Processing math: 67%
Research article Special Issues

Seismic response of RC frames equipped with buckling-restrained braces having different yielding lengths

  • Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) have proven to be a valuable earthquake resisting system. They demonstrated substantial ability in providing structures with ductility and energy dissipation. However, they are prone to exhibit large residual deformations after earthquake loading because of their low post-yield stiffnesses. In this study, the seismic response of RC frames equipped with BRBs has been investigated. The focus of this research work is on evaluating the effect of the BRB yielding-core length on both the maximum and the residual lateral deformations of the braced RC frames. This is achieved by performing inelastic static pushover and dynamic time-history analyses on three- and nine-story X-braced RC frames having yielding-core length ratios of 25%, 50%, and 75% of the total brace length. The effects of the yielding-core length on both the maximum and the residual lateral deformations of the braced RC frames have been evaluated. Also, the safety of the short-yielding-core BRBs against fracture failures has been checked. An empirical equation has been derived for estimating the critical length of the BRB yielding cores. The results indicated that the high strain hardening capability of reduced length yielding-cores improves the post-yield stiffness and consequently reduces the maximum and residual drifts of the braced RC frames.

    Citation: Mohamed Meshaly, Hamdy Abou-Elfath. Seismic response of RC frames equipped with buckling-restrained braces having different yielding lengths[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2022, 9(3): 359-381. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2022022

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yaning Li, Mengjun Wang . Well-posedness and blow-up results for a time-space fractional diffusion-wave equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(5): 3522-3542. doi: 10.3934/era.2024162
    [2] Peng Gao, Pengyu Chen . Blowup and MLUH stability of time-space fractional reaction-diffusion equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(9): 3351-3361. doi: 10.3934/era.2022170
    [3] Mustafa Aydin, Nazim I. Mahmudov, Hüseyin Aktuğlu, Erdem Baytunç, Mehmet S. Atamert . On a study of the representation of solutions of a Ψ-Caputo fractional differential equations with a single delay. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(3): 1016-1034. doi: 10.3934/era.2022053
    [4] Mehmet Ali Özarslan, Ceren Ustaoğlu . Extended incomplete Riemann-Liouville fractional integral operators and related special functions. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(5): 1723-1747. doi: 10.3934/era.2022087
    [5] Melih Cinar, Ismail Onder, Aydin Secer, Mustafa Bayram, Abdullahi Yusuf, Tukur Abdulkadir Sulaiman . A comparison of analytical solutions of nonlinear complex generalized Zakharov dynamical system for various definitions of the differential operator. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(1): 335-361. doi: 10.3934/era.2022018
    [6] Bin Han . Some multivariate polynomials for doubled permutations. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(2): 1925-1944. doi: 10.3934/era.2020098
    [7] Yong Zhou, Jia Wei He, Ahmed Alsaedi, Bashir Ahmad . The well-posedness for semilinear time fractional wave equations on RN. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(8): 2981-3003. doi: 10.3934/era.2022151
    [8] María Guadalupe Morales, Zuzana Došlá, Francisco J. Mendoza . Riemann-Liouville derivative over the space of integrable distributions. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 567-587. doi: 10.3934/era.2020030
    [9] Yuanfei Li . A study on continuous dependence of layered composite materials in binary mixtures on basic data. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(10): 5577-5591. doi: 10.3934/era.2024258
    [10] Yadan Shi, Yongqin Xie, Ke Li, Zhipiao Tang . Attractors for the nonclassical diffusion equations with the driving delay term in time-dependent spaces. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(12): 6847-6868. doi: 10.3934/era.2024320
  • Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) have proven to be a valuable earthquake resisting system. They demonstrated substantial ability in providing structures with ductility and energy dissipation. However, they are prone to exhibit large residual deformations after earthquake loading because of their low post-yield stiffnesses. In this study, the seismic response of RC frames equipped with BRBs has been investigated. The focus of this research work is on evaluating the effect of the BRB yielding-core length on both the maximum and the residual lateral deformations of the braced RC frames. This is achieved by performing inelastic static pushover and dynamic time-history analyses on three- and nine-story X-braced RC frames having yielding-core length ratios of 25%, 50%, and 75% of the total brace length. The effects of the yielding-core length on both the maximum and the residual lateral deformations of the braced RC frames have been evaluated. Also, the safety of the short-yielding-core BRBs against fracture failures has been checked. An empirical equation has been derived for estimating the critical length of the BRB yielding cores. The results indicated that the high strain hardening capability of reduced length yielding-cores improves the post-yield stiffness and consequently reduces the maximum and residual drifts of the braced RC frames.



    It is well-known that in the theory of linear operators there are three different points of view to represent semigroups [1,2,3]. One is the classical algebraic approach, i.e., a strongly continuous operator function T(;A):R+L(X) is called a C0-semigroup if T(0;A)=I and T(t;A)T(s;A)=T(t+s;A) for all t,sR+. The second approach involves the abstract Cauchy problem

    {ddtu(t)=Au(t),tR+,u(0)=x, (1.1)

    that is, A:D(A)XX generates a C0-semigroup T(t;A),tR+ if and only if there exists a unique mild solution u for every initial value xX. Furthermore, in this case, the closed-form representation of a mild solution is u(t)=T(t;A)x for all tR+ and xX. And the third approach is related to the Laplace integral transform, i.e., a strongly continuous operator function T(;A):R+L(X) is a C0-semigroup if and only if there exists an infinitesimal generator A:D(A)XX and ωR such that (ω,)ρ(A) and Re(λ)>ω,

    R(λ;A)x=0eλtT(t;A)xdt,xX. (1.2)

    The same behaviour applies to strongly continuous cosine families [4,5,6]. In agreement with the purely algebraic approach, a strongly continuous operator function C(:A):RL(X) is called a cosine family if C(0;A)=I and C(t+s;A)+C(ts;A)=2C(t;A)C(s;A) for all t,sR and the associated sine family S(;A):RL(X) is given by S(t;A)x=t0C(s;A)xds for each xX and tR. Based on the second approach, the following abstract initial value problem

    {d2dt2u(t)=Au(t),tR,u(0)=x,ddtu(0)=y, (1.3)

    has a unique mild solution u for each initial values x,yX if and only if A:D(A)XX is an infinitesimal generator of strongly continuous cosine and sine families C(t;A),tR and S(t;A),tR, respectively. Moreover, in this case, the closed-form representation of a mild solution is u(t)=C(t;A)x+S(t;A)y for all tR and x,yX. According to the last approach strongly continuous operator functions C(;A):R+L(X) and S(;A):R+L(X) are strongly continuous cosine and sine families if and only if there exists an infinitesimal generator A:D(A)XX and ωR such that (ω,)ρ(A) and Re(λ)>ω,

    λR(λ2;A)x=0eλtC(t;A)xdt,xX, (1.4)
    R(λ2;A)x=0eλtS(t;A)xdt,xX. (1.5)

    Furthermore, we would like to draw the readers' attention to the research work of Vasil'ev, Krein and Piskarev [7,8] on operator theory, in particular on semigroup theory and cosine operator families in abstract spaces. These fundamental surveys on operator theory can serve as a fairly complete source of information on abstract differential equations and methods for solving them in recent years.

    In recent years there has been a considerable increase in interest to fractional calculus and fractional differential equations, where the order of differentiation is permitted to be any real (or even complex) number, not just a natural number. This is largely due to the applications of fractional differential equations to problems in various fields of physics and engineering, namely electrical circuits [9], electrical power systems [10,11,12], vibration theory [13] and so on.

    One of the emerging branches of fractional calculus and fractional-order differential equations are the fractional semigroups and fractional cosine (sine) families and their applications to the theory of fractional evolution equations, i.e., evolution equations in which the integer-order derivatives with respect to time are replaced by the derivatives of fractional-order. In [14], Bazhlekova has studied the following abstract Cauchy problem for a fractional evolution equation of Caputo type in a Banach space X and introduced the solution operator for (1.6) as follows:

    {(Dα0+u)(t)=Au(t),t>0,u(0)=x,dkdtku(0)=0,k=1,2,,m1, (1.6)

    where m1<α<m, mN.

    Definition 1.1. A family Tα(t;A), tR+ of bounded linear operators on X is called a solution operator for (1.6) if the following three conditions are satisfied:

    (i) Tα(t;A) is strongly continuous for any tR+ and Tα(0;A)=I;

    (ii) Tα(t;A)D(A)D(A) and ATα(t;A)x=Tα(t;A)Ax for all xD(A) and tR+;

    (iii) u(t)=Tα(t;A)x is a strong solution of (1.6) for every xD(A).

    Note that the solution operator for an abstract Cauchy problem (1.6) was systematically studied in the thesis of Bazhlekova [14], and the results obtained generalise some facts of C0-semigroups (in case of 0<α<1) and cosine families (in case of 1<α<2). Furthermore, Lizama in [15] has reviewed the fundamental theory of solution operators associated to abstract linear evolution equations of fractional-order and provided their basic results concerning generation, analyticity and inversion problems. In [16], Jigen and Kexue have developed the notation of fractional semigroup to characterize solution operator for fractional abstract linear systems (1.6) of order 0<α<1 and discussed the well-posedness of the abstract Cauchy problem (1.6). It is shown that in [16] the problem (1.6) is well-posed if and only if its coefficient operator A generates a fractional semigroup. The same authors have also investigated similar results in [17] for Riemann-Liouville type fractional evolution equations of order α(0,1).

    In terms of fractional anologue of strongly continuous cosine families, Kexue and Jigen in [18] and Mei et al. in [19] have developed an operator theory to study abstract Cauchy problems of order α(1,2) in terms of Caputo and generalized type fractional differentiation operators, respectively and proposed a generation theorem for exponentially bounded fractional solution operators-fractional strongly continuous sine families. Furthermore, in [20], Mei et al. have studied a new characteristic property of the Mittag-Leffler function Eα(atα), aR with α(1,2) and motivated by this property developed a new notion, named α-order cosine function. It is interesting to note that in [21] Mei et al. have introduced a novel one-parameter algebraic functional equation for fractional resolvent families, and using this functional equation, all fractional resolvent families except C0-semigroups can be obtained from this equation.

    In addition, a subordination principle can be used to analyse fractional evolution equations, which is a useful tool to connect solution operators in the classical and fractional sense. Using a subordination formula, it is possible to construct new solutions from known solutions, e.g., solutions of fractional-order evolution equations from the solutions of the classical diffusion or wave equations (see [22,23,24,25]).

    A strong inspiration for the study of perturbation theory for strongly continuous operator families, particularly, for cosine families comes from the fact that they have been proven to be useful tools for evolution equations in modeling many physical phenomena. The perturbed wave equation is a typical linear hyperbolic second-order partial differential equation which naturally arises when modeling phenomena of continuum mechanics such as sound, light, water or other kind of waves in acoustics, electro-magnetics, elasticity and fluid dynamics, etc. (see [26]).

    The perturbation theory of linear operators in a Banach space has been explored to a considerable extent, most notably by Phillips [27], Travis & Webb [28] and Lutz [29]. In [27], Phillips intended to perturb the infinitesimal generator by adding to it a linear bounded operator and investigating some perturbation results for infinitesimal generators of strongly continuous C0-semigroups. In [28], Travis and Webb have proposed sufficient conditions for perturbed cosine operator families. In [29], Lutz has first studied the implication for the homogeneous initial value problem associated with the infinitesimal generator of the cosine function generated by bounded time-varying perturbations:

    {d2dt2u(t)=(A+B(t))u(t),tR,u(0)=u0,u(0)=u1, (1.7)

    where B:R+L(X) is a continuously differentiable function on R+.

    In her dissertation, Bazhlekova showed that perturbation theory does not work in general for the solution operators of the perturbed abstract Cauchy problem with 0<α<1 (see counterexample in [14]). In the special case, a treatment of the perturbation problem from the point of view of the subjacent fractional abstract Cauchy problem in the case of 0<α<1 was given by El-Borai [30]. In the general case, however, perturbation properties are true for the fractional analogue of an abstract initial value problem (1.7) with 1<α<2 which has been established by Bazhlekova in [31]. She has proposed to uniquely determine a classical solution of the following homogeneous abstract Cauchy problem for the fractional evolution equation with Caputo derivative by time-dependent perturbations:

    {(Dα0+u)(t)=(A+B(t))u(t),t>0,u(0)=u0,u(0)=0,

    where B:R+L(X) is a continuous function on R+.

    Furthermore, the fractional analogue of the inhomogeneous abstract problem (1.7) was developed by Ahmadova et al. in [32] and the results presented in [32] extend those of [29,31] in several aspects. The authors in [32] have shown that the inhomogeneous abstract Cauchy problem with the infinitesimal generator A of fractional cosine families remains uniformly well-posed under bounded time-varying perturbations:

    {(Dα0+u)(t)=(A+B(t))u(t)+h(t),t>0,u(0)=u0,u(0)=u1,

    where B:R+L(X) and h:R+X are continuously differentiable functions on R+.

    While there are several papers on operator theory for fractional evolution equations (for example, see [15,16,17,18,33]), there are few papers [30,31,32] dealing with perturbation theory for fractional abstract Cauchy problems. The lack of perturbation properties of the fractional strongly contionuous operator functions motivates us to develop new results on perturbation theory for evolution equations of fractional-order. The pioneering work on this subject in the classical sense was done by Phillips [27], Lutz [29] and Travis & Webb [28] and our development follows these approaches. Therefore, the main contributions of our work are described in detail below:

    1) We propose some new perturbation results for fractional strongly continuous cosine families in a Banach space X;

    2) We establish sufficient conditions such that A is the infinitesimal generator of a fractional strongly continuous cosine (sine) family in a Banach space X, and B is a bounded linear operator in X, then A+B is also the infinitesimal generator of a fractional strongly continuous cosine (sine) family in X;

    3)Depending on commutativity condition of linear bounded operators, we obtain the elegant analytical representation formulas for perturbed Mittag-Leffler type functions generated by A+B where A,BL(X) are permutable and nonpermutable linear bounded operators;

    4) We present an example in the context of a one-dimensional fractional perturbed wave equation to demonstrate the applicability of our theoretical results and we give some comparisons with the existing literature.

    The paper contains significant innovations on the perturbation theory for fractional cosine families and is organized as follows. Section 2 is a preparatory section in which we recall the main definitions and results from functional analysis, fractional calculus, and operator theory of linear operators. In Section 3, we investigate some perturbation properties for fractional strongly continuous cosine families. We intend to perturb the infinitesimal generator by adding to it a linear bounded operator. Furthermore, we propose the elegant representation formulas for perturbed fractional uniformly continuous cosine families in a Banach space X. In Section 4, we present an example in the context of one-dimensional perturbed fractional wave equation to demonstrate the applicability of our theoretical results and we give some comparisons with existing ones. In Section 5, we give an overview of our main contributions and point out some open problems in the spirit of this research.

    We start this section by briefly introducing the fundamentals of fractional calculus, the essential structure of an operator theory for strongly continuous cosine families and their fractional analogues. For the more salient details on these subjects, see the textbooks [2,34,35].

    Let R+=[0,) and N denote the set of natural numbers with N0=N{0}. Let X be a Banach space equipped with the norm . We donote by L(X) the Banach algebra of all bounded linear operators on X and becomes a Banach space with regard to the norm T=sup{Tx:x1}, for any TL(X). Let D(A) be the domain of A and ρ(A) be the resolvent set of A. The identity and zero operators on X are denoted by IL(X) and 0L(X), respectively.

    We will use the following functional spaces [2] through the paper:

    C(R+,X) denotes the Banach space of continuous X-valued functions g:R+X equipped with an infinity norm g=suptR+g(t);

    Cn(R+,X), nN denotes the Banach space of n-times continuously differentiable X-valued functions defined by

    Cn(R+,X)={gCn(R+,X):g(n)C(R+,X),nN}

    and equipped with an infinity norm g=nk=0suptR+g(k)(t). In addition, Cn(R+,X)C(R+,X), nN;

    Lp(R+,X) denotes the Banach space of all (equivalence classes of) Bochner-measurable X-valued functions g:R+X which are integrable and normed by gLp=(R+g(s)pds)1/p< where 1p<;

    ● The Sobolev spaces can be defined in the following way [14] for nN and 1p<:

    Wn,p(R+,X):={ϕ:hLp(R+,X):ϕ(t)=n1k=0cktkk!+tn1(n1)!h(t),tR+}.

    Note that ck=ϕ(n)(0) and ϕ(n)(t)=h(t).

    Let f:R+R be an integrable scalar-valued function and let g:R+X be a continuous X-valued function. We denote by

    (fg)(t)=t0f(ts)g(s)ds,tR+.

    the convolution operator of f and g. Furthermore, if T:R+L(X) is a strongly continuous operator-valued map, we define

    (Tg)(t)=t0T(ts)g(s)ds=t0T(s)g(ts)ds,tR+. (2.1)

    Definition 2.1. The Riemann-Liouville fractional integral of order α>0 for a function fL1(R+,X) is defined by

    (Iαtf)(t)=(gαf)(t)=1Γ(α)t0(ts)α1f(s)ds,t>0. (2.2)

    By setting (I0tf)(t)=f(t). For the sake of brevity we use the following notation for α0:

    gα(t)={tα1Γ(α),t>0,0,t0,

    where Γ:R+R is the well-known Euler's gamma function. Note that g0(t)=0, since 1Γ(0)=0. These functions satisfy the semigroup property

    (gαgβ)(t)=gα+β(t). (2.3)

    Moreover, the Riemann-Liouville fractional integral operators {Iαt}α0 satisfy the semigroup property

    IαtIβt=Iα+βt,α,β0. (2.4)

    Definition 2.2. The Caputo fractional derivative of a function fCn(R+,X) with fractional order n1<α<n, nN is defined by

    (Dα0+f)(t)=InαtDntf(t),t>0.

    In particular, for α(1,2), the definition is given by for fC2(R+,X):

    (Dα0+f)(t)=(g2αf)(t)=1Γ(2α)t0(ts)1αf(s)ds,t>0.

    Remark 2.1. Since f is an abstract function with values in X, the integrals which appear in Definition 2.1 and 2.2 are taken in Bochner's sense.

    The Mittag-Leffler function is a natural generalization of the exponential function, first proposed as a single parameter function of one variable by using an infinite series [36].

    Definition 2.3. [36] The classical Mittag-Leffler function is defined by

    Eα(t)=k=0tkΓ(kα+1),α>0,tR. (2.5)

    The two-parameter Mittag-Leffler function is given by

    Eα,β(t)=k=0tkΓ(kα+β),α>0,βR,tR. (2.6)

    It is important to note that

    Eα,1(t)=Eα(t),E1(t)=exp(t),tR.

    Strongly continuous cosine and sine families of linear operators

    Definition 2.4. See reference[37] 1) A one parameter family {C(t;A),tR}L(X) into itself is called a strongly continuous cosine family in the Banach space X if and only if

    C(0;A)=I;

    C(s+t;A)+C(st;A)=2C(s;A)C(t;A) for all s,tR;

    C(t;A)x is continuous in t on R for each fixed xX.

    2) The corresponding strongly continuous sine family {S(t;A),tR}L(X) is defined by

    S(t;A)x=t0C(s;A)xds,xX,tR. (2.7)

    3) The linear operator A:D(A)XX defined by

    Ax=2limt0+C(t;A)xxt2,xD(A)={xX:C(;A)xC2(R,X)}, (2.8)

    is called the infinitesimal generator of a strongly continuous cosine family {C(t;A),tR} and D(A) is a domain of A. It is known that the infinitesimal generator A is closed, densely-defined operator on X.

    Theorem 2.1 (See reference [37]). Let {C(t;A):tR} be a strongly continuous cosine family in X satisfying C(t;A)Meω|t| for all tR and let A be the infinitesimal generator of {C(t;A):tR}. Then for Re(λ)>ω, λ2 is in the resolvent set of A and

    λR(λ2;A)x=0eλtC(t;A)xdt,xX, (2.9)
    R(λ2;A)x=0eλtS(t;A)xdt,xX. (2.10)

    Definition 2.5. See reference [33] Let α(1,2). A family Cα(;A):R+L(X) of all bounded linear operators on X is called a fractional strongly continuous cosine family if it satisfies the following hypotheses:

    Cα(t;A) is strongly continuous for all tR+ and Cα(0;A)=I;

    Cα(s;A)Cα(t;A)=Cα(t;A)Cα(s;A) for all s,tR+;

    ● The functional equation

    Cα(s;A)IαtCα(t;A)IαsCα(s;A)Cα(t;A)=IαtCα(t;A)IαsCα(s;A)holdsforalls,tR+. (2.11)

    The closed linear operator A is defined by

    Ax:=Γ(α+1)limt0+Cα(t;A)xxtα,xD(A):={xX:Cα(;A)C2(R+,X)}, (2.12)

    where A is the infinitesimal generator of the fractional strongly continuous cosine family {Cα(t;A):tR+}.

    Definition 2.6. See reference [33] A fractional strongly continuous cosine family {Cα(t;A):tR+} is said to be exponentially bounded if there exists constants M1, ω0 such that

    Cα(t;A)Meωt,tR+. (2.13)

    Definition 2.7. See reference [33] The fractional strongly continuous sine family Sα(;A):R+L(X) associated with Cα is defined by

    Sα(t;A)x=t0Cα(s;A)xds,xX,tR+. (2.14)

    This implies that

    D1tSα(t;A)x=Cα(t;A)x,xX,tR+. (2.15)

    Definition 2.8. See reference [33] The fractional strongly continuous Riemann-Liouville family Tα(;A):R+L(X) associated with Cα is defined by

    Tα(t;A)x=Iα1tCα(t;A)x=t0gα1(ts)Cα(s;A)xds,xX,tR+. (2.16)

    Theorem 2.2 (See reference [33]). Let {Cα(t;A):tR+} be a fractional strongly continuous cosine family in X satisfying (2.13) and let A be the infinitesimal generator of {Cα(t;A):tR+}. Then for Re(λ)>ω, λαρ(A), α(1,2), the following relations hold true:

    λα1R(λα;A)x=0eλtCα(t;A)xdt,xX, (2.17)
    λα2R(λα;A)x=0eλtSα(t;A)xdt,xX, (2.18)
    R(λα;A)x=0eλtTα(t;A)xdt,xX. (2.19)

    In many concrete situations, the fractional evolution equation is given as a sum of several terms that have various physical meanings and various mathematical properties. While the mathematical analysis for each term may be straightforward, it is not entirely clear what happens after the summation. In the context of perturbed generators of fractional cosine families, we take this as a starting point. To study some perturbation results for fractional strongly continuous cosine families, we first prove the following lemma which establishes a connection between the resolvents of cosine (sine) families generated by A and A+B, respectively.

    Note that the following lemma and corollary are true in more general case for closed linear operators and play an important role in the proof of Theorem 3.1.

    Lemma 3.1. Let A be a closed linear operator on X to X and suppose BL(X) is such that BR(λα;A)=θ<1 for some λαρ(A), α(1,2). Then, A+B is a closed linear operator with domain D(A) and R(λα;A+B) exists and

    R(λα;A+B)=n=0R(λα;A)[BR(λα;A)]n. (3.1)

    Furthermore,

    R(λα;A+B)R(λα;A)R(λα;A)θ(1θ)1. (3.2)

    Proof. Obviously, A+B is a closed linear operator with domain D(A). Since BR(λα;A)=θ<1, we note that

    Rn=0R(λα;A)[BR(λα;A)]n=R(λα;A)[IBR(λα;A)]1,

    and hence that

    [λαI(A+B)]R=[IBR(λα;A)][IBR(λα;A)]1=I.

    Moreover, the range of R is precisely D(A) since the range of [IBR(λα;A)]1 is X. Therefore, given xD(A) there exists a y such that x=Ry. Therefore, we attain that

    R[λαI(A+B)]x=R[λαI(A+B)]Ry=Ry=x,

    so that R is both a left and a right inverse of [λαI(A+B)]. The bound R(λα;A+B)R(λα;A) comes directly from the expansion (3.1):

    R(λα;A+B)R(λα;A)=n=1R(λα;A)[BR(λα;A)]nR(λα;A)n=0BR(λα;A)nBR(λα;A)R(λα;A)(1BR(λα;A))1BR(λα;A)=R(λα;A)θ(1θ)1.

    The proof is complete.

    Corollary 3.1. Let A be a closed linear operator on X to X and suppose BL(X) is such that BR(λα;A)=θ<1 for some λαρ(A), α(1,2). Then, A+B is a closed linear operator with domain D(A) and λα1R(λα;A+B), λα2R(λα;A+B) exist and

    λα1R(λα;A+B)=n=0λα1R(λα;A)[BR(λα;A)]n, (3.3)
    λα2R(λα;A+B)=n=0λα2R(λα;A)[BR(λα;A)]n. (3.4)

    Furthermore,

    λα1R(λα;A+B)λα1R(λα;A)λα1R(λα;A)θ(1θ)1, (3.5)
    λα2R(λα;A+B)λα2R(λα;A)λα2R(λα;A)θ(1θ)1. (3.6)

    In the following theorem, we impose sufficient conditions such that A is the infinitesimal generator of a fractional strongly continuous cosine (sine) family in X, and B is a bounded linear operator in X, then A+B is also the infinitesimal generator of a fractional strongly continuous cosine (sine) family in X.

    Theorem 3.1. Let A be the infinitesimal generator of the fractional strongly continuous cosine family {Cα(t;A):tR+} with (2.13), and let {Sα(t;A):tR+} denote the fractional strongly continuous sine family associated with Cα where α(1,2). Furthermore, suppose that BL(X). Then, fractional strongly continuous families of linear bounded operators Cα(;A+B),Sα(;A+B):R+L(X) generated by A+B (defined on D(A)) can be represented by the series expansion:

    Cα(t;A+B)x:=n=0Cα,n(t;A)x,xX, (3.7)
    Sα(t;A+B)x:=n=0Sα,n(t;A)x,xX, (3.8)

    where for tR+, xX and nN,

    Cα,0(t;A)x:=Cα(t;A)x,Sα,0(t;A)x:=Sα(t;A)x,Cα,n(t;A)x:=t0Tα(ts;A)BCα,n1(s;A)xds, (3.9)
    Sα,n(t;A)x:=t0Tα(ts;A)BSα,n1(s;A)xds. (3.10)

    Proof. From (2.13), it follows that Sα(t;A)Mteωt. This implies that Cα(t;A) and Sα(t;A) are strongly continuous on R+. Moreover, by using the formula (2.16), we obtain:

    Tα(t;A)t0gα1(ts)Cα(s;A)dsMeωtt0(ts)α2Γ(α1)ds=Meωtgα(t),tR+. (3.11)

    Then, we suppose Cα,n(t;A) and Sα,n(t;A) are strongly continuous on R+ and it is true that for nN0:

    Cα,n(t;A)Mn+1Bneωtgnα+1(t), (3.12)
    Sα,n(t;A)Mn+1Bneωtgnα+2(t). (3.13)

    Firstly, we start with the formula (3.12). Then, Tα(ts;A)BCα,n(s;A) will be strongly continuous on [0,t] such that the integral defining Cα,n+1(t;A) exists in the strong topology. Moreover, in the case of (3.12), this is true by our remark above for n=0. By mathematical induction principle, we verify [32]:

    Cα,n+1(t;A)t0Tα(ts;A)BCα,n(s;A)dsMn+2Bn+1t0gα(ts)ew(ts)eωsgnα+1(s)ds=Mn+2Bn+1eωtg(n+1)α+1(t),tR+. (3.14)

    The analogues procedure gives the bound for Sα,n(t;A), tR+, as follows:

    Sα,n+1(t;A)t0Tα(ts;A)BSα,n(s;A)dsMn+2Bn+1t0gα(ts)ew(ts)eωsgnα+2(s)ds=Mn+2Bn+1eωtg(n+1)α+2(t),tR+. (3.15)

    Finally, for t1<t2, we have

    Cα,n+1(t2;A)xCα,n+1(t1;A)xt10[Tα(t2s)Tα(t1s)]BCα,n(s;A)xds+t2t1Tα(t2s)BCα,n(s;A)xds,xX, (3.16)
    Sα,n+1(t2;A)xSα,n+1(t1;A)xt10[Tα(t2s)Tα(t1s)]BSα,n(s;A)xds+t2t1Tα(t2s)BSα,n(s;A)xds,xX. (3.17)

    As t1,t2t0, the integrands in the first terms on the right of (3.16), (3.17) to zero boundedly and the integrands of the second terms of (3.16), (3.17) are bounded. Therefore, Cα,n+1(t;A)x, Sα,n+1(t;A)x are strongly continuous on R+ for each fixed xX. By induction, Cα,n(t;A)x, Sα,n(t;A)x are well-defined, strongly continuous, and satisfying (3.12) and (3.13), respectively, for nN0. Hence, the fractional-order families Cα(t;A+B), Sα(t;A+B) are uniformly convergent on compact subsets of R+ with respect to the operator norm topology. Moreover, the series are majorized by the following series expansions [32]:

    ||Cα(t;A+B)||MeωtEα(M||B||tα),tR+, (3.18)
    ||Sα(t;A+B)||MeωttEα,2(M||B||tα),tR+. (3.19)

    Next, we claim that for Cα,n(t;A)x, nN for sufficiently large Re(λ) which holds the condition BR(λα;A)<1 (it follows from the asymptotic expansion and continuity of the Mittag-Leffler function, see [14], Theorem 2.5, pp. 21):

    0eλtCα,n(t;A)xdt=λα1R(λα;A)[BR(λα;A)]nx,xX. (3.20)

    With the help of the mathematical induction principle, well-known Fubini's theorem for iterated integrals, commutative property of convolution operator (2.1) and relation (2.17), for n=1, we verify that

    0eλtCα,1(t;A)xdt=0eλtt0Tα(ts;A)BCα,0(s;A)xdsdt=0t0eλtTα(ts;A)BCα(s;A)xdsdt=0t0eλtTα(s;A)BCα(ts;A)xdsdt=0seλtTα(s;A)BCα(ts;A)xdtds=00eλ(s+t)Tα(s;A)BCα(t;A)xdtds=0eλsTα(s;A)B0eλtCα(t;A)xdtds=0eλtTα(t;A)Bλα1R(λα;A)xdt=λα1R(λα;A)BR(λα;A)x,xX.

    In a recursive way, for n=2, we obtain that

    0eλtCα,2(t;A)xdt=0eλtt0Tα(ts;A)BCα,1(s;A)xdsdt=0t0eλtTα(ts;A)BCα,1(s;A)xdsdt=0t0eλtTα(s;A)BCα,1(ts;A)xdsdt=0seλtTα(s;A)BCα,1(ts;A)xdtds=00eλ(t+s)Tα(s;A)BCα,1(t;A)xdtds=0eλsTα(s;A)B0eλtCα,1(t;A)xdtds=0eλtTα(t;A)Bλα1R(λα;A)BR(λα;A)xdt=λα1R(λα;A)[BR(λα;A)]2x,xX.

    Therefore, the relation (3.20) is true for arbitrary nN. Then, by the formulae (3.12), (3.18) and Corollary 3.1, we derive that for Cα(t;A+B)x, tR+, for chosen sufficiently large Re(λ) which holds the condition BR(λα;A)<1,

    λα1R(λα;A+B)x=0eλtCα(t;A+B)xdt=n=0λα1R(λα;A)[BR(λα;A)]nx,xX. (3.21)

    Therefore, for sufficiently large Re(λ), the Laplace transforms of both Cα(t;A+B) and n=0Cα,n(t;A) are equal and hence by the uniqueness theorem, these two functions are equal.

    In a similar way, by using the following formula (3.22), Corollary 3.1 and relations (2.18), (3.13), (3.19) for nN and sufficiently large Re(λ) which holds the condition BR(λα;A)<1:

    0eλtSα,n(t;A)xdt=λα2R(λα;A)[BR(λα;A)]nx,xX, (3.22)

    we can derive the corresponding result for fractional strongly continuous sine family:

    λα2R(λα;A+B)x=0eλtSα(t;A+B)xdt=n=0λα2R(λα;A)[BR(λα;A)]nx,xX. (3.23)

    The proof is complete.

    Remark 3.1. Our results coincide with the classical ones whenever α=2 [29]. It should be note that in the case of α=2, Tα(t;A) and Sα(t;A) coincide with the strongly continuous sine function S(t;A) and correspondingly, Cα(t;A) coincide with the strongly continuous cosine function C(t;A). Furthermore, for α=2, two-parameter Mittag-Leffler type functions are converting to the hyperbolic cosine and sine functions, respectively:

    E2,1(M||B||t2)=k=0Mk||B||kt2k(2k)!=cosh(M||B||t),tR,tE2,2(M||B||t2)=k=0Mk||B||kt2k+1(2k+1)!=1M||B||sinh(M||B||t),tR.

    Theorem 3.2. Let A be the infinitesimal generator of the strongly continuous cosine family \left\lbrace C(t; A): t \in \mathbb{R}\right\rbrace with \|C(t; A)\|\leq Me^{\omega |t|} for all t \in \mathbb{R} , and let \left\lbrace S(t; A): t \in \mathbb{R}\right\rbrace denote the strongly continuous sine family associated with C . Furthermore, suppose that B\in \mathcal{L}(X) . Then, strongly continuous families of linear bounded operators C(\cdot; A+B), S(\cdot; A+B)\in \mathcal{L}(X) generated by A+B (defined on D(A) ) can be represented by the series expansion:

    \begin{align*} &C(t;A+B)x:= \sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}C_{n}(t, A)x, \quad x \in X, \\ &S(t;A+B)x:= \sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}S_{n}(t;A)x, \quad x\in X, \end{align*}

    where for t\in \mathbb{R} , x\in X and n \in \mathbb{N} ,

    \begin{align} &C_{0}(t;A)x:= C(t;A)x, \quad S_{0}(t;A)x:= S(t;A)x, \\ &C_{n}(t;A)x:= \int\limits_{0}^{t}S(t-s;A)BC_{n-1}(s;A)x\mathrm{d}s, \end{align} (3.24)
    \begin{align} &S_{n}(t;A)x:= \int\limits_{0}^{t}S(t-s;A)BS_{n-1}(s;A)x\mathrm{d}s. \end{align} (3.25)

    Moreover, Travis and Webb have proved anlogues results in [28] for the case of \alpha = 2 . The authors in [28] have used instead of (3.24) the following recursion formula:

    \begin{equation} C_{n}(t;A)x:= \int\limits_{0}^{t}C(t-s;A)BS_{n-1}(s;A)x\mathrm{d}s, \quad x \in X, \end{equation} (3.26)

    which can be proven via integrating (formally) by parts formula in (3.24).

    We end this chapter by adding some results on fractional analogues of uniformly continuous operator cosine and sine functions which are Mittag-Leffler type operator-valued functions generated by A+B where A, B are linear bounded operators in a Banach space X .

    It is known that if C_{\alpha}(\cdot; A): \mathbb{R}_{+} \to \mathcal{L}(X) is fractional uniformly continuous cosine function then there is an A\in \mathcal{L}(X) with

    \begin{equation} C_{\alpha}(t;A) = E_{\alpha}(At^{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)}, \quad t \in \mathbb{R}_{+}. \end{equation} (3.27)

    Moreover, the corresponding fractional uniformly continuous sine and Riemann-Liouville families S_{\alpha}(\cdot; A) , T_{\alpha}(\cdot; A): \mathbb{R}_{+} \to \mathcal{L}(X) are defined by

    \begin{equation} S_{\alpha}(t;A) = tE_{\alpha, 2}(At^{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)}, \quad t \in \mathbb{R}_{+}, \end{equation} (3.28)

    and

    \begin{equation} T_{\alpha}(t;A) = t^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(At^{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}, \quad t \in \mathbb{R}_{+}. \end{equation} (3.29)

    In this case, we have A = \Gamma(\alpha+1)\lim\limits_{t \to 0_{+}}\frac{C_{\alpha}(t; A)-I}{t^{\alpha}} in the uniform operator topology and the domain D(A) coincides with the state space X i.e., D(A) = X .

    For t\in \mathbb{R}_{+} , x\in X and n\in \mathbb{N} , we define the following sequence of operator-valued functions via a recursive way:

    \begin{align*} &C_{\alpha, 0}(t;A)x:= C_{\alpha}(t;A)x = E_{\alpha}(At^{\alpha})x, \\ &C_{\alpha, n}(t;A)x:= \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})B C_{\alpha, n-1}(s;A)x\mathrm{d}s, \end{align*}

    and

    \begin{align*} &S_{\alpha, 0}(t;A)x:= S_{\alpha}(t;A)x = tE_{\alpha, 2}(At^{\alpha})x, \\ &S_{\alpha, n}(t;A)x:= \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})B S_{\alpha, n-1}(s;A)x\mathrm{d}s. \end{align*}

    Therefore, in this case, fractional uniformly continuous families of linear bounded operators C_{\alpha}(\cdot; A+B), S_{\alpha}(\cdot; A+B):\mathbb{R}_{+}\to \mathcal{L}(X) become the perturbation of a Mittag-Leffler type operator-valued functions defined on X :

    \begin{align*} &C_{\alpha}(t;A+B)x = E_{\alpha}((A+B)t^{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}C_{\alpha, n}(t;A)x, \quad x\in X, \\ &S_{\alpha}(t;A+B)x = tE_{\alpha, 2}((A+B)t^{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}S_{\alpha, n}(t;A)x, \quad x\in X. \end{align*}

    It is interesting to note that depending of commutativity condition of linear bounded operators A, B \in \mathcal{L}(X) , we can derive the following elegant representation formulas for the perturbation of fractional uniformly continuous cosine and sine families. First, we obtain closed-form representations for perturbation of Mittag-Leffler type functions generated by A+B , where A, B \in \mathcal{L}(X) are nonpermutable linear bounded operators in a Banach space X .

    Theorem 3.3. Let A, B \in \mathcal{L}(X) with non-zero commutator [A, B]:= AB-BA\neq 0 . Then, the perturbation of Mittag-Leffler type operator-valued functions C_{\alpha}(\cdot; A+B), S_{\alpha}(\cdot; A+B): \mathbb{R}_{+} \to \mathcal{L}\left(X \right) can be represented by

    \begin{equation} C_{\alpha}(t;A+B)x = E_{\alpha}((A+B)t^{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+1)}x, \quad x\in X, \end{equation} (3.30)

    and

    \begin{equation} S_{\alpha}(t;A+B)x = tE_{\alpha, 2}((A+B)t^{\alpha})x = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+2)}x, \quad x\in X, \end{equation} (3.31)

    where Q_{k, n}^{A, B} \in \mathcal{L}\left(X\right) , k, n\in \mathbb{N}_{0} is given by

    \begin{align*} Q_{k, 0}^{A, B}:= A^{k}, \quad Q_{k, n}^{A, B}:= \sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}B Q_{m, n-1}^{A, B}, \quad Q_{0, n}^{A, B}:= B^{n}. \end{align*}

    Proof. By making use of the definition of fractional uniformly continuous cosine function C_{\alpha}(\cdot; A):\mathbb{R}_{+} \to \mathcal{L}\left(X\right) (3.27), we derive the basis case for n = 0 :

    \begin{equation*} C_{\alpha, 0}(t;A) = E_{\alpha}(At^{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)} = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 0}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)}, \quad Q_{k, 0}^{A, B}:= A^{k}, \quad k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}. \end{equation*}

    For n = 1 , by using the well-known Cauchy product formula and interchanging the order of summation and integration which is permissible in accordance with the uniform convergence of the series (3.27) and (3.29), we get:

    \begin{align*} C_{\alpha, 1}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t} (t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BC_{\alpha}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BA^{m}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+1)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BA^{m}\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BA^{m}\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, 0}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+1)}, \quad Q_{k, 1}^{A, B}:= \sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, 0}^{A, B}, \quad k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}. \end{align*}

    In a recursive way, for n = 2 , we derive that

    \begin{align*} C_{\alpha, 2}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BC_{\alpha, 1}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BQ_{m, 1}^{A, B}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+\alpha+1)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BQ_{m, 1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+2\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+1\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, 1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 2}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+1)}, \quad Q_{k, 2}^{A, B}:= \sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, 1}^{A, B}, \quad k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}. \end{align*}

    Eventually, for the n -th case, it yields that

    \begin{align*} C_{\alpha, n}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BC_{\alpha, n-1}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BQ_{m, n-1}^{A, B}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha+(n-1)\alpha}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+(n-1)\alpha+1)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BQ_{m, n-1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+n\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, n-1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+1)}, \quad Q_{k, n}^{A, B}:= \sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, n-1}^{A, B}, \quad k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}. \end{align*}

    Therefore, for a perturbation of Mittag-Leffler operator-valued function C_{\alpha}(\cdot; A+B):\mathbb{R}_{+}\to \mathcal{L}\left(X \right) , with the help of Cauchy product formula, we attain a desired result:

    C_{\alpha}(t;A+B)x = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 0}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)}x+\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+1)}x\\ +\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 2}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+1)}x+\ldots+\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+1)}x+\ldots\\ = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+1)}x\\ = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{k}Q_{k-n, n}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)}x\\ = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}(A+B)^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)}x\\ = E_{\alpha}((A+B)t^{\alpha})x, \quad x \in X.

    By making use of the definition of fractional uniformly continuous sine function S_{\alpha}(\cdot; A):\mathbb{R}_{+} \to \mathcal{L}\left(X\right) (3.28), we derive the basis case for n = 0 :

    \begin{equation*} S_{\alpha, 0}(t;A) = tE_{\alpha, 2}(At^{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)} = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 0}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)}, \quad Q_{k, 0}^{A, B}:= A^{k}, \quad k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}. \end{equation*}

    For n = 1 , by making use of the above calculations, the well-known Cauchy product formula and interchanging the order of summation and integration which is permissible in accordance with the uniform convergence of the series (3.28) and (3.29), we get:

    \begin{align*} S_{\alpha, 1}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BS_{\alpha}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BA^{m}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+2)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BA^{m}\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BA^{m}\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, 0}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+2)}, \quad Q_{k, 1}^{A, B}:= \sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, 0}^{A, B}, \quad k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}. \end{align*}

    In a recursive way, for n = 2 , we attain that

    \begin{align*} S_{\alpha, 2}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BS_{\alpha, 1}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BQ_{m, 1}^{A, B}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+\alpha+2)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BQ_{m, 1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+2\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+2\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, 1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 2}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+2)}, \quad Q_{k, 2}^{A, B}:= \sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, 1}^{A, B}, \quad k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}. \end{align*}

    Finally, for the n -th case, it follows that

    \begin{align*} S_{\alpha, n}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BS_{\alpha, n-1}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BQ_{m, n-1}^{A, B}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha+(n-1)\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+(n-1)\alpha+2)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}BQ_{m, n-1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+n\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, n-1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+2)}, \quad Q_{k, n}^{A, B}:= \sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}BQ_{m, n-1}^{A, B}, \quad k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}. \end{align*}

    Therefore, for a perturbation of Mittag-Leffler type operator-valued function S_{\alpha}(\cdot; A+B):\mathbb{R}_{+}\to \mathcal{L}\left(X \right) , by using the Cauchy product formula, we obtain a desired result:

    S_{\alpha}(t;A+B)x = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 0}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)}x+\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 1}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+2)}x\\ +\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, 2}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+2)}x+\ldots+\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+2)}x+\ldots\\ = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+2)}x\\ = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{k}Q_{k-n, n}^{A, B}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)}x\\ = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}(A+B)^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)}x\\ = tE_{\alpha, 2}((A+B)t^{\alpha})x, \quad x \in X,

    where we have used that the following relation which is a generalization of binomial theorem for nonpermutable linear bounded operators A, B\in \mathcal{L}(X)

    \begin{equation*} \sum\limits_{n = 0}^{k}Q_{k-n, n}^{A, B} = (A+B)^{k}, \end{equation*}

    where Q_{k, n}^{A, B} \in \mathcal{L}\left(X\right) , k, n\in \mathbb{N}_{0} is given by

    \begin{align*} Q_{k, 0}^{A, B}:= A^{k}, \quad Q_{k, n}^{A, B}:= \sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k-m}B Q_{m, n-1}^{A, B}, \quad Q_{0, n}^{A, B}:= B^{n}. \end{align*}

    The proof is complete.

    Remark 3.2. Further, it is interesting to note that the operator (matrix) construction Q_{k, n}^{A, B} , k, n\in \mathbb{N}_{0} is satisfying the following crucial property which is a generalization of the well-known Pascal rule for nonpermutable linear bounded operators (matrices):

    \begin{equation*} Q_{k, n}^{A, B} = AQ_{k-1, n}^{A, B}+BQ_{k, n-1}^{A, B}, \quad k, n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}. \end{equation*}

    To get more information regarding the properties of Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\in \mathcal{L}\left(X\right) , k, n\in \mathbb{N}_{0} , we refer to [38,39].

    Secondly, we attain analytical representation formulas for perturbation of Mittag-Leffler type functions generated by A+B , where A, B \in \mathcal{L}(X) are permutable linear bounded operators in a Banach space X .

    Theorem 3.4. Let A, B \in \mathcal{L}(X) with zero commutator [A, B]:= AB-BA = 0 . Then, the perturbation of Mittag-Leffler type operator-valued functions C_{\alpha}(\cdot; A+B), S_{\alpha}(\cdot; A+B): \mathbb{R}_{+} \to \mathcal{L}\left(X \right) can be represented by

    \begin{equation} C_{\alpha}(t;A+B)x = E_{\alpha}((A+B)t^{\alpha})x = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+n}{n}A^{k}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+1)}x, \quad x \in X, \end{equation} (3.32)

    and

    \begin{equation} S_{\alpha}(t;A+B)x = tE_{\alpha, 2}((A+B)t^{\alpha})x = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+n}{n}A^{k}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+2)}x, \quad x \in X. \end{equation} (3.33)

    Proof. By making use of the definition of fractional uniformly continuous cosine function C_{\alpha}(\cdot; A):\mathbb{R}_{+} \to \mathcal{L}\left(X\right) (3.27), we derive the basis case for n = 0 :

    \begin{equation*} C_{\alpha, 0}(t;A) = E_{\alpha}(At^{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)} = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+0}{0}A^{k}B^{0}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)}. \end{equation*}

    For n = 1 , by using the condition AB = BA , well-known Cauchy product formula and interchanging the order of summation and integration which is permissible in accordance with the uniform convergence of the series (3.28) and (3.29), we get:

    \begin{align*} C_{\alpha, 1}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BC_{\alpha}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k+m}B\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+1)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}A^{k}B\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}(k+1)A^{k}B\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+1}{1}A^{k}B\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+1)}. \end{align*}

    In a recursive way, for n = 2 , we derive that

    \begin{align*} C_{\alpha, 2}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BC_{\alpha, 1}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}B\binom{m+1}{1}A^{m}B\int\limits\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+\alpha+1)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}\binom{m+1}{1}A^{k+m}B^{2}\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+2\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+2\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}\binom{m+1}{1}A^{k}B^{2}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+2}{2}A^{k}B^{2}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+1)}. \end{align*}

    Eventually, for the n -th case, it yields that

    \begin{align*} C_{\alpha, n}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BC_{\alpha, n-1}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}B\binom{m+n-1}{n-1}A^{m}B^{n-1}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha+(n-1)\alpha}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+(n-1)\alpha+1)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}\binom{m+n-1}{n-1}A^{k+m}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+n\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}\binom{m+n-1}{n-1}A^{k}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+1)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+n}{n}A^{k}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+1)}. \end{align*}

    Therefore, for a perturbation of Mittag-Leffler operator-valued function C_{\alpha}(\cdot; A+B):\mathbb{R}_{+}\to \mathcal{L}\left(X \right) , by using well-known Cauchy product formula and binomial theorem, we attain a desired result:

    \begin{align*} C_{\alpha}(t;A+B)x& = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+0}{0}A^{k}B^{0}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)}x+\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+1}{1}A^{k}B\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+1)}x\\ &+\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+2}{2}A^{k}B^{2}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+1)}x+\ldots+\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+n}{n}A^{k}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+1)}x+\ldots\\& = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+n}{n}A^{k}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+1)}x\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{k}\binom{k}{n}A^{k-n}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)}x\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}(A+B)^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+1)}x\\ & = E_{\alpha}((A+B)t^{\alpha})x, \quad x \in X. \end{align*}

    By making use of the definition of fractional uniformly continuous sine function S_{\alpha}(\cdot; A):\mathbb{R}_{+} \to \mathcal{L}\left(X\right) (3.28), we derive the basis case for n = 0 :

    \begin{equation*} S_{\alpha, 0}(t;A) = tE_{\alpha, 2}(At^{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)} = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+0}{0}A^{k}B^{0}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)}. \end{equation*}

    For n = 1 , by making use of the above calculations, the well-known Cauchy product formula and interchanging the order of summation and integration which is permissible in accordance with the uniform convergence of the series (3.28) and (3.29), we get:

    \begin{align*} S_{\alpha, 1}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BS_{\alpha}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}B\binom{m+0}{0}A^{m}B^{0}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+2)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}\binom{m+0}{0}A^{k+m}B\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}\binom{m+0}{0}A^{k}B\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+1}{1}A^{k}B\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+2)}. \end{align*}

    In a recursive way, for n = 2 , we derive that

    \begin{align*} S_{\alpha, 2}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BS_{\alpha, 1}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}B\binom{m+1}{1}A^{m}B\int\limits\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+\alpha+2)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}\binom{m+1}{1}A^{k+m}B^{2}\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+2\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+2\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}\binom{m+1}{1}A^{k}B^{2}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+2}{2} A^{k}B^{2}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+2)}. \end{align*}

    Eventually, for the n -th case, it yields that

    \begin{align*} S_{\alpha, n}(t;A)& = \int\limits_{0}^{t}(t-s)^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}(A(t-s)^{\alpha})BS_{\alpha, n-1}(s;A)\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}A^{k}B\binom{m+n-1}{n-1}A^{m}B^{n-1}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{(t-s)^{k\alpha+\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha)}\frac{s^{m\alpha+(n-1)\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(m\alpha+(n-1)\alpha+2)}\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{\infty}\binom{m+n-1}{n-1}A^{k+m}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+m\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+m\alpha+n\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{m = 0}^{k}\binom{m+n-1}{n-1}A^{k}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha = n\alpha+2)}\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+n}{n}A^{k}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+2)}. \end{align*}

    Therefore, for a perturbation of Mittag-Leffler type operator-valued function S_{\alpha}(\cdot; A+B):\mathbb{R}_{+}\to \mathcal{L}\left(X \right) , by using the Cauchy product formula for double infinite series, we obtain a desired result:

    \begin{align*} S_{\alpha}(t;A+B)x& = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+0}{0}A^{k}B^{0}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)}x+\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+1}{1}A^{k}B\frac{t^{k\alpha+\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+\alpha+2)}x\\ &+\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+2}{2}A^{k}B^{2}\frac{t^{k\alpha+2\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2\alpha+2)}x+\ldots+\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+n}{n}A^{k}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+2)}x+\ldots\\& = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty}\binom{k+n}{n}A^{k}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+n\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+n\alpha+2)}x\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{k}\binom{k}{n}A^{k-n}B^{n}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)}x\\ & = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{\infty}(A+B)^{k}\frac{t^{k\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(k\alpha+2)}x\\ & = tE_{\alpha, 2}((A+B)t^{\alpha})x, \quad x \in X, \end{align*}

    where we have used the following well-known binomial theorem for permutable linear bounded operators A, B\in \mathcal{L}(X)

    \begin{equation*} \sum\limits_{n = 0}^{k}\binom{k}{n}A^{k-n}B^{n} = (A+B)^{k}. \end{equation*}

    The proof is complete.

    Remark 3.3. This case can also be obtained directly with the help the following property of the construction Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\in \mathcal{L}(X) , k, n \in \mathbb{N}_{0} which is valid for permutable linear bounded operators (in particular, matrices) A, B\in \mathcal{L}(X) :

    \begin{equation*} Q_{k, n}^{A, B} = \binom{k+n}{n}A^{k}B^{n}. \end{equation*}

    To get more information regarding this property of Q_{k, n}^{A, B}\in \mathcal{L}(X) , k, n \in \mathbb{N}_{0} , we refer to [38,39].

    Let us take X:= \mathbb{L}^{2}\left(0, 1 \right) and \mathbb{W}^{2, 2}\left(0, 1\right):=\Biggl\{\phi: \exists h \in \mathbb{L}^{2}\left(0, 1 \right) : \phi(t) = ct+t\ast h(t), \quad t\in \left(0, 1\right)\Biggr\} . Note that c = \phi^{\prime}(0) and \phi^{\prime \prime}(t) = h(t) for any t \in(0, 1) . We consider the following abstract initial-boundary value problem with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions for a one-dimensional perturbed fractional wave equation:

    \begin{equation} \begin{cases} \frac{\partial^{\alpha}u(x, t)}{\partial t^{\alpha}} = a^2\frac{\partial^{2}u(x, t)}{\partial x^{2}}+bu(x, t), \quad x \in (0, 1), \quad t > 0, \\ u(x, 0) = f(x), \quad \frac{\partial u(x, 0)}{\partial t} = g(x), \quad x\in (0, 1), \\ u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0, \quad t > 0, \end{cases} \end{equation} (4.1)

    where a, b\in \mathbb{R} and \frac{\partial^{\alpha}}{\partial t^{\alpha}} is a fractional partial differentiation operator of order \alpha\in(1, 2) in Caputo's sense which is defined by

    \begin{equation*} \frac{\partial^{\alpha}u(x, t)}{\partial t^{\alpha}} = \frac{1}{\Gamma(2-\alpha)}\int\limits_0^t(t-s)^{1-\alpha}\frac{\partial^{2}u(x, s)}{\partial s^{2}}\, \mathrm{d}s. \end{equation*}

    We define the following linear operator A:D(A)\subseteq X\to X as follows:

    \begin{align*} Au& = a^{2}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}u, \quad a \in \mathbb{R}, \quad u\in D(A), \end{align*}

    with the domain is given by

    \begin{equation*} D(A):=\left\lbrace u\in X: u \in \mathbb{W}^{2, 2}(0, 1), \quad u(0) = u(1) = 0 \right\rbrace. \end{equation*}

    Moreover, a linear bounded operator B: X\to X is defined by Bu = bu for all b\in \mathbb{R} and u\in X . It is obvious that A has eigenvalues of the form \lambda_{n}:= -a^{2}n^{2}\pi^{2} and the corresponding eigenvectors are given by u_{n}(x):= \sin(n \pi x) , x\in(0, 1) for any n\in \mathbb{N} .

    Therefore, if f(x) = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\infty}c_{n}\sin(n\pi x) and g(x) = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\infty}d_{n}\sin(n\pi x) , then by making use the formulas (3.32) and (3.33), the mild solution of abstract Cauchy problem (4.1) can be expressed with the help of perturbation of Mittag-Leffler type functions as below:

    \begin{align} u(x, t) = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\infty}\Big[E_{\alpha}\Big((b-a^2n^2\pi^{2})t^{\alpha}\Big)c_{n}\sin(n\pi x)+tE_{\alpha, 2}\Big((b-a^2n^2\pi^{2})t^{\alpha}\Big)d_{n}\sin(n\pi x)\Big], \end{align} (4.2)

    and it follows that A+B is the infinitesimal generator of strongly continuous fractional cosine C_{\alpha}(t; A+B) and sine S_{\alpha}(t; A+B) families, u(x, t) = C_{\alpha}(t; A+B)f(x)+S_{\alpha}(t; A+B)g(x) .

    It is interesting to note that in the case of \alpha = 2 , the mild solution of the following classical one-dimensional perturbed wave equation:

    \begin{equation} \begin{cases} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial t^{2}}u(x, t) = a^2\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}u(x, t)+bu(x, t), \quad x \in (0, 1), \quad t > 0, \\ u(x, 0) = f(x), \quad u_{t}(x, 0) = g(x), \quad x\in (0, 1), \\ u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0, \quad t > 0, \end{cases} \end{equation} (4.3)

    can be expressed with the help of perturbed cosine and sine functions as follows:

    u(x, t) = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\infty}\Big[\cos\Big(\sqrt{a^2n^2\pi^{2}-b}\cdot t\Big)c_{n}\sin(n\pi x)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{a^2n^2\pi^{2}-b}}\sin\Big(\sqrt{a^2n^2\pi^{2}-b}\cdot t\Big)d_{n}\sin(n\pi x)\Big]. (4.4)

    Remark 4.1. Furthermore, in the case of b = 0 , by using a method of seperating variables the explicit representation of a mild solution to perturbed fractional and classical wave Eqs (4.1) and (4.3), respectively can be represented with the Fourier coefficients which is studied in [40]

    \begin{align*} u(x, t) = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\infty}\Big[E_{\alpha}\Big(-a^2n^2\pi^{2}t^{\alpha}\Big)B_{n}(0)+tE_{\alpha, 2}\Big(-a^2n^2\pi^{2}t^{\alpha}\Big)B_{n}^{\prime}(0)\Big]\sin(n\pi x), \end{align*}

    and

    \begin{align} u(x, t) = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^{\infty}\Big[\cos(a n \pi t)B_{n}(0)+\frac{1}{a n \pi}\sin(a n \pi t)B_{n}^{\prime}(0)\Big]\sin(n\pi x). \end{align} (4.5)

    where B_{n}(0) and B_{n}^{\prime}(0) for n\in \mathbb{N} are Fourier coefficients of f(x) and g(x) , respectively, that is

    \begin{align*} B_{n}(0)& = 2\int\limits_{0}^{1}f(x)\sin (n \pi x)\mathrm{d}x, \\ B_{n}^{\prime}(0)& = 2\int\limits_{0}^{1}g(x)\sin (n \pi x)\mathrm{d}x. \end{align*}

    The goal of this paper is to develop some perturbation results for infinitesimal generators of fractional strongly continuous cosine families. That is, we establish sufficient conditions such that A is the infinitesimal generator of a fractional strongly continuous cosine (sine) family in a Banach space X , and B is a bounded linear operator in X , then A+B is also the infinitesimal generator of a fractional strongly continuous cosine (sine) family in X . Meanwhile, our results coincide with the classical ones whenever \alpha = 2 . Moreover, depending on commutativity condition of linear bounded operators, we derive the elegant analytical representation formulas for uniformly continuous perturbed fractional operator cosine and sine functions. At last, we present an illustrative example in the context of one-dimensional perturbed fractional wave equation to demonstrate the applicability of our theoretical results and we give some comparisons with the existing literature.

    We conclude this paper with some open problems concerning with the perturbation of infinitesimal generators of the fractional strongly continuous cosine families and their applications.

    ● If A is the infinitesimal generator of a fractional strongly continuous cosine (sine) family and B is a closed (unbounded) linear operator in a Banach space X , is A+B the infinitesimal generator of a fractional strongly continuous cosine (sine) family? This problem has been considered in the classical case for \alpha = 2 in [7,28,41], but for \alpha \in(1, 2) it still remains an unsolved problem. One way of obtaining these desired results is to apply the principle of subordination, which serves to construct new results in the fractional sense on the basis of the classical results.

    ● The attained perturbation results can be applied to derive the explicit representation in closed-form for solutions of the following fractional functional evolution equation with \alpha \in (1, 2) in a Banach space X based on [42]:

    \begin{equation*} \begin{cases} \left(\mathbb{D}^{\alpha}_{0_{+}}u\right) (t) = Au(t)+Bu(t-\tau), \quad t > 0, \quad \tau > 0, \\ u(t) = \varphi(t), \quad -\tau \leq t \leq 0, \end{cases} \end{equation*}

    where A:D(A)\subseteq X \to X is the infinitesimal generator of a fractional strongly continuous cosine (sine) family and B\in \mathcal{L}(X) . Moreover, \varphi:[-\tau, 0]\to X is a continuous function which is describing the prehistory of the system. Note that these ideas are new even for the classical case with \alpha = 2 .

    Therefore, all these questions and more are open for consideration in our future research.



    [1] Iwata Y, Sugimoto H, Kuwamura H (2006) Reparability limit of steel buildings based on the actual data of the Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, Proceedings of the 38th Joint Panel. Wind and Seismic effects, NIST Special Publication, 1057: 23-32.
    [2] McCormick J, Aburano H, Ikenaga M, et al. (2008) Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements, Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, China: Seismological Press Beijing, 12-17.
    [3] Kasai K, Fu Y, Watanabe A (1998) Passive control systems for seismic damage mitigation. J Struct Eng 124: 501-512. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:5(501) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:5(501)
    [4] Black CJ, Makris N, Aiken ID (2002) Component testing, stability analysis and characterization of buckling-restrained braces. PEER 2002/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
    [5] Fahnestock LA, Sause R, Ricles JM, et al. (2003) Ductility demands on buckling restrained braced frames under earthquake loading. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2: 255-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-003-0009-5 doi: 10.1007/s11803-003-0009-5
    [6] Sabelli R, Mahin S, Chang C (2003) Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 25: 655-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00175-X doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00175-X
    [7] Newell J, Uang CM, Benzoni G (2006) Subassemblage testing of core brace buckling restrained braces (G Series). TR-06/01, University of California, San Diego.
    [8] Tremblay R, Bolduc P, Neville R, et al. (2006) Seismic testing and performance of buckling restrained bracing systems. Can J Civil Eng 33: 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1139/l05-103 doi: 10.1139/l05-103
    [9] Naghavi M, Rahnavard R, Robert J (2019) Numerical evaluation of the hysteretic behavior of concentrically braced frames and buckling restrained brace frame systems. J Build Eng 22: 415-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.12.023 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.12.023
    [10] MacRae G, Kimura Y, Roeder C (2004) Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic behavior. J Struct Eng 130: 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:3(381) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:3(381)
    [11] Zaruma S, Fahnestock LA (2018) Assessment of design parameters influencing seismic collapse performance of buckling restrained braced frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 113: 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.021 doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.05.021
    [12] Kiggins S, Uang CM (2006) Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual system. Eng Struct 28: 1525-1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.10.023 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.10.023
    [13] Erochko J, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, et al. (2011) Residual drift response of SMRFs and BRB Frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05. J Struct Eng 137: 589-599. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000296 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000296
    [14] Ariyaratana CA, Fahnestock LA (2011) Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame seismic performance considering reserve strength. Eng Struct 33: 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.020 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.020
    [15] Hoveidae N, Tremblay R, Rafezy B, et al. (2015) Numerical investigation of seismic behavior of short-core all-steel buckling restrained braces. J Constr Steel Res 114: 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.06.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.06.005
    [16] Pandikkadavath M, Sahoo DR (2016) Analytical investigation on cyclic response of buckling-restrained braces with short yielding core segments. Int J Steel Struct 16: 1273-1285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-016-0083-y doi: 10.1007/s13296-016-0083-y
    [17] Hoveidae N, Radpour S (2021) A novel all-steel buckling restrained brace for seismic drift mitigation of steel frames. B Earthq Eng 19: 1537-1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-01038-0 doi: 10.1007/s10518-020-01038-0
    [18] Mazzolani F (2008) Innovative metal systems for seismic upgrading of RC structures. J Constr Steel Res 64: 882-895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.12.017 doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.12.017
    [19] Yooprasertchai E, Warnitchai P (2008) Seismic retrofitting of low-rise nonductile reinforced concrete buildings by buckling-restrained braces, Proceedings of 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing.
    [20] Dinu F, Bordea S, Dubina D (2011) Strengthening of non-seismic reinforced concrete frames of buckling restrained steel braces, Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, 1 Ed., CRC Press.
    [21] Mahrenholtz C, Lin P, Wu A, et al. (2015) Retrofit of reinforced concrete frames with buckling-restrained braces. Earthqu Eng Struct D 44: 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2458 doi: 10.1002/eqe.2458
    [22] Abou-Elfath H, Ramadan M, Alkanai FO (2017) Upgrading the seismic capacity of existing RC buildings using buckling restrained braces. Alex Eng J 56: 251-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.018 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.018
    [23] Ozcelik R, Erdil EE (2019) Pseudodynamic test of a deficient RC frame strengthened with buckling restrained braces. Earthqu Spectra 35: 1163-1187. https://doi.org/10.1193/122317EQS263M doi: 10.1193/122317EQS263M
    [24] Al-Sadoon ZA, Saatcioglu M, Palermo D (2020) New buckling-restrained brace for seismically deficient reinforced concrete frames. J Struct Eng 146: 04020082. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002439 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002439
    [25] Sutcu F, Bal A, Fujishita K, et al. (2020) Experimental and analytical studies of sub‑standard RC frames retrofitted with buckling‑restrained braces and steel frames. B Earthq Eng 18: 2389-2410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00785-4 doi: 10.1007/s10518-020-00785-4
    [26] Castaldo P, Tubaldi E, Selvi F, et al. (2021) Seismic performance of an existing RC structure retrofitted with buckling restrained braces. J Build Eng 33: 101688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101688 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101688
    [27] Xu ZD, Shen YP, Guo YQ (2003) Semi-active control of structures incorporated with magnetorheological dampers using neural networks. Smart Mater Struct 12: 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/12/1/309 doi: 10.1088/0964-1726/12/1/309
    [28] Dai J, Xu ZD, Gai PP, et al. (2021) Optimal design of tuned mass damper inerter with a Maxwell element for mitigating the vortex-induced vibration in bridges. Mech Syst Signal Pr 148: 107180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107180 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107180
    [29] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (2016) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 341-16.
    [30] Dehghani M, Tremblay R (2012) Development of standard dynamic loading protocol for buckling-restrained braced frames. International Specialty Conference on Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Area (STESSA 2012), Santiago de Chile
    [31] Razavi, SA, Mirghaderi, SR, Seini, A, et al. (2012) Reduced length buckling restrained brace using steel plates as restraining segment, Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
    [32] Nakamura H, Maeda Y, Sasaki T, et al. (2000) Fatigue properties of practical-scale unbonded braces. Nippon Steel Tech Rep 82: 51-57.
    [33] Miner MA (1945) Cumulative damage in fatigue. J Appl Mech 12: 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4009458 doi: 10.1115/1.4009458
    [34] Usami T, Wang C, Funayama J (2011) Low-cycle fatigue tests of a type of buckling restrained braces. Procedia Eng 14: 956-964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.120 doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.120
    [35] Tabatabaei SAR, Mirghaderi SR, Hosseini A (2014) Experimental and numerical developing of reduced length buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 77: 143-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.07.034 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.07.034
    [36] Pandikkadavath MS, Sahoo DR (2020) Development and subassemblage cyclic testing of hybrid buckling-restrained steel braces. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 19: 967-983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-020-0607-5 doi: 10.1007/s11803-020-0607-5
    [37] Sabelli R (2001) Research on Improving the Design and Analysis of Earthquake-Resistant Steel Braced Frames, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
    [38] SeismoStruct, 2022. A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. Available from: http://www.seismosoft.com/SeismoStruct.
    [39] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114: 1804-1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
    [40] Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS (1997) Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Mater Struct 30: 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02486385 doi: 10.1007/BF02486385
    [41] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318 (2019) Building code requirements for structural concrete. ACI 318-19.
    [42] International code council (2018) 2018 International Building Code. Available from: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2018/copyright.
    [43] Kiggins K, Uang CM (2006) Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual system. Eng Struct 28: 1525-1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.10.023
    [44] Kiggins K and Uang CM (2006) Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual system. Eng Struct 28: 1525-1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.10.023 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.10.023
    [45] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2004) Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 20: 523-553. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1737737 doi: 10.1193/1.1737737
    [46] Kitayama S, Constantinou MC (2018) Collapse performance of seismically isolated buildings designed by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7. Eng Struct 164: 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.008
    [47] Kitayama S, Constantinou MC (2019) Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of seismically isolated buildings designed by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7 and other enhanced criteria. Eng Struct 179: 566-582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.11.014 doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.11.014
    [48] Castaldo P, Amendola G (2021) Optimal DCFP bearing properties and seismic performance assessment in nondimensional form for isolated bridges. Earthq Eng Struct D 50: 2442-2461. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3454 doi: 10.1002/eqe.3454
    [49] Castaldo P, Amendola G (2021) Optimal sliding friction coefficients for isolated viaducts and bridges: A comparison study. Struct Control Hlth e2838. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2838
    [50] Applied Technology Council (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Washington: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [51] Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356, Washington, DC, USA.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Arzu Ahmadova, Ismail Huseynov, Nazim I. Mahmudov, Perturbation theory for fractional evolution equations in a Banach space, 2022, 105, 0037-1912, 583, 10.1007/s00233-022-10322-1
    2. Qiang Li, Jina Zhao, Extremal solutions for fractional evolution equations of order 1 < \gamma < 2 , 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 25487, 10.3934/math.20231301
    3. Javad A. Asadzade, Nazim I. Mahmudov, Delayed analogue of three-parameter pseudo-Mittag-Leffler functions and their applications to Hilfer pseudo-fractional time retarded differential equations, 2024, 65, 0022-2488, 10.1063/5.0159480
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3667) PDF downloads(204) Cited by(0)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog