γi+1)tkγ2+γi. |
Consequently, from (3.11) we can deduce the result. This completes the proof.
Corollary 3.2. Assume that assumptions of Theorem 3.2 hold, and that hi are L1αi nondecreasing functions on (0,T), with αi∈[0,γi[, for i=1,2. Then, if f and g are nonnegative functions locally integrable, and satisfy the inequalities (3.10), we have the following estimate
F(t)≤F(0)Eγ2,1(d1tγ2)+tγ1−α1r1Eγ2,γ1(d1tγ2)||h1||L1/α1(0,t)+tγ2−α2r2Eγ2,γ2(d1tγ2)||h2||L1/α2(0,t), | (3.18) |
where ri=(γi−αi1−αi)1−αi, for i=1,2, F=f+g, F0=f0+g0, d0=T(γ1−γ2)Γ(γ2)Γ(γ1) and d1=c1Γ(γ2)T(γ1−γ2)+c2Γ(γ1)Γ(γ1)=c1d0+c2.
Proof. From Hölder's inequality, we obtain (for i=1,2)
Γ(kγ2+γi)Ikγ2+γi0+[hi](t)≤(∫t0(t−τ)kγ2+γi−11−αidτ)1−αi(∫t0hi(τ)1αidτ)αi≤tkγ2(∫t0(t−τ)γi−11−αidτ)1−αi(∫t0hi(τ)1αidτ)αi=tkγ2+γi−αiri(∫t0hi(τ)1αidτ)αi, | (3.19) |
where ri=(γi−αi1−αi)1−αi.
According to (3.11), we have
F(t)≤F0Eγ2,1(d1tγ2)+∞∑k=0dk1tkγ2+γ1−α1Γ(kγ2+γ1)r1(∫t0h1(τ)1αidτ)α1+∞∑k=0dk1tkγ2+γ2−α2Γ(kγ2+γ2)r2(∫t0h2(τ)1αidτ)α2. | (3.20) |
Thus
F(t)≤F0Eγ2,1(d1tγ2)+tγ1−α1r1Eγ2,γ1(d1tγ2)||h1||L1/α1(0,t)+tγ2−α2r2Eγ2,γ2(d1tγ2)||h2||L1/α2(0,t). | (3.21) |
This completes the proof.
In the sequel we will always denote C some positive constant which may be different at each occurrence.
In this section, we prove the existence and uniqueness of weak solution to problem (1.1), under Lipschitz and boundedness assumptions on the non-linear operators.
First we define the state ψ, as the extracellular cardiac potential in ΩH, and the thoracic potential in ΩB, by
ψ=φe in ΩH and ψ=φs in ΩB. | (4.1) |
Then the potential ϕ can be written as ϕ=φi−ψ|ΩH. From the interface coupling condition (1.3), it follows that if φe∈H1(ΩH) and φs∈H1(ΩB) then ψ∈H1(Ω). Similarly, we introduce the corresponding conductivity tensor Kg∈W1,∞(¯Ω) as follows :
Kg=Ke in ¯ΩH and Kg=Ks in ¯ΩB. |
We now define the following forms
Ai(w,v)=∫ΩHKi∇w⋅∇vdx,Ae(w,v)=∫ΩHKe∇w⋅∇vdx,As(w,v)=∫ΩBKs∇w⋅∇vdx,Ag(w,v)=∫ΩKg∇w⋅∇vdx. | (4.2) |
Proposition 4.1. (i) The forms Ak (for k=i,e,s) and Ag, are symmetric bilinear continuous forms on H1.
(ii) The forms Ak, (for k=i,e,s) and Ag, are coercive on H1 (we denote by νk, for k=i,e,s,g, their coercivity coefficients).
Proof. (i) and (ii) are easily obtained providing that properties of tensors Kk, for k=i,e,s,g, and (2.2) are satisfied.
We can now define the weak solution to bidomain-thorax coupled model problem (1.1).
Definition 4.1. A quadruplet of state functions (φi,ϕ,ψ,u) such that : φi∈L2(0,T;VH), ϕ∈D4(0,T)∩L∞(0,T;L2(ΩH)), ∂αtϕ∈D′4(0,T), ψ∈L2(0,T;V), u∈L∞(0,T;L3(ΩH)) and ∂βtu∈L2(0,T;L2(ΩH)) is said to be a weak solution to system (1.1) if it satisfies the following weak formulation (since Ii=−Ie=fH)
⟨cα∂α0+ϕ,vi⟩V′H,VH+∫ΩHI(.;ϕ,u)vidx+Ai(φi,vi)=∫ΩHfHvidx,⟨cα∂α0+ϕ,v⟩V′,V+∫ΩHI(.;ϕ,u)vdx−Ag(ψ,v)=∫ΩHfHvdx,(∂β0+u,ρ)L2(ΩH)+∫ΩHG(.;ϕ,u)ρdx=0, | (4.3) |
for all vi∈VH,v∈V, ρ∈VH.
The results of next section concern the existence, uniqueness and regularity of solution of problem (1.1).
The purpose of this section is to prove the well-posedness of the degenerate bidomain-thorax coupled model (1.1). To overcome this issue, we introduce a specific non-degenerate approximate to system (1.1).
Let ϵ>0 be a small positive number. Hence, our approximation system read as (since Ii=−Ie=fH)
cα∂α0+ϕϵ+ϵ∂α0+φϵi+I(ϕϵ,uϵ)−div(Ki∇φϵi)=fH, in QHcα∂α0+ϕϵ−ϵ∂α0+φϵe+I(ϕϵ,uϵ)+div(Ke∇φϵe)=fH, in QHϵ∂α0+φϵs−div(Ks∇φϵs)=0, in QB∂β0+uϵ+G(ϕϵ,uϵ)=0, in QHsupplemented with the same initial and boundary conditions as in (1.4). | (4.4) |
The auxiliary initial conditions for φϵi and φϵs, needed by problem (4.4), are defined by introducing two arbitrary functions φe,0 and φs,0. The weak formulation of (4.4) is given by (for all vi∈VH,v∈V, ρ∈VH and a.e. t∈(0,T))
⟨cα∂α0+ϕϵ,vi⟩V′H,VH+ϵ⟨∂α0+φϵi,vi⟩V′H,VH+∫ΩHI(ϕϵ,uϵ)vidx+Ai(φϵi,vi)=∫ΩHfHvidx,⟨cα∂α0+ϕϵ,v⟩V′H,VH−ϵ⟨∂α0+ψϵ,v⟩V′,V+∫ΩHI(ϕϵ,uϵ)vdx−Ag(ψ,v)=∫ΩHfHvdx,(∂β0+uϵ,ρ)L2(ΩH)+∫ΩHG(ϕϵ,uϵ)ρdx=0,with the initial condition(ϕϵ,φϵi,ψϵ,uϵ)(t=0)=(ϕ0,φi,0,ψ0,u0), | (4.5) |
where ψϵ and the initial condition ψ0 are defined as in (4.1).
The following results concern the existence and regularity of the weak solution to problem (4.4) (i.e. of (4.5)).
Theorem 4.1. Let assumptions (H1) and (H2)4 be fulfilled, β≥α and 0<ϵ≤1 be given. Then for (φi,0,ϕ0,ψ0,u0) and fH given such that (φi,0,ϕ0,ψ0,u0)∈V2H×V×L3(ΩH) and fH∈L2α1(0,T;L2(ΩH)) with 0<α1<α, there exists a solution (φϵi,ϕϵ,ψϵ,uϵ) of problem (4.5) verifying
ϕϵ∈L∞(0,T;VH),∂α0+ϕϵ∈L2(QH),φϵi∈L∞(0,T;VH),√ϵ∂α0+φϵi∈L2(QH),ψϵ∈L∞(0,T;V),√ϵ∂α0+ϕϵ∈L2(QH),uϵ∈L∞(0,T;L2(ΩH)),∂β0+uϵ∈L2(QH). | (4.6) |
Moreover, if α>1/2 and β>1/2 we have the continuity of the solution at t=0.
Proof. To establish the existence result of weak solution to system (4.4) we apply the Faedo-Galerkin method, derive a priori estimates, and then pass to the limit in the approximate solutions using compactness arguments. We approximate the system equations by projecting them onto finite n dimensional subspaces, then we take the limit in n. For this, let (wk)k≥1 be a Hilbert basis and orthogonal in L2 of VH, (fk)k≥1 be a Hilbert basis of UH, (gk)k≥1 be a Hilbert basis of WB={v∈H1(ΩB)|v|ΓT=0}. We denote by ˜fk an extension of fk in H1(Ω), ˜gk an extension of gk in H1(Ω) with ˜gk|ΩH=0 and by (ek)k≥1 a Galerkin basis of UHB which is defined as e2k=˜gk and e2k−1=˜fk (for all k>1).
For all n∈IN∗, we denote by Wi,n=span(w1,⋯,wn), We,n=span(f1,⋯,fn), Ws,n=span(g1,⋯,gn) and Wg,n=span(e1,⋯,e2n) the spaces generated, respectively, by (wk)n≥k≥1, (fk)n≥k≥1, (gk)n≥k≥1 and (ek)2n≥k≥1, and we introduce the orthogonal projector Lj,n on the spaces Wj,n (for j=i,e,s,g).
For each n, we would like to define the approximate solution (ϕϵn,φϵi,n,ψϵn,uϵn) of the problem (4.4). Setting
ϕϵn(⋅,t)=n∑l=1ϖϵn,l(t)wl,uϵn(⋅,t)=n∑l=1υϵn,l(t)wl,φϵi,n(⋅,t)=n∑l=1ϖϵi,n,l(t)wl,ψϵn(⋅,t)=2n∑l=1πϵn,l(t)el | (4.7) |
where ωϵi=(ϖϵi,n,l)l=1,n, ωϵ=(ϖϵn,l)l=1,n, ϑϵ=(υϵn,l)l=1,n and Πϵ=(πϵn,m)m=1,2n are unknown functions, and replacing (ϕϵ,φϵi,ψϵ,uϵ) by (ϕϵn,φϵi,n,ψϵn,uϵn) in (4.4), we obtain ∀l=1,n, m=1,2n and a.e. t∈(0,T), the system of Galerkin equations (since in ΩH, ϕϵn=φϵi,n−ψϵn)
(cα+ϵ)∫ΩH∂α0+φϵi,nwldx−cα∫ΩH∂α0+ψϵnwldx=−∫ΩHI(φϵi,n−ψϵn,uϵn)wldx−Ai(φϵi,n,wl)+∫ΩHfHwldx:=⟨Fϵ,in,wl⟩def=Fil(t;ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ),−cα∫ΩH∂α0+φϵi,nemdx+cα∫ΩH∂α0+ψϵnemdx+ϵ∫Ω∂α0+ψϵnemdx=∫ΩHI(φϵi,n−ψϵn,uϵn)emdx−Ag(ψϵn,em)−∫ΩHfHemdx:=⟨Gϵn,em⟩def=Gm(t;ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ),∫ΩH∂β0+uϵnwldx=−∫ΩHG(φϵi,n−ψϵn,uϵn)wldx:=⟨Hϵn,wl⟩def=Hl(t;ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ),with the initial condition(ϕϵn,φϵn,i,ψϵn,uϵn)(t=0)=(Li,nϕ0,Li,nφi,0,Lg,nψ0,Li,nu0) | (4.8) |
where (Li,nϕ0,Li,nφi,0,Lg,nψ0,Li,nu0) satisfies (by construction)
(Li,nϕ0,Li,nφi,0,Lg,nψ0,Li,nu0)n→∞→(ϕ0,φi,0,ψ0,u0)strongly inV2H×V×L3(ΩH). | (4.9) |
The function Fϵ,in, Gϵn and Hϵn are defined by (for (v,w,ρ)∈VH×V×VH)
⟨Fϵ,in,v⟩=−∫ΩHI(ϕϵn,uϵn)vdx−Ai(φϵi,n,v)+∫ΩHfHvdx,⟨Gϵn,w⟩=∫ΩHI(ϕϵn,uϵn)wdx−Ag(ψϵn,w)−∫ΩHfHwdx,⟨Hϵn,ρ⟩=−∫ΩHG(ϕϵn,uϵn)ρdx. | (4.10) |
Step 1. We show first that, for every n, the system (4.8) admits a unique local solution. The system (4.8) is equivalent to an initial-value for a system of nonlinear fractional differential equations for functions (ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ)
Mn(∂α0+ωϵi,∂α0+Πϵ,∂β0+ϑϵ)T=Fn(t;ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ),(ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ)(t=0)=(ωϵi,0,Πϵ0,ϑϵ0), | (4.11) |
where Fn:[0,T]×IR4n→IR4n is a known nonlinear vector function and is given by
Fn(t;ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ)=((Fil(t;ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ))l=1,n,(Gm(t;ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ))m=1,2n,(Hl(t;ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ))l=1,n)T. |
Thanks to assumptions (H2)4 the function Fn is Carathéodory function.
Since, by construction the matrix M∈IR4n×4n is symmetric and invertible, then by applying M−1n to the equation of problem (4.11), we obviously get
(∂α0+ωϵi,∂α0+Πϵ,∂β0+ϑϵ)T=Sn(t;ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ),(ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ)(t=0)=(ωϵi,0,Πϵ0,ϑϵ0), | (4.12) |
where Sn=M−1nFn.
The existence of a local absolutely continuous function (ωϵi,Πϵ,ϑϵ) on an interval [0,˜T], with ˜T∈]0,T] is insured by the standard FODE theory see [33,32] (see also e.g. [48]). Thus, we have a local solution (ϕϵ,φϵi,ψϵ,uϵ) of problem (4.8) on [0,˜T].
N.B. The constants which will be introduced in the sequel, are independent of n and ϵ unless otherwise specified.
Step 2. We next derive a priori estimates for functions ϕϵ,φϵi,ψϵ,uϵ, which entail that ˜T=T, by applying iteratively the step 1. For simplicity, in next step we omit the " ~" on T. Now, we set
hn(⋅,t)=n∑k=1ϑn,k(t)wk,vn(⋅,t)=n∑l=1ζn,l(t)wl,en(⋅,t)=2n∑p=1πn,p(t)ep. |
where ϑn,k, πn,p and ζn,l are absolutely continuous coefficients. Then, from (4.8), the approximation solution satisfies the following weak formulation
(cα+ϵ)∫ΩH∂α0+φϵi,nhndx−cα∫ΩH∂α0+ψϵnhndx=−∫ΩHI(φϵi,n−ψϵn,uϵn)hndx−Ai(φϵi,n,hn)+∫ΩHfHhndx,−cα∫ΩH∂α0+φϵi,nendx+cα∫ΩH∂α0+ψϵnendx+ϵ∫Ω∂α0+ψϵnendx=∫ΩHI(φϵi,n−ψϵn,uϵn)endx−Ag(ψϵn,en)−∫ΩHfHendx,∫ΩH∂β0+uϵnvndx=−∫ΩHG(φϵi,n−ψϵn,uϵn)vndx,with the initial condition(ϕϵn,φϵn,i,ψϵn,uϵn)(t=0)=(Li,nϕ0,Li,nφi,0,Lg,nψ0,Li,nu0). | (4.13) |
Taking hn=φϵi,n, en=ψϵn and vn=uϵn and using the uniform coercivity of the forms Ai and Ag, we can deduce (since ψϵn=φϵe,n and ϕϵn=φϵi,n−φϵe,n in ΩH)
12(cα∂α0+||ϕϵn||2L2(ΩH)+ϵ(∂α0+||ψϵn||2L2(Ω)+∂α0+||φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)))+νi||∇φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)+νg||∇ψϵn||2L2(Ω)+∫ΩHI(ϕϵn,uϵn)ϕϵndx≤∫ΩHfHϕϵndx,12∂β0+||uϵn||2L2(ΩH)≤−∫ΩHG(ϕϵn,uϵn)uϵndx. | (4.14) |
Then the following inequality
12(cα∂α0+||ϕϵn||2L2(ΩH)+ϵ(∂α0+||ψϵn||2L2(Ω)+∂α0+||φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)))+νi||∇φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)+νg||∇ψϵn||2L2(Ω)+1μ1∫ΩH(μ1I(ϕϵn,uϵn)ϕϵn+G(ϕϵn,uϵn)uϵn)dx≤∫ΩHfHϕϵndx−1μ1∫ΩHG(ϕϵn,uϵn)uϵndx,12∂β0+||uϵn||2L2(ΩH)≤−∫ΩHG(ϕϵn,uϵn)uϵndx. | (4.15) |
Since, from (H2)4, μ1I(ϕϵn,uϵn)ϕϵn+G(ϕϵn,uϵn)uϵn≥μ2∣ϕϵn∣4−μ3(μ1∣ϕϵn∣2+∣uϵn∣2)−μ4 and ∣G(ϕϵn,uϵn)uϵn∣≤c1(1+∣ϕϵn∣2∣uϵn∣+∣uϵn∣2), we obtain (from Hölder's inequality)
cα∂α0+||ϕϵn||2L2(ΩH)+ϵ(∂α0+||ψϵn||2L2(Ω)+∂α0+||φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH))+2νi||∇φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)+2νg||∇ψϵn||2L2(Ω)+μ2μ1∫ΩH∣ϕϵn∣4dx≤c2+c3||fH||2L2(ΩH)+c4(||ϕϵn||2L2(ΩH)+||uϵn||2L2(ΩH)),∂β0+||uϵn||2L2(ΩH)≤c5+c6(||ϕϵn||2L2(ΩH)+||uϵn||2L2(ΩH))+η∫ΩH∣ϕϵn∣4dx, | (4.16) |
with the constants η chosen appropriately. In particular we have
∂α0+Ψϵn+μ2μ1∫ΩH∣ϕϵn∣4dx≤c7(1+||fH||2L2(ΩH))+c8(Ψϵn+Uϵn),∂β0+Uϵn≤c9+c10(Ψϵn+Uϵn)+η∫ΩH∣ϕϵn∣4dx, | (4.17) |
where Ψϵn=cα||ϕϵn||2L2(ΩH)+(||√ϵψϵn||2L2(Ω)+||√ϵφϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)) and Uϵn=||uϵn||2L2(ΩH).
According to regularity fH∈L2/α1(0,T,L2(ΩH)) and by choosing η=Γ(β)μ2/μ1Tβ−αΓ(α)), we can get by Corollary 2 and the fact that quantity Ψϵn(0)+Uϵn(0) is uniformly bounded (from (4.9) and 0<ϵ<1)
Ψϵn(t)+Uϵn(t)≤c11(1+||fH||2L2/α1(0,T,L2(ΩH))), | (4.18) |
for all t∈(0,T) and then Ψϵn(t) and Uϵn(t) is uniformly bounded with respect to ϵ and to n. This ensures that
the sequences (ϕϵn,√ϵφϵi,n,uϵn) and (√ϵψϵn) are bounded setsof L∞(0,T;L2(ΩH)) and L∞(0,T;L2(Ω)), respectively. | (4.19) |
Moreover, from the first inequality of (4.16), relations (3.4) and (4.9), we have that for t∈(0,T) (since ∫t0(t−τ)α−1dτ=1αtα≤1αTα)
Γ(α)Ψϵn(t)+∫t0(t−τ)α−1(2νi||∇φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)+2νg||∇ψϵn||2L2(Ω)+μ2μ1||ϕϵn||4L4(ΩH))dτ≤c11C0 | (4.20) |
where C0=(1+||fH||2L2/α1(0,T,L2(ΩH))).
We can deduce that (since ϕϵn=φϵi,n−φϵe,n and ψϵn=φϵe,n in ΩH)
Iα0+[||∇ϕϵn||2L2(ΩH)](t)=1Γ(α)∫t0(t−τ)α−1||∇ϕϵn||2L2(ΩH)dτ≤c12C0,Iα0+[||∇φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)](t)=1Γ(α)∫t0(t−τ)α−1||∇φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)dτ≤c12C0,Iα0+[||∇ψϵn||2L2(Ω)](t)=1Γ(α)∫t0(t−τ)α−1||∇ψϵn||2L2(Ω)dτ≤c12C0,Iα0+[||ϕϵn||4L4(ΩH)](t)=1Γ(α)∫t0(t−τ)α−1||ϕϵn||4L4(ΩH)dτ≤c12C0. | (4.21) |
Hence (since α−1≤0 and (t−τ)∈(0,T), ∀τ∈(0,t) then (t−τ)α−1≥Tα−1)
the sequences (φϵi,n) and (ψϵi,n) are bounded setsof L2(0,T;H1(ΩH)) and L2(0,T;H1(Ω)), respectivelyand the sequence (ϕϵn) is bounded set of L4(0,T,L4(ΩH))∩L2(0,T;H1(ΩH)). | (4.22) |
Using Lemma 3 and results (4.19) and (4.22), we get
∣∫T0∫ΩHI(ϕϵn,uϵn)ϕϵndx∣ is uniformly bounded with respect to n, ∣∫T0∫ΩHG(ϕϵn,uϵn)uϵndx∣ is uniformly bounded with respect to n. | (4.23) |
Now we estimate the fractional derivative ∂α0+(ϕϵn,φϵi,n,ψϵn) and ∂β0+uϵn. Taking hn=∂α0+φϵi,n, en=∂α0+ψϵn and vn=∂β0+uϵn and using uniform coercivity of forms Ai and Ag, we can deduce (since ψϵn=φϵe,n and ϕϵn=φϵi,n−φϵe,n in ΩH)
cα||∂α0+ϕϵn||2L2(ΩH)+ϵ(||∂α0+ψϵn||2L2(Ω)+||∂α0+φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH))+νi2∂α0+||∇φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)+νg2∂α0+||∇ψϵn||2L2(Ω)≤−∫ΩHI(ϕϵn,uϵn)∂α0+ϕϵndx+∫ΩHfH∂α0+ϕϵndx,||∂β0+uϵn||2L2(ΩH)=−∫ΩHG(ϕϵn,uϵn)∂α0+uϵndx. | (4.24) |
Then
cαIα0+[||∂α0+ϕϵn||2L2(ΩH)](t)+ϵ(Iα0+[||∂α0+ψϵn||2L2(Ω)](t)+Iα0+[||∂α0+φϵi,n||2L2(ΩH)](t))+νi2||∇φϵi,n(t)||2L2(ΩH)+νg2||∇ψϵn(t)||2L2(Ω)≤νi2||∇φϵi,n(0)||2L2(ΩH)+νg2||∇ψϵn(0)||2L2(Ω)−∫ΩHIα0+[I(ϕϵn,uϵn)∂α0+ϕϵn](t)dx+∫ΩHIα0+[fH∂α0+ϕϵn](t)dx,∫t0||∂β0+uϵn||2L2(ΩH)dτ=−∫t0∫ΩHG(ϕϵn,uϵn)∂α0+uϵndxdτ. | (4.25) |
Let us now estimate right-hand side of equations of system (4.25).
According to (H2)4 and regularity of ℏ, we can deduce that
−∫ΩHG(ϕϵn,uϵn)∂β0+uϵndx≤c0∫ΩH(1+∣ϕϵn∣2+∣uϵn∣)∣∂β0+uϵn∣dx≤12||∂β0+uϵn||2L2(ΩH)+c1(1+||ϕϵn||4L4(ΩH)+||uϵn||2L2(ΩH)) | (4.26) |
and then from second equation of (4.25) (according to (4.19) and (4.21))
\begin{equation} || \partial^{\beta}_{0^+} u^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(0, t, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))} \leq c_{2}(1+|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{4}_{L^{4}({\cal Q}_{\rm H})}+|| u^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{\infty}(0, T, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))})\leq C. \end{equation} | (4.27) |
Before to estimate the term \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[\mathcal{I}(\phi^\epsilon_{n}, u^\epsilon_{n})\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^\epsilon_{n}\right](t)d\mathbf{x} , we prove that u^\epsilon_{n} is uniformly bounded in L^{\infty}(0, T, L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H})) . Since u^\epsilon_{n} satisfies
\begin{equation*} u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, t) \! = \! u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, 0)-\frac{1}{\Gamma(\beta)}\int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1} \mathcal{G}(\phi^\epsilon_{n}, u^\epsilon_{n})(\mathbf{x}, \tau)d\tau, \end{equation*} |
then, according to regularity of \hbar , we have
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} \mid u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, t)\mid \leq c_3\Big(\mid u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, 0)\mid+\int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1} \mid\mathcal{I}_{2}(\phi^\epsilon_{n})\mid d\tau+\int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1}\mid u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, \tau)\mid d\tau\Big). \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.28) |
Consequently (since from assumption (2.4) we have \mid \mathcal{I}_{2}(\phi^\epsilon_{n}) \mid \leq \beta_5 + \beta_6\mid \phi^\epsilon_{n} \mid^{2} )
\begin{equation*} \begin{array}{lcr} \mid u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, t)\mid \leq c_4\Big(\mid u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, 0)\mid+\int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1}d\tau\Big)\\ \quad +c_5\Big(\int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1}\mid \phi^\epsilon_{n} \mid^{2}d\tau+\int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1}\mid u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, \tau)\mid d\tau\Big). \end{array} \end{equation*} |
This implies (since \int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1}d\tau\leq T^{\beta}/\beta )
\begin{equation*} \begin{array}{lcr} \left(\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}\mid u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, t)\mid^{3} d\mathbf{x}\right)^{1/3} \leq c_6\left(1+|| u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, 0)|| _{L^{3}(\Omega)}+\Big[\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}\big(\int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1}\mid u^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, \tau)\mid d\tau\big)^{3}d\mathbf{x}\Big]^{1/3} \right.\\ [4mm] \quad \left.+\Big[\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}\big(\int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1}\mid \phi^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, s)\mid^{2} ds\big)^{3}d\mathbf{x}\Big]^{1/3}\right) \end{array} \end{equation*} |
and then (using Minkowski inequality and the continuous embedding of H^{1} in L^{6} )
\begin{equation*} \begin{array}{lcr} || u^\epsilon_{n}(., t)|| _{L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H})} \leq c_7\left(1+|| u^\epsilon_{n}(., 0)|| _{L^{3}(\Omega)}+\int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1}|| u^\epsilon_{n}(., \tau)|| _{L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H})}d\tau\right.\\ [3mm] \quad \left.+\int_{0}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\beta-1}|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}(., \tau)|| _{H^{1}(\Omega_{\rm H})}^{2}d\tau\right). \end{array} \end{equation*} |
Using (4.19), (4.21) and the fact, from (4.9) the quantities u^\epsilon_{n}(0) is uniformly bounded in L^3 , we obtain
\begin{equation*} \begin{array}{lcr} || u^\epsilon_{n}(., t)|| _{L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\leq c_{8}+c_{9}I^{\beta}_{0^{+}}\left[|| u^\epsilon_{n}|| _{L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t) \end{array} \end{equation*} |
and then (from Lemma 3.5)
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} || u^\epsilon_{n}(., t)|| _{L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\leq c_{10}\left(1+ E_{\beta, 1}(c_9 T^{\beta})\right)\leq C. \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.29) |
Consequently
\begin{equation} \text{the sequence $u^\epsilon_{n}$ is uniformly bounded in $L^{\infty}(0, T, L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H}))$}. \end{equation} | (4.30) |
We can now estimate the term \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[\mathcal{I}(\phi^\epsilon_{n}, u^\epsilon_{n})\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^\epsilon_{n}\right](t)d\mathbf{x} .
Since \mathcal{I}(\phi^\epsilon_{n}, u^\epsilon_{n}) = \mathcal{I}_0(\phi^\epsilon_{n})+\mathcal{I}_1(\phi^\epsilon_{n}) u^\epsilon_{n} and \mathcal{I}_0(\phi^\epsilon_{n}) = g_1(\phi^\epsilon_{n})+g_2(\phi^\epsilon_{n}) with g_1 is an increasing function, we have first (from {\rm {\mathbf (H2)}_{4}} )
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} -\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}(g_2(\phi^\epsilon_{n})+\mathcal{I}_1(\phi^\epsilon_{n})u^\epsilon_{n})\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^{\epsilon}_{n} d\mathbf{x}\leq c_{0}\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}(1+\mid \phi^\epsilon_{n}\mid^{2}+\mid u^\epsilon_{n}\mid\mid \phi^\epsilon_{n}\mid+\mid u^\epsilon_{n}\mid)\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^{\epsilon}_{n} d\mathbf{x}\\ \quad \leq \frac{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}{4}|| \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +c_1(1+|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{4}_{L^{4}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| u^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ || \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{6}(\Omega_{\rm H})}|| u^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H})}). \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.31) |
Moreover, since g_1 is an increasing function then the primitive E_g of g_1 is convex. Hence, from [50], we can deduce (since g_1 is and independent on time) \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} E_g(\phi^\epsilon_{n})\leq g_1(\phi^\epsilon_{n})\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^\epsilon_{n} and then
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} -I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[g_1(\phi^\epsilon_{n})\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^\epsilon_{n}\right](t) \leq -I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} E(\phi^\epsilon_{n})\right](t). \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.32) |
Now, we estimate the term -I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} E(\phi^\epsilon_{n})\right] .
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} -\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} E_g(\phi^\epsilon_{n})\right](t) d\mathbf{x} = -\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}E_g(\phi^\epsilon_{n})(t)d\mathbf{x}+\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} E_g(\phi^\epsilon_{n})(0)d\mathbf{x}. \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.33) |
Since, from {\rm {\mathbf (H2)}_{4}} , \mu_6 \mid \phi^\epsilon_{n}\mid^2 -\mu_7\leq E_g(\phi^\epsilon_{n}) \leq c_2(1+\mid \phi^\epsilon_{n}\mid^4) then
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} -\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} E(\phi^\epsilon_{n})\right] d\mathbf{x}\leq c_3(1+|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}(0)|| ^{4}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ || \phi^\epsilon_{n}(t)|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}). \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.34) |
According to (4.31), (4.32) and (4.34), we can deduce that
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} -\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[\mathcal{I}(\phi^\epsilon_{n}, u^\epsilon_{n})\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^\epsilon_{n}\right](t)d\mathbf{x}\leq \frac{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}{4}I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right]\\ \quad +c_4(|| u^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{\infty}(0, T, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}+|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{\infty}(0, T, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))})\\ \quad +c_5(1+I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{4}_{L^{4}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right]+|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}(0)|| ^{4}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{\rm H})}), \\ \quad +c_6 I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right]|| u^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{\infty}(0, T, L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}.\\ \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.35) |
Finally for the external forcing we have (using Hölder inequality)
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}f_{\rm H} \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\psi^{\epsilon}_{n} d\mathbf{x}\right]\leq \frac{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}{4}I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\psi^{\epsilon}_{n} || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right]+c_{7}|| f_{\rm H}|| ^{2}_{L^{2/\alpha_1}(0, T, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}. \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.36) |
According to (4.35), (4.36), (4.19), (4.21), and the fact, from (4.9) and \epsilon\in (0, 1) , the quantities \psi^\epsilon_{n}(0) , \phi^\epsilon_{n}(0) and \varphi^\epsilon_{i, n}(0) are uniformly bounded in H^1 , we can derive from (4.25) the following estimate (for all t\in (0, T) )
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} \frac{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}{2}I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)+\epsilon\left(I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\psi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\right](t)+ I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \varphi^\epsilon_{i, n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)\right)\\ \quad +\frac{\nu_i}{2}|| \nabla\varphi^\epsilon_{i, n}(t)|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +\frac{\nu_g}{2}|| \nabla\psi^\epsilon_{n}(t)|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\\ \quad \leq c_{8}(1+|| \varphi^\epsilon_{i, n}(0)|| ^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \psi^\epsilon_{n}(0)|| ^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega)}+|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}(0)|| ^{4}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\\ \quad +c_{9}(|| f_{\rm H}|| ^{2}_{L^{2/\alpha_1}(0, T, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))})\\ \quad +c_{10}(|| u^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{\infty}(0, T, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}+|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{\infty}(0, T, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}+I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{4}_{L^{4}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\\ \quad +c_{11}I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right]|| u^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{\infty}(0, T, L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}\leq C. \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.37) |
We can deduce that (from (4.27) and (4.37))
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \phi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)+ I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \sqrt{\epsilon}\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\psi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\right](t)+ I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \sqrt{\epsilon} \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \varphi^\epsilon_{i, n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)\\ \quad +|| \nabla\varphi^\epsilon_{i, n}(t)|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla\psi^\epsilon_{n}(t)|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\leq C, \\ || \partial^{\beta}_{0^+} u^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(0, t, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}\leq C. \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.38) |
In order to show that the local solution can be extended to the whole time interval (0; T) , we assume that we have already defined a solution of (4.12) on [0, T_k] and we shall define the local solution on [T_k, T_{k+1}] (where 0 < T_{k+1}-T_k is small enough) by using the obtained a priori estimates and the fractional derivative \partial^{\gamma}_{T_{k}^{+}} (for \gamma = \alpha or \beta ) with beginning point T_{k} . Consequently, by iteration process, we thus obtain that Faedo-Galerkin solutions are well-defined on (0, T) . So, we omit the details.
Step 3. We are now ready to prove existence of solutions to system (4.5). From results (4.19), (4.22), (4.29) and (4.38), Theorem 3.1 and compactness argumentand, it follows that there exist (X^{\epsilon}; u^{\epsilon}) = (\phi^\epsilon, \varphi_i^\epsilon, \psi^\epsilon; u^\epsilon) and (\tilde{X}^{\epsilon}; \tilde{u}^\epsilon) = (\tilde{\phi}^\epsilon, \tilde{\varphi}_i^\epsilon, \tilde{\psi}^\epsilon; \tilde{u}^\epsilon) such that there exists a subsequence of (X^{\epsilon}_{n}; u^{\epsilon}_{n}) = (\phi^\epsilon_{n}, \varphi_{i, n}^\epsilon, \psi^\epsilon_{n}; u^\epsilon_{n}) also denoted by (X^\epsilon_{n}; u_{n}^\epsilon) , such that
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} (X^\epsilon_{n};u^{\epsilon}_{n}) \longrightarrow (X^\epsilon;u^\epsilon)\; \text{ weakly in }\; L^{\infty}(0, T;\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}\times \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}\times \mathbb{V}) \times L^{\infty}(0, T; L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H})), \\ (X^\epsilon_{n};u^{\epsilon}_{n}) \longrightarrow (X^\epsilon;u^\epsilon)\; \text{ strongly in }\; (L^{2}({\cal Q}_{\rm H}))^{2}\times L^{2}({\cal Q})\times L^{2}({\cal Q}_{\rm H}), \\ (\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}X^\epsilon_{n};\partial^{\beta}_{0^+}u^\epsilon_{n} ) \longrightarrow (\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\tilde{X}^{\epsilon};\partial^{\beta}_{0^+}\tilde{u}^{\epsilon})\; \text{ weakly in }\; (L^{2}({\cal Q}_{\rm H}))^{2}\times L^{2}({\cal Q})\times L^{2}({\cal Q}_{\rm H}). \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.39) |
First we show that (\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}X^\epsilon_{n}; \partial^{\beta}_{0^+} u_n^\epsilon) exists in the weak sense and that (\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}X^{\epsilon}; \partial^{\beta}_{0^+}u^\epsilon) = (\tilde{X}^\epsilon; \tilde{u}^{\epsilon}). Indeed, we take \omega\in C_{0}^{\infty}(0, T) and v\in \mathbb{V}_{\rm H} (then \omega v\in \mathbb{D}_{4}(0, T) ), by the weak convergence and Lebesgue's dominated convergence arguments we have
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} \langle\tilde{\phi}^\epsilon, \omega v\rangle_{\mathbb{D}'_{4}, \mathbb{D}_{4}} = \lim\limits_{n\to \infty}\int_{0}^{T}\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}\omega(t)\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \phi^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, t)v(\mathbf{x}) d\mathbf{x} dt\\ \quad = \lim\limits_{n\to \infty}\int_{\Omega}\left(\int_{0}^{T}\omega(t)\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \phi^\epsilon_{n} dt\right)v(\mathbf{x}) d\mathbf{x}\\ \quad = -\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}\int_{0}^{T} D^{\alpha}_{T^{-}}\omega(t)\left(\int_{\Omega}\phi^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, t)v(\mathbf{x}) d\mathbf{x}\right)dt-I^{1-\alpha}_{0^+}\omega(0^{+}) \int_{\Omega}\phi^\epsilon_{n}(\mathbf{x}, 0)v(\mathbf{x}) d\mathbf{x}\\ \quad = -\int_{0}^{T} D^{\alpha}_{T^{-}}\omega(t)\left(\int_{\Omega}\phi^\epsilon(\mathbf{x}, t)v(\mathbf{x}) d\mathbf{x}\right)dt-I^{1-\alpha}_{0^+}\omega(0^{+}) \int_{\Omega}\phi^\epsilon(\mathbf{x}, 0)v(\mathbf{x}) d\mathbf{x}\\ \quad = \int_{0}^{T}\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}\omega(t)\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \phi^\epsilon(\mathbf{x}, t) v(\mathbf{x}) d\mathbf{x} dt. \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.40) |
Consequently, \tilde{\phi}^\epsilon = \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^\epsilon in the weak sense. In the same way we prove, in the weak sense, that (\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\varphi^\epsilon_{i}, \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\psi^\epsilon, \partial^{\beta}_{0^+}u^\epsilon) = (\tilde{\varphi}^\epsilon_{i}, \tilde{\psi}^\epsilon, \tilde{u}^{\epsilon}) .
Consider \kappa\in \mathcal{D}(]0, T[) and ({\mathbf h}_n, {\mathbf k}_n, {\mathbf \rho}_n)\in W_{i, n}\times W_{g, n}\times W_{i, n} . According to (4.8), we can deduce that
\begin{equation*} \begin{array}{lcr} \mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)\big\langle \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^\epsilon_{n}, {\mathbf h}_{n}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}', \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}}dt +\epsilon\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)\big\langle\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\varphi_{i, n}^\epsilon, {\mathbf h}_{n}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}', \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}}dt\\ \quad = -\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} \mathcal{I}(\phi^\epsilon_{n}, u^\epsilon_{n}){\mathbf h}_{n}d\mathbf{x}dt -\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)A_i(\varphi^\epsilon_{i, n}, {\mathbf h}_{n})dt +\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} f_{\rm H}{\mathbf h}_{n} d\mathbf{x}dt, \\ \mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)\big\langle\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^{\epsilon}_{n}, {\mathbf k}_{n}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}', \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}}dt-\epsilon \int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)\big\langle\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\psi^\epsilon_{n}, {\mathbf k}_{n}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{V}', \mathbb{V}}dt\\ \quad = -\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} \mathcal{I}(\phi^\epsilon_{n}, u^\epsilon_{n}){\mathbf k}_{n} d\mathbf{x}dt +\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t){\mathbf A_g}(\psi^{\epsilon}_{n}, {\mathbf k}_{n})dt+\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}f_{\rm H}{\mathbf k}_{n} d\mathbf{x}dt, \\ \int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)\big\langle \partial^{\beta}_{0^+}u^\epsilon_{n}, {\mathbf \rho}_{n}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}', \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}}dt = -\int_{0}^{T}\!\!\kappa(t)\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} \mathcal{G}(\phi^\epsilon_{n}, u^\epsilon_{n}){\mathbf \rho}_{n} d\mathbf{x}dt. \end{array} \end{equation*} |
According to (4.21), (4.39) and to density properties of spaces spanned by (w_l) and (e_m) , and using similar arguments to derive (4.40), it is easy to pass to limit ( n\to \infty ) in linear terms. For the nonlinear terms, we take into account assumption {\rm {\mathbf (H2)}_{4}} and we use the classical technique based on taking the difference between the sequence and its limit in the form of sum of two terms such that the first uses weak convergence result and the other uses strong convergence result. So we omit the details. The limit (\phi^\epsilon, \varphi_i^\epsilon, \psi^\epsilon, u^\epsilon) then satisfies the following system (for all ({\mathbf h}, {\mathbf k}, \rho)\in \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}\times \mathbb{V}\times \mathbb{V}_{\rm H} )
\begin{equation} { \begin{array}{lcr} \big\langle \mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^\epsilon, {\mathbf h}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}', \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}}+ \epsilon\big\langle \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\varphi_i^\epsilon, {\mathbf h}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}', \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}}+ \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} \mathcal{I}(\phi^\epsilon, u^\epsilon){\mathbf h} d\mathbf{x}+ A_i(\varphi^\epsilon_i, {\mathbf h}) = \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} f_{\rm H}{\mathbf h} d\mathbf{x}, \\ \big\langle \mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi^{\epsilon}, {\mathbf k}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}', \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}}-\epsilon \big\langle \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\psi^\epsilon, {\mathbf k}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{V}', \mathbb{V}}+ \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} \mathcal{I}(\phi^\epsilon, u^\epsilon){\mathbf k} d\mathbf{x} -{\mathbf A_g}(\psi, v) \quad = \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}f_{\rm H}{\mathbf k} d\mathbf{x}, \\ \big(\partial^{\beta}_{0^+}u^\epsilon, \rho\big)_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} \mathcal{G}(\phi^\epsilon, u^\epsilon)\rho d\mathbf{x} = 0. \end{array} } \end{equation} | (4.41) |
In the case of \alpha > 1/2 and \beta > 1/2 , the continuity of solution at t = 0 and the equalities \varphi_i^{\epsilon}(0^{+}) = \varphi_{i, 0} , \phi^{\epsilon}(0^{+}) = \phi_0 , \psi^{\epsilon}(0^{+}) = \psi_0 and u^{\epsilon}(0^{+}) = u_0 , is a consequence of Lemma 3.2. This completes the proof.
We can now show the well-posedness of memory bidomain-torso (degenerate) problem (1.1).
Similar to derive results (4.19), (4.22), (4.29) and (4.38), we have the following a priori estimates for problem (4.4).
Lemma 4.1. Assume the conditions (H1) and {\rm {\mathbf (H2)}_{4}} hold, f_{\rm H}\in L^{2/\alpha_1}(0, T;L^{2}(\Omega)) and u_{0}\in L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H}) .
(i) If \phi_{0}, \varphi_{i, 0} and \psi_{0} are L^{2} -functions, then there exists a constant C > 0 (independent on \epsilon ) such that (for all t\in (0, T) )
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} || \phi^\epsilon(t)|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| \sqrt{\epsilon}\psi^\epsilon(t)|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)}+|| \sqrt{\epsilon} \varphi^\epsilon_{i}(t)|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\\ \quad +I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \phi^\epsilon|| ^{4}_{L^{4}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)+I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \nabla\varphi^\epsilon_{i}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t) + I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \nabla\psi^\epsilon_{n}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\right](t)\leq C, \\ || u^\epsilon|| ^{2}_{L^{\infty}(0, t, L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}+ || \partial^{\beta}_{0^+} u^\epsilon|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(0, t, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}\leq C. \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.42) |
(ii) If \phi_{0}, \varphi_{i, 0} and \psi_{0} are H^{1} -functions, then there exists a constant C > 0 (independent on \epsilon ) such that (for all t\in (0, T) )
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \phi^\epsilon|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)+I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \sqrt{\epsilon}\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\psi^\epsilon|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\right](t)+I_{0^{+}}^{\alpha}\left[|| \sqrt{\epsilon} \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \varphi^\epsilon_{i}|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)\\ \quad +|| \nabla\varphi^\epsilon_{i}(t)|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla\psi^\epsilon(t)|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\leq C, \\ || u^\epsilon|| ^{2}_{L^{\infty}(0, t, L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}+|| \partial^{\beta}_{0^+} u^\epsilon|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(0, t, L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}\leq C. \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.43) |
We are now ready to prove existence of weak solutions to system (1.1).
Theorem 4.2. Let assumptions (H1) and {\rm {\mathbf (H2)}_{4}} be fulfilled and \beta\geq \alpha . Then for (\phi_{0}, u_0) and f_{\rm H} given such that (\phi_{0}, u_0)\in \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}\times L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H}) and f_{\rm H}\in L^{\frac{2}{\alpha_1}}(0, T;L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})) with 0 < \alpha_1 < \alpha , there exists a weak solution (\varphi_{i}, \phi, \psi, u) to problem (1.1) verifying
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} \phi\in L^{\infty}(0, T;\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}), \; \; \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+} \phi\in L^{2}(0, T;L^2(\Omega_{\rm H})), \\ \psi\in L^{\infty}(0, T;\mathbb{V}), \; \; \psi\in L^{\infty}(0, T;\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}), \\ u\in L^{\infty}(0, T;L^3(\Omega_{\rm H})), \; \; \partial^{\beta}_{0^+}u\in L^{2}(0, T;L^2(\Omega_{\rm H})). \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.44) |
Moreover, if \beta > 1/2 then u\in C([0, T];L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})) and u(0^{+}) = u_0 and if \alpha > 1/2 then \phi\in C([0, T];L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})) and \phi(0^{+}) = \phi_0 .
Proof. From Lemma 4.1, similar arguments to derive (4.40), Theorem 3.1 and compactness argument, it follows that there exist X = (\phi, \varphi_i, \psi) and u such that there exists a subsequence of (X^{\epsilon}; u^{\epsilon}) = (\phi^\epsilon, \varphi_{i}^\epsilon, \psi^\epsilon; u^\epsilon) also denoted by (X^{\epsilon}; u^{\epsilon}) such that
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} (X^\epsilon;u^{\epsilon}) \longrightarrow (X;u)\; \text{ weakly in }\; L^{\infty}(0, T;\mathbb{V}_{\rm H}\times \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}\times \mathbb{V}) \times L^{\infty}(0, T; L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H})), \\ (X^\epsilon;u^{\epsilon}) \longrightarrow (X;u)\; \text{ strongly in }\; (L^{2}({\cal Q}_{\rm H}))^{2}\times L^{2}({\cal Q})\times L^{2}({\cal Q}_{\rm H}), \\ (\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}X^\epsilon;\partial^{\beta}_{0^+}u^\epsilon ) \longrightarrow (\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi, 0, 0;\partial^{\beta}_{0^+}u )\; \text{ weakly in }\; (L^{2}({\cal Q}_{\rm H}))^{2}\times L^{2}({\cal Q})\times L^{2}({\cal Q}_{\rm H}). \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.45) |
Thus, using (4.45) and similar argument to derive (4.41), we can deduce the existence of weak solution (\phi, \varphi_i, \psi, u) satisfying regularity (4.44).
Finally, in case of \alpha > 1/2 and \beta > 1/2 , the continuity of solution at t = 0 and the equalities \phi^{\epsilon}(0^{+}) = \phi_0 , and u^{\epsilon}(0^{+}) = u_0 , is a consequence of Lemma 3.2. This completes the proof..
Theorem 4.3. Let assumptions (H1), {\rm {\mathbf (H2)}_{4}} and (H3) be fulfilled and \beta\geq \alpha . Then the solution (\varphi_i, \phi, \psi, u) to system (1.1) is unique. Moreover, let (\phi^{(i)}_{0}, u^{(i)}_0, f^{(i)}_{\rm H}) be given such that (\phi_{0}^{(i)}, u_0^{(i)})\in \mathbb{V}_{\rm H}\times L^{3}(\Omega_{\rm H}) and f^{(i)}_{\rm H}\in L^{\frac{2}{\alpha_1}}(0, T;L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})) , for i = 1, 2 , with 0 < \alpha_1 < \alpha . For (\varphi^{(j)}_i, \phi^{(j)}, \psi^{(j)}, u^{(j)}) a weak solutions to system (1.1), which corresponds to data (\phi^{(j)}_0, u^{(j)}_0, f^{(j)}_{\rm H}) (for j = 1, 2 ), the following Lipschitz continuity relationship is satisfied.
(i) If \alpha = \beta , we have the following relation
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} || \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ I_{0^+}^{\alpha}\left[|| \nabla \varphi_i || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla \psi|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)\\ \quad \leq C(|| \phi_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ || u_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| f_{\rm H}|| ^2_{L^{2/\alpha_1}(0, T;L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}). \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.46) |
(ii) If \alpha < \beta and if the following assumption holds
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} \mid \mathcal{I}_2(\phi_1)-\mathcal{I}_2(\phi_2)\mid \leq C_I \mid \phi\mid (1+\mid \phi_1\mid+\mid \phi_2\mid), \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.47) |
the relation (4.46) is also obtained.
Proof. As uniqueness result is a consequence of relation (4.46) (see further), we start by showing this relation.
Since (\varphi^{(j)}_i, \phi^{(j)}, \psi^{(j)}, u^{(j)}) is a weak solution to system (1.1), for j = 1, 2 , then (\varphi_{i}, \phi, \psi, u) = (\varphi_{i}^{(1)}-\varphi_{i}^{(2)}, \phi^{(1)}-\phi^{(2)}, \psi^{(1)}-\psi^{(2)}, u^{(1)}-u^{(2)}) satisfies
\begin{equation} { \begin{array}{lcr} \mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}\big(\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi, \varphi_i\big)_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{I}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{I}(\phi_2, u_2))\varphi_i d\mathbf{x}+ A_i(\varphi_i, \varphi_i) = \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}f_{\rm H} \varphi_i d\mathbf{x}, \\ \mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}\big(\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi, \psi\big)_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{I}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{I}(\phi_2, u_2))\psi d\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf A_g}(\psi, \psi) = \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}f_{\rm H} \psi d\mathbf{x}, \\ \big(\partial^{\beta}_{0^+}u, u\big)_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{G}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{G}(\phi_2, u_2))u d\mathbf{x} = 0, \\ u(0) = u_0, \; \; \phi(0) = \phi_0, \end{array} } \end{equation} | (4.48) |
where (\phi_0, u_0, f_{\rm H}) = (\phi^{(1)}_0-\phi^{(2)}_0, u^{(1)}_0-u^{(2)}_0, f_{\rm H}^{(1)}-f_{\rm H}^{(2)}) .
Then (since \psi = \varphi_e and \phi = \varphi_i-\varphi_e in \Omega_{\rm H} ),
\begin{equation} { \begin{array}{lcr} \mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}\big(\partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}\phi, \phi\big)_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{I}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{I}(\phi_2, u_2))\phi d\mathbf{x}+ A_i(\varphi_i, \varphi_i)+{\mathbf A_g}(\psi, \psi) = \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}f_{\rm H} \phi d\mathbf{x}, \\ \big(\partial^{\beta}_{0^+}u, u\big)_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{G}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{G}(\phi_2, u_2))u d\mathbf{x} = 0, \\ u(0) = u_0, \; \; \phi(0) = \phi_0. \end{array} } \end{equation} | (4.49) |
(i) If \alpha = \beta , according to (H3), we have
\begin{equation} { \begin{array}{lcr} \frac{1}{2}\min(\mu \mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}, 1) \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}(|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\\ \quad +\mu \min(\nu_i, \nu_g) (|| \nabla \varphi_i || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla \psi|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\\ \quad \leq -\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (F_{\mu}(\phi_1, u_1)-F_{\mu}(\phi_2, u_2)).(\phi, u) d\mathbf{x}+\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}}f_{\rm H} \phi d\mathbf{x}\\ \quad \leq c_0(|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| f_{\rm H} (t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} \end{array} } \end{equation} | (4.50) |
and then
\begin{equation} { \begin{array}{lcr} \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}(|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})+ (|| \nabla \varphi_i || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla \psi|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\\ \quad \leq c_1(|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})+c_2|| f_{\rm H} (t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}. \end{array} } \end{equation} | (4.51) |
So (using Hölder inequality),
\begin{equation} { \begin{array}{lcr} || \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ I_{0^+}^{\alpha}\left[|| \nabla \varphi_i || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla \psi|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)\\ \quad \leq || \phi_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ || u_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+c_3 || f_{\rm H}|| ^2_{L^{2/\alpha_1}(0, T;L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}t^{\alpha-\alpha_1}\\ \quad +c_1 I_{0^+}^{\alpha}\left[|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\right](t). \end{array} } \end{equation} | (4.52) |
By Lemma 3.5, we can deduce that first
\begin{equation*} \begin{array}{lcr} || \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} \quad \leq c_4(|| \phi_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ || u_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| f_{\rm H}|| ^2_{L^{2/\alpha_1}(0, T;L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}) \end{array} \end{equation*} |
and then, from (4.51)
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} || \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ I_{0^+}^{\alpha}\left[|| \nabla \varphi_i || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla \psi|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)\\ \quad \leq C(|| \phi_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ || u_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| f_{\rm H}|| ^2_{L^{2/\alpha_1}(0, T;L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}). \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.53) |
(ii) Assume now that \alpha < \beta , then, according to (H3), we get
\begin{equation} { \begin{array}{lcr} \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +\frac{2}{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}\min(\nu_i, \nu_g) (|| \nabla \varphi_i || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla \psi|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\\ \quad \leq -\frac{2}{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}\frac{1}{\mu}\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} F_{\mu}(\phi_1, u_1)-F_{\mu}(\phi_2, u_2)).(\phi, u) d\mathbf{x}\\ \quad +\frac{2}{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}\frac{1}{\mu}\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{G}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{G}(\phi_2, u_2))u d\mathbf{x}+\frac{2}{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}|| f_{\rm H} (t)|| _{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}|| \phi (t)|| _{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} \\ \quad \leq c_5 (|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})+c_6|| f_{\rm H} (t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\\ \quad +\frac{2}{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}\frac{1}{\mu}\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{G}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{G}(\phi_2, u_2))\phi d\mathbf{x}, \\ \partial^{\beta}_{0^+}|| u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\leq -2\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{G}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{G}(\phi_2, u_2))u d\mathbf{x}. \end{array} } \end{equation} | (4.54) |
On account of assumption (4.47), Hölder's inequality, continuous embedding of H^{1} in L^{4} and the fact that \phi_i\in L^{\infty}(0, T, H^{1}(\Omega_{\rm H})) , for i = 1, 2 , we have
\begin{equation*} \begin{array}{lcr} \mid \int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{G}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{G}(\phi_2, u_2))u d\mathbf{x}\mid \leq c_7 (|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\\ \quad +c_8\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} \mid \phi\mid\mid u\mid(\mid \phi_1\mid+\mid \phi_2\mid)d\mathbf{x} \\ \quad \leq c_7 (|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\\ \quad +c_9|| u(t)|| _{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}|| \phi(t)|| _{L^{4}(\Omega_{\rm H})}. \end{array} \end{equation*} |
So
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} \frac{2}{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}\frac{1}{\mu}\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{G}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{G}(\phi_2, u_2))u d\mathbf{x} \leq c_{10} (|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\\ \quad +\eta_1(|| \nabla \varphi_i || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla \psi|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}), \\ -2\int_{\Omega_{\rm H}} (\mathcal{G}(\phi_1, u_1)-\mathcal{G}(\phi_2, u_2))u d\mathbf{x} \leq c_{11} (|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})\\ \quad +\eta_2(|| \nabla \varphi_i || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla \psi|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}), \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.55) |
with the constants \eta_1 and \eta_2 chosen appropriately. According to estimates (4.55) and by choosing \eta_1 = \frac{1}{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}\min(\nu_i, \nu_g) , estimate (4.54) becomes
\begin{equation} { \begin{array}{lcr} \partial^{\alpha}_{0^+}|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +\zeta \Psi(t)\leq c_{12} (|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})+c_{13}|| f_{\rm H} (t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}, \\ \partial^{\beta}_{0^+}|| u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\leq c_{14} (|| \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})})+ \eta_2 \Psi(t), \end{array} } \end{equation} | (4.56) |
with \Psi(t) = || \nabla \varphi_i || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla \psi|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)} and \zeta = \frac{1}{\mathfrak{c}_{\alpha}}\min(\nu_i, \nu_g) .
Consequently, by choosing \eta_2 < \frac{\Gamma(\beta)\zeta}{T^{\beta-\alpha}\Gamma(\alpha)} , we can deduce first from Corollary 2 that
\begin{equation*} \begin{array}{lcr} || \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} \quad \leq c_{15}(|| \phi_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ || u_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| f_{\rm H}|| ^2_{L^{2/\alpha_1}(0, T;L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}) \end{array} \end{equation*} |
and then, from (4.56)
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} || \phi(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} + || u(t)|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ I_{0^+}^{\alpha}\left[|| \nabla \varphi_i || ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})} +|| \nabla \psi|| ^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}\right](t)\\ \quad \leq C(|| \phi_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+ || u_0|| ^2_{L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H})}+|| f_{\rm H}|| ^2_{L^{2/\alpha_1}(0, T;L^{2}(\Omega_{\rm H}))}). \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.57) |
Finally, if the difference between data is null i.e., \phi_0 = 0 , u_0 = 0 and f_{\rm H} = 0 , we can conclude from (4.53) (or (4.57)), (1.4) and (1.6) that (\phi, \varphi_i, \psi, u) = (0, 0, 0, 0) and then the uniqueness of solution. This completes the proof.
Remark 4.1. In the previous theoretical work, our main results investigate the well-posedness of system (1.1) with an abstract class of ionic models, including some classical models as Rogers-McCulloch, Fitz-Hugh-Nagumo and Aliev-Panfilov. We can consider other ionic model type including Mitchell-Schaeffer model, see [56] (which has a slightly different structure). This two-variable model can be defined with operators \mathcal{I} and \mathcal{G} as (in which the state variables are dimensionless and scaled)
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} \mathcal{I}(\phi, u) = -\frac{u}{\tau_{in}}\phi^2(1-\phi) - \frac{\phi}{\tau_{out}}, \\ \mathcal{G}(\phi, u) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{u-1}{\tau_{open}} &{ if }~~ \phi \lt \phi_{gate}, \\ \frac{u}{\tau_{close}}& { if }~~ \phi\geq\phi_{gate}, \end{array} \right.\\ \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.58) |
where 0 < \phi_{gate} < 1 , \tau_{in} , \tau_{out} , \tau_{open} and \tau_{close} are given positive constants. The cubic function \phi^2(1-\phi) describes the voltage dependence of the inward current. This model is well-known to be valid under the assumption 0 < \tau_{in}\ll\tau_{out}\ll\min (\tau_{open}, \tau_{close}) .
In order to guarantee the well-posedness of system (1.1) with Mitchell-Schaeffer ionical model, we can use the following regularized version of ionic operator \mathcal{G}
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{r} \mathcal{G}_{\zeta}(\phi, u) = \left( \frac{1}{\tau_{close}} - \big(\frac{1}{\tau_{close}}-\frac{1}{\tau_{open}}\big) h_\zeta(\phi) \right)\left(u-h_\zeta(\phi) \right), \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.59) |
where the differentiable function 0\leq h_\zeta \leq 1 is given by
\begin{equation*} h_\zeta(\phi) = \frac{1}{2}\left(1- \tanh \left(\frac{\phi-\phi_{gate}}{\zeta} \right) \right), \end{equation*} |
with \zeta a positive parameter.
The operator \mathcal{G}_{\zeta}(\phi, u) can be written as \mathcal{G}_{\zeta}(\phi, u) = \mathcal{I}_{2, \zeta}(\phi)+\hbar_{\zeta}(\phi) u where
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{ll} \mathcal{I}_{2, \zeta}(\phi) = -\left( \frac{1}{\tau_{close}} - \big(\frac{1}{\tau_{close}}-\frac{1}{\tau_{open}}\big) h_\zeta(\phi) \right)h_\zeta(\phi), \\ \hbar_{\zeta}(\phi) = \frac{1}{\tau_{close}} - \Big(\frac{1}{\tau_{close}}-\frac{1}{\tau_{open}}\Big) h_\zeta(\phi) . \end{array} \end{equation} | (4.60) |
According to the definition of \tanh , we can deduce that \lim\limits_{\zeta\rightarrow 0} h_{\zeta}(\phi) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 { if }~~ \phi < \phi_{gate}, \\ 0 { if }~~ \phi > \phi_{gate} \end{array} \right. and then \lim\limits_{\zeta\rightarrow 0} \mathcal{G}_\zeta(\phi, u) = \mathcal{G}(\phi, u) . The regularized Mitchell-Schaeffer model has a slightly different structure compared to models in (2.3) because in this model, \hbar_{\zeta} depend on \phi through the function h_\zeta . Since h_\zeta is sufficiently regular, the arguments of this paper can be adapted with some slight necessary modifications to analyze the well-posedness of this regularized Mitchell-Schaeffer ionical model.
In more general, the study developed in this paper remains valid (with some necessary modifications) if we consider the operator \mathcal{G} in the form of \mathcal{G}(.; \phi, u) = \mathcal{I}_{2}(.; \phi)+\hbar(.; \phi) u (i.e. a general form of Hodgkin-Huxley model including Beeler-Reuter and Luo-Rudy ionic models described by continuous or regularized discontinuous functions, see [7,53,54]) with \mathcal{G} Carathéodory function from (\Omega \times \mbox{IR}^{{}}) \times \mbox{IR}^{{2}} into \mbox{IR}^{{}} and locally Lipschitz continuous function on (\phi, u) and, \mathcal{I}_{2} and \hbar sufficiently regulars.
In this section, we shall present some preliminary numerical simulations of the problem (1.1) to illustrate our result with showing two-dimensional simulation. Two of the most used ionical models, FitzHugh-Nagumo model[39] and Mitchell-Shaeffer model [56], are considered. This numerical study investigates the impact of fractional-order \phi dynamics and fractional-order u dynamics (i.e. the influence of the capacitor and the ionic variable memory) on key rate dependent electrical properties including APD, the amplitude of the action potential and spontaneous activity.
Although part of the theoretical analysis was limited to the case \beta\geq \alpha , in order to show the impact of \beta on the evolution of system, we will also present some results for \alpha fixed to 1 and \beta variable. We will explore the behavior of the two models when first they are stimulated by a brief current and second when they are stimulated twice in sequence.
In these two situations we fix first \beta at 1 and we vary \alpha , and in a second time we fix \alpha at 1 and we vary \beta to analyze the impact of each time-fractional order derivative on system behavior, one after the other.
In order to solve numerically system (1.1) we have analyzed different approximation methods of Caputo fractional derivative \partial_{0^+}^{\gamma} , \gamma\in]0, 1] . In this paper, we consider the following approximation (for sufficiently regular function \psi at time t\in]t_{n-1}, t_{n}] ( n = 1, 2, \ldots ), with t_k = k\Delta t for k = 0, 1, \ldots and given time step \Delta t )
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} \partial^{\gamma}_{0^+}\left[\psi\right]({\mathbf x}, t) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\gamma)}\int_{0}^{t} (t-\tau)^{-\gamma}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}({\mathbf x}, \tau)d\tau, \\ \quad = \frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\gamma)}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{n-2}\int_{t_{m}}^{t_{m+1}} (t-\tau)^{-\gamma}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}({\mathbf x}, \tau)d\tau+\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\gamma)}\int_{t_{n-1}}^{t} (t-\tau)^{-\gamma}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}({\mathbf x}, \tau)d\tau, \\ \quad \approx -I^{\gamma}_{memory}(\psi_{history})({\mathbf x}, t)+\frac{\Delta t^{1-\gamma}}{\Gamma(2-\gamma)}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}({\mathbf x}, t), \\ \end{array} \end{equation} | (5.1) |
where
\begin{equation} I^{\gamma}_{memory}\;(\psi_{history})({\mathbf x}, t) = -\frac{\Delta t^{-\gamma}}{\Gamma(2-\gamma)}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{n-2}[(n-m)^{1-\gamma}-(n-m-1)^{1-\gamma}] [\psi({\mathbf x}, t_{m+1})-\psi({\mathbf x}, t_{m})]. \end{equation} | (5.2) |
It is clear that I^{1}_{memory}\;(\psi_{history}) , for \gamma = 1 , is a null function. The state function \psi_{history} is corresponding to the prior history of \psi .
Note that the previous fractional-order dynamic is the sum of first-order dynamics and an operator I^{\gamma}_{memory} representing hypothetical memory effects.
The term I^{\gamma}_{memory} depends on the prior history of accrued heartbeats and characterize the influence of capacitive/ionic memory on the dynamical of system. This memory operator I^{\gamma}_{memory} can be interpreted as a new force which is added over time to the external applied forcing. So, for example, this adding force can invert at some time points the sign of the external applied stimulus‡ and then generates changes in myocardial polarization.
‡ Thus the depolarizing effect of the stimulus becomes repolarizing and vice versa
Here, we perform various numerical experiments to investigate the impact of different values of \phi fractional-order \alpha and u fractional-order \beta across the time in (0, T) and we present some numerical results corresponding to the middle point of heart domain \Omega_H for \phi , \varphi_e and u , and in the middle point of torso domain \Omega_B for \varphi_s . We assume that the domain heart-torso is in a square region \Omega = [-L_T/2, -L_T/2]\times [-L_T/2, -L_T/2] and the domain \Omega_H corresponds to an approximate shape of heart, where L_T is the torso length and L_H is the characteristic length of \Omega_H (Figure 3).
The boundary of domain \Omega_H is defined by (for (x, y)\in \Gamma_H ) : \vert x-a\vert^3 + (y-b -c|x-d|^2)^2-e = 0, where a, b, c, d, e are given positive constants. Here we choose a = 0.5 , b = 3.5 , c = 0.5 , c = 1 , d = 0.5 and e = 1/15 .
We use some biophysical parameters which are presented in Table 1 and we fix L_H = 15cm and L_T = 45cm . In those both applications, we impose the following initial conditions
\begin{equation} \phi(x, y, 0) = \phi_{min}, \; U(x, y, 0) = \frac{1}{(\phi_{max}-\phi_{min\;})^2}. \end{equation} | (5.3) |
Description | name | value (unit) |
Cell surface to volume ratio | \kappa | 200 (cm ^{-1} ) |
transmembrane capacitance | C_{\alpha} | 10^{-3} (F/cm ^{2} ) |
Depolarization length | \mathcal{T}_{in} | 4.5 (ms) |
Repolarization length | \mathcal{T}_{out} | 90 (ms) |
Opening time constant | \mathcal{T}_{open} | 100 (ms) |
Closing time constant | \mathcal{T}_{close} | 130 (ms) |
Change-over voltage | \phi_{gate} | -67 (mV) |
Resting potential | \phi_{min} | -80 (mV) |
Maximum potential | \phi_{max} | 20 (mV) |
Activation time | T_{act} | 10 (ms) |
Finally, we consider T = 1 , \mathcal{K}_{i} = \mathcal{K}_{e} = 0.003 s.cm^{-1}{\mathbf I}_d (with {\mathbf I}_d identity matrix) and we define (as in [28]) the external stimulus f_{H} in short time a_i < t < a_i+T_{act} , i = 0, 1 with a_0 = 0 (electroshock for example), as
\begin{equation} f_{H}({\mathbf x}, t) = I_{i, app}\chi_{H}({\mathbf x})\chi_{[a_i, T_{act}+a_i]}(t)\chi_{prop}({\mathbf x}, t)\Phi({\mathbf x}), \; \text{ on }\; (a_i, a_i+T_{act}) \end{equation} | (5.4) |
where I_{app} is the amplitude of external applied stimulus with I_{i, app} = b_i 10^4 , and the functions \chi_{H} , \chi_{[a_i, T_{act}+a_i]} and \chi_{prop} are defined by
\begin{equation} \chi_H({\mathbf x}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 \text{ if } {\mathbf x}\in \Omega, \\ 0 \text{ else } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.5) |
\begin{equation} \chi_{[a_i, T_{act}+a_i]}(t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 \text{ if } a_i \lt t \lt T_{act}+a_i, \\ 0 \text{ else } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.6) |
\begin{equation} \chi_{prop}({\mathbf x}, t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 \text{ if } x+y \lt 2t/T_{act}, \\ 0 \text{ else. } \end{array} \right. \end{equation} | (5.7) |
The last characteristic is associated to wave propagation as a diagonal which evolves from to left-bottom side to right-top side of \Omega_H . The function \Phi , which corresponds to the shape of electrical wave, is defined by
\begin{equation} \Phi({\mathbf x}) = 1 - \frac{1}{L_H}\left(x-\frac{L_H}{2} \right)^2 - \frac{1}{L_H}\left(y-\frac{L_H}{2} \right)^2. \end{equation} | (5.8) |
To perform the numerical simulations, we have developed a numerical scheme reliable, efficient, stable and easy to implement in context of such "memory bidomain systems" by generalizing the modified Lattice Boltzmann Method introduced in previous works [9,27,28].
Nota Bene: In all figures first-order dynamic (corresponding to the case \alpha = \beta = 1 ) is shown in black and the last curve drawn is in dotted line.
The first ionical model we choose is the simplest FitzHugh-Nagumo phenomenological model (see [39]). This model can be defined with the operators \mathcal{I} and \mathcal{G} as:
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{rl} \mathcal{I}(\phi, u)& = -0.0004\frac{\phi-\phi_{min}}{\phi_{max}-\phi_{min}} \left( U(\phi_{max}-\phi_{min})^2 + \frac{(\phi-\phi_{gate\;})(\phi-\phi_{max\;})}{(\phi_{max}-\phi_{min\;})^2}\right), \end{array} \end{equation} | (5.9) |
and
\begin{equation} \mathcal{G}(\phi, u) = 0.63 \frac{\phi-\phi_{min}}{\phi_{max}-\phi_{min}} - 0.013 U(\phi_{max}-\phi_{min})^2 . \end{equation} | (5.10) |
For this model, we investigate only the impact of membrane capacitive memory on action potential properties in absence of ionic variable memory (i.e., we fix \beta to 1 and we vary \alpha ). In Figures 4-6 (response to single stimulus) and in Figures 7-9 (response to two stimuli in sequence) we plot the time evolution of \phi , \varphi_e and u , at midpoint of heart, for different values of \alpha with \beta = 1 . We observe first that we have always the same kind of behavior. Second, we find that the amplitude varies depending on \alpha values. For state \varphi_e , the effect fractional-order dynamic is negligible except for the extremum of \varphi_e (as the value of \alpha becomes smaller, the value of the minimum point becomes smaller too).
The second ionic model corresponds to Mitchell-Shaeffer biophysical ionic model (see [56]). This two-variable model can be defined with operators \mathcal{I} and \mathcal{G} as:
\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lcr} \mathcal{I}(\phi, u) = -\frac{u}{\tau_{in}}\frac{(\phi-\phi_{min\;})^2(\phi_{max}-\phi)}{(\phi_{max}-\phi_{min})} - \frac{1}{\tau_{out}}\frac{\phi-\phi_{min}}{(\phi_{max}-\phi_{min\;})}, \\ \mathcal{G}(\phi, u) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{u}{\tau_{open}}-\frac{1}{\tau_{open}(\phi_{max}-\phi_{min\;})^2} &\text{ if } \phi \lt \phi_{gate}, \\ \frac{u}{\tau_{close}}& \text{ if } \phi\geq\phi_{gate}. \end{array} \right.\\ \end{array} \end{equation} | (5.11) |
These operators depend on the change-over voltage \phi_{gate} , the resting potential \phi_{min} , the maximum potential \phi_{max} , and on times constants \tau_{in} , \tau_{out} , \tau_{open} and \tau_{close} , the two times \tau_{open} and \tau_{close} , respectively controlling the durations of the action potential and of the recovery phase, and the two times \tau_{in} and \tau_{out} , respectively controlling the length of depolarization and repolarization phases. These constants are such that \tau_{in} < \tau_{out} < \min (\tau_{open}, \tau_{close}).
First, we investigate the influence of membrane capacitive memory on action potential properties in absence of ionic variable memory (i.e., we fix \beta to 1 and we vary \alpha ). In Figures 10-13 (response to a single stimulus) and in Figures 14-17 (response to two stimuli in sequence), we plot the time evolution of \phi , \varphi_e and u , at midpoint of heart and \varphi_s at at midpoint of torso, for different values of \alpha with \beta = 1 . We find first that following the stimuli cessation, spontaneous action potentials are triggered and persist for the duration of simulation. Second, the spontaneous action potential cycle length decreases as fractional-order \alpha decreases, and we notice therefore an increase in the rate of spontaneous activity (when \alpha decreases). We observe the same kind of behaviors for the other state variables than for \phi , with an acceleration of spontaneous activity when \alpha decreases.
We next investigate the influence of ionic variable memory on action potential properties in absence of membrane capacitive memory. In Figures 18-21 (single stimulus) and in Figures 22-25 (two stimuli in sequence), we plot the time evolution of \phi , \varphi_e and u , at midpoint of heart and \varphi_s at at midpoint of torso, for different values of \beta with \alpha = 1 . We observe that the smaller the value of \beta becomes, the more APD is shortened. Therefore the ionic current memory alters the action potential duration. Moreover from some value of APD we observe the triggering of spontaneous chain activities.
Modeling and control of electrical cardiac activity represent nowadays a very valuable tool to facilitate diagnosis and maximize the efficiency and safety of treatment for cardiac disorders. In this work, we have developed a new bidomain model of the cardiac electrophysiology which takes into account cardiac memory phenomena, named "memory bidomain model". Cardiac memory is a non-anecdotal phenomena, the impact of which in clinical practice is significant, particularly at the level of diagnostic and decision-making challenges. The derived model is a degenerate nonlinear coupled system of reaction-diffusion equations in shape of a fractional-order ODE coupled with a set of time fractional-order PDEs. Cardiac memory is represented via fractional-order capacitor and fractional-order cellular membrane dynamics. The existence of a weak solution as well as regularity and Lipschitz continuity of map solution results are established, with an abstract class of ionic models, including some classical models as Rogers-McCulloch, Fitz-Hugh-Nagumo and Aliev-Panfilov. This theoretical analysis is completed by numerical results that validate the interest of developed model. For this, some preliminary numerical simulations are performed to illustrate our results by comparing dynamic restitution curves obtained by numerically solving the first-order model and time fractional-order models (which reproduce critical memory effects). FitzHugh-Nagumo model and Mitchell-Shaeffer model are considered in these numerical applications. We observe that memory can alter the key dependent electrical properties including APD, action potential morphology and spontaneous activity.
These first observations demonstrate that memory effects can play a significant role in cardiac electrical dynamics (whether normal or disease states) and then motivates the continuation and deepening of these studies. For predicting and acting on phenomena and processes occurring inside and surrounding cardiac medium, it would be interesting to study control and regulation problems in order to determine§ the best optimal prognostic values of sources in presence of disturbances and pacing history, using the approach developed in [8,10,13]. The resolution of this type of problem makes it possible in practice to improve the stimuli applied during e.g., defibrillation sessions. This stimulus must be adjusted according to the patient's metabolism and type of cardiac problem (cardiac arrest rhythms, bradycardia, tachycardia, etc.).
§ from some observations, cardiac MRI-Measurement or desired target
The author declares there is no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Mercer JW, Cohen RM (1990) A review of immiscible fluids in the subsurface: properties, models, characterization and remediation. J Contam Hydrol 6: 107–163. doi: 10.1016/0169-7722(90)90043-G
![]() |
[2] | Suthersan S, Horst J, Schnobrich M, et al. (2016) Remediation engineering: design concepts. CRC Press. |
[3] |
Nativ R, Adar EM, Becker A (1999) Designing a monitoring network for contaminated ground water in fractured chalk. Groundwater 37: 38–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1999.tb00956.x
![]() |
[4] |
Ajo-Franklin JB, Geller JT, Harris JM (2006) A survey of the geophysical properties of chlorinated DNAPLs. J Appl Geophys 59: 177–189. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2005.10.002
![]() |
[5] |
Brewster ML, Annan AP (1994) Ground-penetrating radar monitoring of a controlled DNAPL release: 200 MHz radar. Geophysics 59: 1211–1221. doi: 10.1190/1.1443679
![]() |
[6] |
Bano M, Loeffler O, Girard JF (2009) Ground penetrating radar imaging and time-domain modelling of the infiltration of diesel fuel in a sandbox experiment. C R Geosci 341: 846–858. doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2009.08.002
![]() |
[7] | Orlando L, Palladini L (2019) Time-lapse laboratory tests to monitor multiple phases of DNAPL in a porous medium. Near Surf Geophys 17: 55–68. |
[8] | Schneider GW, Greenhouse JP (1992) Geophysical detection of perchloroethylene in a sandy aquifer using resistivity and nuclear logging techniques. In 5th EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 1992, 619–628. |
[9] |
Newmark RL, Daily WD, Kyle KR, et al. (1998) Monitoring DNAPL pumping using integrated geophysical techniques. J Environ Eng Geophys 3: 7–13. doi: 10.4133/JEEG3.1.7
![]() |
[10] |
Chambers JE, Wilkinson PB, Wealthall GP, et al. (2010) Hydrogeophysical imaging of deposit heterogeneity and groundwater chemistry changes during DNAPL source zone bioremediation. J Contam Hydrol 118: 43–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2010.07.001
![]() |
[11] |
Atekwana EA, Werkema Jr DD, Duris JW, et al. (2004) In-situ apparent conductivity measurements and microbial population distribution at a hydrocarbon-contaminated site. Geophysics 69: 56–63. doi: 10.1190/1.1649375
![]() |
[12] | Binley A, Slater LD, Fukes M, et al. (2005) Relationship between spectral induced polarization and hydraulic properties of saturated and unsaturated sandstone. Water Resour Res 41. |
[13] |
Olhoeft GR (1985) Low-frequency electrical properties. Geophysics 50: 2492–2503. doi: 10.1190/1.1441880
![]() |
[14] |
Vanhala H, Soininen H, Kukkonen I (1992) Detecting organic chemical contaminants by spectral-induced polarization method in glacial till environment. Geophysics 57: 1014–1017. doi: 10.1190/1.1443312
![]() |
[15] | Kemna A, Räkers E, Dresen L (1999) Field applications of complex resistivity tomography. 1999 SEG Annual Meeting. |
[16] |
Cardarelli E, Di Filippo G (2009) Electrical resistivity and induced polarization tomography in identifying the plume of chlorinated hydrocarbons in sedimentary formation: a case study in Rho (Milan—Italy). Waste Manage Res 27: 595–602. doi: 10.1177/0734242X09102524
![]() |
[17] |
Cassiani G, Kemna A, Villa A, et al. (2009) Spectral induced polarization for the characterization of free-phase hydrocarbon contamination of sediments with low clay content. Near Surf Geophys 7: 547–562. doi: 10.3997/1873-0604.2009028
![]() |
[18] |
Orozco AF, Kemna A, Oberdörster C, et al. (2012) Delineation of subsurface hydrocarbon contamination at a former hydrogenation plant using spectral induced polarization imaging. J Contam Hydrol 136: 131–144. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2012.06.001
![]() |
[19] | Johansson S, Fiandaca G, Dahlin T (2015) Influence of non-aqueous phase liquid configuration on induced polarization parameters: Conceptual models applied to a time-domain field case study. Geoexploration 123: 295–309. |
[20] |
Blondel A, Schmutz M, Franceschi M, et al. (2014) Temporal evolution of the geoelectrical response on a hydrocarbon contaminated site. J Appl Geophys 103: 161–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.01.013
![]() |
[21] | Naudet V, Revil A, Bottero JY, et al. (2003) Relationship between self-potential (SP) signals and redox conditions in contaminated groundwater. Geophys Res Lett 30. |
[22] | Minsley BJ, Sogade J, Morgan FD (2007) Three-dimensional self-potential inversion for subsurface DNAPL contaminant detection at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina. Water Resour Res 43. |
[23] |
Temples TJ, Waddell MG, Domoracki WJ, et al. (2001) Noninvasive determination of the location and distribution of DNAPL using advanced seismic reflection techniques. Groundwater 39: 465–474. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2001.tb02331.x
![]() |
[24] | Waddell MG, Domoracki WJ, Temples TJ (2001) Use of seismic reflection amplitude versus offset (AVO) techniques to image dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL). In 14th EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems. |
[25] |
Vaudelet P, Schmutz M, Pessel M, et al. (2011) Mapping of contaminant plumes with geoelectrical methods. A case study in urban context. J Appl Geophys 75: 738–751. doi: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2011.09.023
![]() |
[26] |
Sparrenbom CJ, Åkesson S, Johansson S, et al. (2017) Investigation of chlorinated solvent pollution with resistivity and induced polarization. Sci Total Environ 575: 767–778. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.117
![]() |
[27] | Kueper BH, Stroo HF, Vogel CM, et al. (2014) Chlorinated solvent source zone remediation. Springer. |
[28] |
Davis JL, Annan AP (1989) Ground-penetrating radar for high-resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy. Geophys Prospect 37: 531–551. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1989.tb02221.x
![]() |
[29] | Lucius JE, Olhoeft GR, Hill PL, et al. (1992) Properties and hazards of 108 selected substances—1992 edition. US Geological Survey Open-File Report, 92: 527–554. |
[30] | Pankow JF, Cherry JA (1996) Dense chlorinated solvents and other DNAPLs in groundwater: History, behavior, and remediation. Waterloo Press. |
[31] | Kirsch R (2008) Groundwater Geophysics: A Tool for Hydrogeology. Springer Verlag GmbH. |
[32] | Jol HM (2008) Ground penetrating radar theory and applications. Elsevier. |
[33] |
Bano M (2006) Effects of the transition zone above a water table on the reflection of GPR waves. Geophys Res Lett 33: L13309. doi: 10.1029/2006GL026158
![]() |
[34] | Yilmaz O (1987) Seismic Data Processing. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. |
[35] | Loke MH (2000) Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies–A practical guide to 2-D and 3-D surveys. |
[36] |
Loke MH, Barker RD (1996) Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections using a quasi-Newton method. Geophys Prospect 44: 131–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1996.tb00142.x
![]() |
[37] | Sharma S, Verma GK (2015) Inversion of electrical resistivity data: a review. Int J Environ Chem Ecol Geol Geophys Eng 9: 400–406. |
[38] |
Günther T, Rücker C, Spitzer K (2006) Three-dimensional modelling and inversion of DC resistivity data incorporating topography—II. Inversion. Geophy J Int 166: 506–517. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03011.x
![]() |
[39] |
Daily W, Ramirez A (1995) Electrical resistance tomography during in-situ trichloroethylene remediation at the Savannah River Site. J Appl Geophys 33: 239–249. doi: 10.1016/0926-9851(95)90044-6
![]() |
[40] |
Power C, Gerhard JI, Karaoulis M, et al. (2014) Evaluating four-dimensional time-lapse electrical resistivity tomography for monitoring DNAPL source zone remediation. J Contam Hydrol 162: 27–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2014.04.004
![]() |
[41] |
Brewster ML, Annan AP, Greenhouse JP, et al. (1995) Observed migration of a controlled DNAPL release by geophysical methods. Groundwater 33: 977–987. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1995.tb00043.x
![]() |
[42] |
Hwang YK, Endres AL, Piggott SD, et al. (2008) Long-term ground penetrating radar monitoring of a small volume DNAPL release in a natural groundwater flow field. J Contam Hydrol 97: 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2007.11.004
![]() |
1. | Satoru Iwasaki, Initial state estimation from limited observations of the heat equation in metric graphs, 2022, 38, 0266-5611, 035007, 10.1088/1361-6420/ac4afc | |
2. | Xiao Xuan Feng, Mahyar Mahinzaeim, Gen Qi Xu, Spectral analysis of a viscoelastic tube conveying fluid with generalized boundary conditions, 2022, 149, 0022-2526, 657, 10.1111/sapm.12516 | |
3. | S. Avdonin, J. Edward, Y. Zhao, Shape, velocity, and exact controllability for the wave equation on a graph with cycle, 2024, 35, 1061-0022, 1, 10.1090/spmj/1791 | |
4. | Z. A. Sobirov, Inverse Source Problem for the Subdiffusion Equation on a Metric Star Graph with Integral Overdetermination Condition, 2023, 44, 1995-0802, 5426, 10.1134/S1995080223120326 | |
5. | R. R. Ashurov, Z. A. Sobirov, A. A. Turemuratova, Inverse Source Problem for the Space-Time Fractional Parabolic Equation on a Metric Star Graph with an Integral Overdetermination Condition, 2024, 116, 0001-4346, 892, 10.1134/S0001434624110026 |
Description | name | value (unit) |
Cell surface to volume ratio | \kappa | 200 (cm ^{-1} ) |
transmembrane capacitance | C_{\alpha} | 10^{-3} (F/cm ^{2} ) |
Depolarization length | \mathcal{T}_{in} | 4.5 (ms) |
Repolarization length | \mathcal{T}_{out} | 90 (ms) |
Opening time constant | \mathcal{T}_{open} | 100 (ms) |
Closing time constant | \mathcal{T}_{close} | 130 (ms) |
Change-over voltage | \phi_{gate} | -67 (mV) |
Resting potential | \phi_{min} | -80 (mV) |
Maximum potential | \phi_{max} | 20 (mV) |
Activation time | T_{act} | 10 (ms) |
Description | name | value (unit) |
Cell surface to volume ratio | \kappa | 200 (cm ^{-1} ) |
transmembrane capacitance | C_{\alpha} | 10^{-3} (F/cm ^{2} ) |
Depolarization length | \mathcal{T}_{in} | 4.5 (ms) |
Repolarization length | \mathcal{T}_{out} | 90 (ms) |
Opening time constant | \mathcal{T}_{open} | 100 (ms) |
Closing time constant | \mathcal{T}_{close} | 130 (ms) |
Change-over voltage | \phi_{gate} | -67 (mV) |
Resting potential | \phi_{min} | -80 (mV) |
Maximum potential | \phi_{max} | 20 (mV) |
Activation time | T_{act} | 10 (ms) |