The rising energy prices and soaring environmental concerns have put an immense pressure on the wide usage of machining processes. The total power consumption during machining includes the power consumed by the machine itself and the power used to remove the material from the workpiece. An accurate prediction of energy consumption during the machining process is the basis for energy reduction. In this study, the specific cutting energy and surface finish for low and moderate-speed orthogonal machining of the aluminum alloy 2014 are evaluated. The measured values for the specific cutting energy and surface roughness are presented as maps on a grid, which is based on the machining parameters including the following: (1) cutting speed and (2) undeformed chip thickness. The specific cutting energy map depicts low energy consumption values of 0.52 J/mm3 for the aluminum alloy 2014 at medium speed machining. The roughness maps depict high roughness values at high cutting speeds. Both maps help in optimizing the machining process to achieve a required surface roughness with minimal energy consumption. A review of a specific cutting energy map demonstrates that energy consumption decreases by increasing the cutting speeds. The decrease in energy consumption at moderate speeds corresponds to the low cutting forces. This potentially happens as a result of thermal softening of the material caused by adiabatic heating. This subsequently leads to an increase in the machinability of the aluminum alloy 2014 at moderate cutting speeds. Furthermore, the decreasing chip thickness and increasing shear angle as a result of increasing the cutting speed confirms the increased machinability of the workpiece at moderate speeds.
Citation: Umer Shaukat, Scott Gohery, Tesfaye Molla. Energy consumption and surface roughness maps for low and moderate speed machining of Aluminum alloy 2014: An experimental study[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(4): 575-588. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023032
[1] | Shishi Wang, Yuting Ding, Hongfan Lu, Silin Gong . Stability and bifurcation analysis of SIQR for the COVID-19 epidemic model with time delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5505-5524. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021278 |
[2] | Hongfan Lu, Yuting Ding, Silin Gong, Shishi Wang . Mathematical modeling and dynamic analysis of SIQR model with delay for pandemic COVID-19. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(4): 3197-3214. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021159 |
[3] | Sarita Bugalia, Jai Prakash Tripathi, Hao Wang . Mathematical modeling of intervention and low medical resource availability with delays: Applications to COVID-19 outbreaks in Spain and Italy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5865-5920. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021295 |
[4] | Honghua Bin, Daifeng Duan, Junjie Wei . Bifurcation analysis of a reaction-diffusion-advection predator-prey system with delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(7): 12194-12210. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023543 |
[5] | Yuting Ding, Gaoyang Liu, Yong An . Stability and bifurcation analysis of a tumor-immune system with two delays and diffusion. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(2): 1154-1173. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022053 |
[6] | Fang Liu, Yanfei Du . Spatiotemporal dynamics of a diffusive predator-prey model with delay and Allee effect in predator. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(11): 19372-19400. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023857 |
[7] | Xin-You Meng, Yu-Qian Wu . Bifurcation analysis in a singular Beddington-DeAngelis predator-prey model with two delays and nonlinear predator harvesting. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 2668-2696. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019133 |
[8] | Jinhu Xu, Yicang Zhou . Bifurcation analysis of HIV-1 infection model with cell-to-cell transmission and immune response delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(2): 343-367. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015006 |
[9] | Xinyu Liu, Zimeng Lv, Yuting Ding . Mathematical modeling and stability analysis of the time-delayed SAIM model for COVID-19 vaccination and media coverage. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 6296-6316. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022294 |
[10] | Zuolin Shen, Junjie Wei . Hopf bifurcation analysis in a diffusive predator-prey system with delay and surplus killing effect. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(3): 693-715. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018031 |
The rising energy prices and soaring environmental concerns have put an immense pressure on the wide usage of machining processes. The total power consumption during machining includes the power consumed by the machine itself and the power used to remove the material from the workpiece. An accurate prediction of energy consumption during the machining process is the basis for energy reduction. In this study, the specific cutting energy and surface finish for low and moderate-speed orthogonal machining of the aluminum alloy 2014 are evaluated. The measured values for the specific cutting energy and surface roughness are presented as maps on a grid, which is based on the machining parameters including the following: (1) cutting speed and (2) undeformed chip thickness. The specific cutting energy map depicts low energy consumption values of 0.52 J/mm3 for the aluminum alloy 2014 at medium speed machining. The roughness maps depict high roughness values at high cutting speeds. Both maps help in optimizing the machining process to achieve a required surface roughness with minimal energy consumption. A review of a specific cutting energy map demonstrates that energy consumption decreases by increasing the cutting speeds. The decrease in energy consumption at moderate speeds corresponds to the low cutting forces. This potentially happens as a result of thermal softening of the material caused by adiabatic heating. This subsequently leads to an increase in the machinability of the aluminum alloy 2014 at moderate cutting speeds. Furthermore, the decreasing chip thickness and increasing shear angle as a result of increasing the cutting speed confirms the increased machinability of the workpiece at moderate speeds.
Consider with the following fourth-order elliptic Navier boundary problem
{Δ2u+cΔu=λa(x)|u|s−2u+f(x,u)inΩ,u=Δu=0on∂Ω, | (1.1) |
where Δ2:=Δ(Δ) denotes the biharmonic operator, Ω⊂RN(N≥4) is a smooth bounded domain, c<λ1 (λ1 is the first eigenvalue of −Δ in H10(Ω)) is a constant, 1<s<2,λ≥0 is a parameter, a∈L∞(Ω),a(x)≥0,a(x)≢0, and f∈C(ˉΩ×R,R). It is well known that some of these fourth order elliptic problems appear in different areas of applied mathematics and physics. In the pioneer paper Lazer and Mckenna [13], they modeled nonlinear oscillations for suspensions bridges. It is worth mentioning that problem (1.1) can describe static deflection of an elastic plate in a fluid, see [21,22]. The static form change of beam or the motion of rigid body can be described by the same problem. Equations of this type have received more and more attentions in recent years. For the case λ=0, we refer the reader to [3,7,11,14,16,17,20,23,27,29,34,35,36,37] and the reference therein. In these papers, existence and multiplicity of solutions have been concerned under some assumptions on the nonlinearity f. Most of them considered the case f(x,u)=b[(u+1)+−1] or f having asymptotically linear growth at infinity or f satisfying the famous Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition at infinity. Particularly, in the case λ≠0, that is, the combined nonlinearities for the fourth-order elliptic equations, Wei [33] obtained some existence and multiplicity by using the variational method. However, the author only considered the case that the nonlinearity f is asymptotically linear. When λ=1, Pu et al. [26] did some similar work. There are some latest works for problem (1.1), for example [10,18] and the reference therein. In this paper, we study problem (1.1) from two aspects. One is that we will obtain two multiplicity results when the nonlinearity f is superlinear at infinity and has the standard subcritical polynomial growth but not satisfy the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition, the other is we can establish some existence results of multiple solutions when the nonlinearity f has the exponential growth but still not satisfy the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition. In the first case, the standard methods for the verification of the compactness condition will fail, we will overcome it by using the functional analysis methods, i.e., Hahn-Banach Theorem combined the Resonance Theorem. In the last case, although the original version of the mountain pass theorem of Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz [1] is not directly applied for our purpose. Therefore, we will use a suitable version of mountain pass theorem and some new techniques to finish our goal.
When N>4, there have been substantial lots of works (such as [3,7,11,16,17,26,34,35,36,37]) to study the existence of nontrivial solutions or the existence of sign-changing for problem (1.1). Furthermore, almost all of the works involve the nonlinear term f(x,u) of a standard subcritical polynomial growth, say:
(SCP): There exist positive constants c1 and q∈(1,p∗−1) such that
|f(x,t)|≤c1(1+|t|q)for allt∈Randx∈Ω, |
where p∗=2NN−4 expresses the critical Sobolev exponent. In this case, people can deal with problem (1.1) variationally in the Sobolev space H2(Ω)∩H10(Ω) owing to the some critical point theory, such as, the method of invariant sets of descent flow, mountain pass theorem and symmetric mountain pass theorem. It is worth while to note that since Ambrosetti and Rabinowitz presented the mountain pass theorem in their pioneer paper [1], critical point theory has become one of the main tools on looking for solutions to elliptic equation with variational structure. One of the important condition used in many works is the so-called Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition:
(AR) There exist θ>2 and R>0 such that
0<θF(x,t)≤f(x,t)t,forx∈Ωand|t|≥R, |
where F(x,t)=∫t0f(x,s)ds. A simple computation explains that there exist c2,c3>0 such that F(x,t)≥c2|t|θ−c3 for all (x,t)∈ˉΩ×R and f is superlinear at infinity, i.e., limt→∞f(x,t)t=+∞ uniformly in x∈Ω. Thus problem (1.1) is called strict superquadratic if the nonlinearity f satisfies the (AR) condition. Notice that (AR) condition plays an important role in ensuring the boundedness of Palais-Smale sequences. However, there are many nonlinearities which are superlinear at infinity but do not satisfy above (AR) condition such as f(x,t)=tln(1+|t|2)+|sint|t.
In the recent years many authors tried to study problem (1.1) with λ=0 and the standard Laplacian problem where (AR) is not assumed. Instead, they regard the general superquadratic condition:
(WSQC) The following limit holds
lim|t|→+∞F(x,t)t2=+∞,uniformly forx∈Ω |
with additional assumptions (see [3,5,7,11,12,15,17,19,24,26,31,37] and the references therein). In the most of them, there are some kind of monotonicity restrictions on the functions F(x,t) or f(x,t)t, or some convex property for the function tf(x,t)−2F(x,t).
In the case N=4 and c=0, motivated by the Adams inequality, there are a few works devoted to study the existence of nontrivial solutions for problem (1.1) when the nonlinearity f has the exponential growth, for example [15] and the references therein.
Now, we begin to state our main results: Let μ1 be the first eigenvalue of (Δ2−cΔ,H2(Ω)∩H10(Ω)) and suppose that f(x,t) satisfies:
(H1) f(x,t)t≥0,∀(x,t)∈Ω×R;
(H2) limt→0f(x,t)t=f0 uniformly for a.e. x∈Ω, where f0∈[0,+∞);
(H3) limt→∞F(x,t)t2=+∞ uniformly for a.e. x∈Ω, where F(x,t)=∫t0f(x,s)ds.
In the case of N>4, our results are stated as follows:
Theorem 1.1. Assume that f has the standard subcritical polynomial growth on Ω (condition (SCP)) and satisfies (H1)–(H3). If f0<μ1 and a(x)≥a0 (a0 is a positive constant ), then there exists Λ∗>0 such that for λ∈(0,Λ∗), problem (1.1) has five solutions, two positive solutions, two negative solutions and one nontrivial solution.
Theorem 1.2. Assume that f has the standard subcritical polynomial growth on Ω (condition (SCP)) and satisfies (H2) and (H3). If f(x,t) is odd in t.
a) For every λ∈R, problem (1.1) has a sequence of solutions {uk} such that Iλ(uk)→∞,k→∞, definition of the functional Iλ will be seen in Section 2.
b) If f0<μ1, for every λ>0, problem (1.1) has a sequence of solutions {uk} such that Iλ(uk)<0 and Iλ(uk)→0,k→∞.
Remark. Since our the nonlinear term f(x,u) satisfies more weak condition (H3) compared with the classical condition (AR), our Theorem 1.2 completely contains Theorem 3.20 in [32].
In case of N=4, we have p∗=+∞. So it's necessary to introduce the definition of the subcritical exponential growth and critical exponential growth in this case. By the improved Adams inequality (see [28] and Lemma 2.2 in Section 2) for the fourth-order derivative, namely,
supu∈H2(Ω)∩H10(Ω),‖ |
So, we now define the subcritical exponential growth and critical exponential growth in this case as follows:
(SCE): f satisfies subcritical exponential growth on \Omega , i.e., \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{|f(x, t)|}{\exp(\alpha t^2)} = 0 uniformly on x\in \Omega for all \alpha > 0 .
(CG): f satisfies critical exponential growth on \Omega , i.e., there exists \alpha_0 > 0 such that
\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{|f(x, t)|}{\exp\left(\alpha t^2\right)} = 0, \; \text{uniformly on} \; x\in \Omega, \; \forall \alpha > \alpha_0, |
and
\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{|f(x, t)|}{\exp\left(\alpha t^2\right)} = +\infty, \; \text{uniformly on} \; x\in \Omega, \; \forall \alpha < \alpha_0. |
When N = 4 and f satisfies the subcritical exponential growth (SCE), our work is still to consider problem (1.1) where the nonlinearity f satisfies the (WSQC)-condition at infinity. As far as we know, this case is rarely studied by other people for problem (1.1) except for [24]. Hence, our results are new and our methods are technique since we successfully proved the compactness condition by using the Resonance Theorem combined Adams inequality and the truncated technique. In fact, the new idea derives from our work [25]. Our results are as follows:
Theorem 1.3. Assume that f satisfies the subcritical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCE)} ) and satisfies (H_1) – (H_3) . If f_0 < \mu_1 and a(x)\geq a_0 (a_0 is a positive constant ) , then there exists \Lambda^* > 0 such that for \lambda\in (0, \Lambda^*), problem (1.1) has five solutions, two positive solutions, two negative solutions and one nontrivial solution.
Remark. Let F(x, t) = t^2e^{\sqrt{|t|}}, \forall (x, t) \in \Omega\times \mathbb{R}. Then it satisfies that our conditions (H_1) – (H_3) but not satisfy the condition \mathrm{(AR)} . It's worth noting that we do not impose any monotonicity condition on \frac{f(x, t)}{t} or some convex property on tf(x, t)-2F(x, t) . Hence, our Theorem 1.3 completely extends some results contained in [15,24] when \lambda = 0 in problem (1.1).
Theorem 1.4. Assume that f satisfies the subcritical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCE)} ) and satisfies (H_2) and (H_3) . If f_0 < \mu_1 and f(x, t) is odd in t .
a) For \lambda > 0 small enough, problem (1.1) has a sequence of solutions \{u_k\} such that I_\lambda(u_k)\rightarrow \infty, k\rightarrow \infty.
b) For every \lambda > 0 , problem (1.1) has a sequence of solutions \{u_k\} such that I_\lambda(u_k) < 0 and I_\lambda(u_k)\rightarrow 0, k\rightarrow \infty.
When N = 4 and f satisfies the critical exponential growth \mathrm{(CG)} , the study of problem (1.1) becomes more complicated than in the case of subcritical exponential growth. Similar to the case of the critical polynomial growth in \mathbb{R}^N\; (N\geq 3) for the standard Laplacian studied by Brezis and Nirenberg in their pioneering work [4], our Euler-Lagrange functional does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition at all level anymore. For the class standard Laplacian problem, the authors [8] used the extremal function sequences related to Moser-Trudinger inequality to complete the verification of compactness of Euler-Lagrange functional at some suitable level. Here, we still adapt the method of choosing the testing functions to study problem (1.1) without (AR) condition. Our result is as follows:
Theorem 1.5. Assume that f has the critical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(CG)} ) and satisfies (H_1) – (H_3) . Furthermore, assume that
(H_4) \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}f(x, t) \exp(-\alpha_0t^2)t\geq \beta > \frac{64}{\alpha_0r_0^4} , uniformly in (x, t), where r_0 is the inner radius of \Omega , i.e., r_0: = radius of the largest open ball \subset \Omega. and
(H_5) f is in the class (H_0) , i.e., for any \{u_n\} in H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega) , if u_n\rightharpoonup 0 in H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega) and f(x, u_n)\rightarrow 0 in L^1(\Omega), then F(x, u_n)\rightarrow 0 in L^1(\Omega) (up to a subsequence).
If f_0 < \mu_1, then there exists \Lambda^* > 0 such that for \lambda\in (0, \Lambda^*), problem (1.1) has at least four nontrivial solutions.
Remark. For standard biharmonic problems with Dirichlet boundary condition, Lam and Lu [15] have recently established the existence of nontrivial nonnegative solutions when the nonlinearity f has the critical exponential growth of order \exp(\alpha u^2) but without satisfying the Ambrosetti- Rabinowitz condition. However, for problem (1.1) with Navier boundary condition involving critical exponential growth and the concave term, there are few works to study it. Hence our result is new and interesting.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present some necessary preliminary knowledge and some important lemmas. In Section 3, we give the proofs for our main results. In Section 4, we give a conclusion.
We let \lambda_k (k = 1, 2, \cdot\cdot\cdot) denote the eigenvalue of -\Delta in H_0^1(\Omega) , then 0 < \mu_1 < \mu_2 < \cdot\cdot\cdot < \mu_k < \cdot\cdot\cdot be the eigenvalues of (\Delta^2-c\Delta, H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega)) and \varphi_k(x) be the eigenfunction corresponding to \mu_k . Let X_k denote the eigenspace associated to \mu_k. In fact, \mu_k = \lambda_k(\lambda_k-c). Throughout this paper, we denote by \|\cdot\|_p the L^p(\Omega) norm, c < \lambda_1 in \Delta^2-c\Delta and the norm of u in H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega) will be defined by the
\|u\|: = \left(\int_\Omega (|\Delta u|^2-c|\nabla u|^2)dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}. |
We also denote E = H^2(\Omega)\cap H_0^1(\Omega) .
Definition 2.1. Let ( \mathbb{E}, ||\cdot||_\mathbb{E}) be a real Banach space with its dual space (\mathbb{E}^*, ||\cdot||_{\mathbb{E}^*}) and I\in C^1(\mathbb{E}, \mathbb{R}) . For c^*\in \mathbb{ R}, we say that I satisfies the \mathrm{(PS)_{c^*}} condition if for any sequence \{x_n\}\subset \mathbb{E} with
I(x_n)\rightarrow c^*, I'(x_n)\rightarrow 0 \ \mbox{in}\ \mathbb{E}^*, |
there is a subsequence \{x_{n_k}\} such that \{x_{n_k}\} converges strongly in \mathbb{E} . Also, we say that I satisfy the \mathrm{(C)_{c^*}} condition if for any sequence \{x_n\}\subset \mathbb{E} with
I(x_n)\rightarrow c^*, \ ||I'(x_n)||_{\mathbb{E}^*}(1+||x_n||_\mathbb{E})\rightarrow 0, |
there exists subsequence \{ x_{n_k}\} such that \{ x_{n_k}\} converges strongly in \mathbb{E}.
Definition 2.2. We say that u\in E is the solution of problem (1.1) if the identity
\int_\Omega (\Delta u \Delta \varphi-c\nabla u \nabla \varphi)dx = \lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|u|^{s-2}u\varphi dx+\int_\Omega f(x, u)\varphi dx |
holds for any \varphi\in E.
It is obvious that the solutions of problem (1.1) are corresponding with the critical points of the following C^1 functional:
I_\lambda(u) = \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|u|^sdx-\int_\Omega F(x, u)dx, \quad u\in E. |
Let u^+ = \max\{u, 0\}, u^- = \min\{u, 0\}.
Now, we concern the following problem
\begin{equation} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \Delta^2u+c\Delta u = \lambda a(x)|u^+|^{s-2}u^++f^+(x, u) \; &\text{in}\; \Omega, \\ u = \Delta u = 0 \; &\text{on}\; \partial \Omega, \end{array}\right. \end{equation} | (2.1) |
where
f^+(x, t) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} f(x, t) \; &t\geq 0, \\ 0, \; &t < 0. \end{array}\right. |
Define the corresponding functional I_\lambda^+:E\rightarrow \mathbb{R} as follows:
I_\lambda^+(u) = \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|u^+|^sdx-\int_\Omega F^+(x, u)dx, |
where F^+(x, u) = \int_0^u f^+(x, s)ds. Obviously, the condition \mathrm{(SCP)} or \mathrm{(SCE)} ( \mathrm{(CG)} ) ensures that I_\lambda^+\in C^1(E, \mathbb{R}). Let u be a critical point of I_\lambda^+, which means that u is a weak solution of problem (2.1). Furthermore, since the weak maximum principle (see [34]), it implies that u\geq 0 in \Omega . Thus u is also a solution of problem (1.1) and I_\lambda^+(u) = I_\lambda(u) .
Similarly, we define
f^-(x, t) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} f(x, t) \; &t\leq 0, \\ 0, \; &t > 0, \end{array}\right. |
and
I_\lambda^-(u) = \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|u^-|^sdx-\int_\Omega F^-(x, u)dx, |
where F^-(x, u) = \int_0^u f^-(x, s)ds. Similarly, we also have I_\lambda^-\in C^1(E, \mathbb{R}) and if v is a critical point of I_\lambda^- then it is a solution of problem (1.1) and I_\lambda^-(v) = I_\lambda(v) .
Prosition 2.1. ([6,30]). Let \mathbb{E} be a real Banach space and suppose that I \in C^1(\mathbb{E}, \mathbb{R}) satisfies the condition
\max\{I(0), I(u_1)\}\leq\alpha < \beta\leq\inf\limits_{||u|| = \rho}I(u), |
for some \alpha < \beta, \rho > 0 and u_1\in \mathbb{E} with ||u_1|| > \rho. Let c^*\geq\beta be characterized by
c^* = \inf\limits_{\gamma\in \Gamma}\max\limits_{0\leq t\leq1}I(\gamma(t)), |
where \Gamma = \{\gamma\in C([0, 1], \mathbb{E}), \gamma(0) = 0, \gamma(1) = u_1\} is the set of continuous paths joining 0 and u_1. Then, there exists a sequence \{u_n\}\subset \mathbb{E} such that
I(u_n)\rightarrow c^*\geq\beta\ \mathit{\mbox{and}}\ (1+||u_n|| )||I'(u_n)||_{\mathbb{E}^*}\rightarrow0\ \mathit{\mbox{as}}\ n\rightarrow \infty. |
Lemma 2.1. ([28]). Let \Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^4 be a bounded domain. Then there exists a constant C > 0 such that
\sup\limits_{u\in E, \|\Delta u\|_2\leq 1}\int_\Omega e^{32\pi^2u^2}dx < C|\Omega|, |
and this inequality is sharp.
Next, we introduce the following a revision of Adams inequality:
Lemma 2.2. Let \Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^4 be a bounded domain. Then there exists a constant C^* > 0 such that
\sup\limits_{u\in E, \| u\|\leq 1}\int_\Omega e^{32\pi^2 u^2}dx < C^*|\Omega|, |
and this inequality is also sharp.
Proof. We will give a summarize proof in two different cases. In the case of c\leq0 in the definition of \|.\| , if \|u\|\leq 1, we can deduce that \|\Delta u\|_2\leq 1 and by using Lemma 2.1 combined with the Proposition 6.1 in [28], the conclusion holds.
In the case of 0 < c < \lambda_1 in the definition of \|.\| , from Lemma 2.1, the proof and remark of Theorem 1 in [2] and the proof of Proposition 6.1 in [28], we still can establish this revised Adams inequality.
Lemma 2.3. Assume (H_{1}) and (H_{3}) hold. If f has the standard subcritical polynomial growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCP)} ), then I_\lambda^+ ( I_\lambda^- ) satisfies \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} .
Proof. We only prove the case of I_\lambda^+ . The arguments for the case of I_\lambda^- are similar. Let \{u_n\}\subset E be a \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} sequence such that
\begin{equation} I_\lambda^+(u_n) = \frac{1}{2}||u_n||^2-\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|u_n^+|^sdx-\int_\Omega F^+(x, u_n)dx = c^*+\circ(1), \end{equation} | (2.2) |
\begin{equation} (1+||u_n||)||I_\lambda^{+'}(u_n)||_{E^*}\rightarrow 0\ \mbox{as}\ n\rightarrow \infty. \end{equation} | (2.3) |
Obviously, (2.3) implies that
\begin{equation} \langle I_\lambda^{+'}(u_n), \varphi\rangle = \langle u_n, \varphi \rangle-\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|u_n^+|^{s-2}u_n^+\varphi dx-\int_\Omega f^+(x, u_n(x))\varphi dx = \circ(1). \end{equation} | (2.4) |
Step 1. We claim that \{u_n\} is bounded in E . In fact, assume that
\|u_n\|\rightarrow \infty, \ \ \text{as}\ n\rightarrow \infty. |
Define
v_n = \frac{u_n}{\|u_n\|}. |
Then, \|v_n\| = 1 , \forall n\in {\bf N} and then, it is possible to extract a subsequence (denoted also by \{v_n\} ) converges weakly to v in E , converges strongly in L^p(\Omega) (1\leq p < p^*) and converges v a.e. x\in\Omega .
Dividing both sides of (2.2) by \|u_n\|^2 , we get
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega} \frac{F^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|^2}dx\rightarrow \frac{1}{2}. \end{equation} | (2.5) |
Set
\Omega_+ = \{x\in \Omega: v(x) > 0\}. |
By (H_3) , we imply that
\begin{equation} \frac{F^+(x, u_n)}{u_n^2}v_n^2\rightarrow \infty, \; \; x\in \Omega_+. \end{equation} | (2.6) |
If |\Omega_+| is positive, since Fatou's lemma, we get
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\Omega} \frac{F^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|^2}dx\geq\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\Omega_+} \frac{F^+(x, u_n)}{u_n^2}v_n^2dx = +\infty, |
which contradicts with (2.5). Thus, we have v\leq 0 . In fact, we have v = 0 . Indeed, again using (2.3), we get
(1+\|u_n\|) |\langle I_\lambda^{+'}(u_n), v\rangle|\leq \circ(1)\|v\|. |
Thus, we have
\begin{eqnarray*} \int_\Omega (\Delta u_n \Delta v-c\nabla u_n \nabla v)dx &\leq& \int_\Omega (\Delta u_n \Delta v-c\nabla u \nabla v)dx-\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|u_n^+|^{s-2}u_n^+vdx\\ &-&\int_\Omega f^+(x, u_n)vdx\leq \frac{\circ(1)\|v\|}{1+\|u_n\|}, \end{eqnarray*} |
by noticing that since v\leq 0, f^+(x, u_n)v\leq 0 \ \text{a.e.} \ x\in\Omega, thus -\int_\Omega f^+(x, u_n)vdx\geq 0. So we get
\int_\Omega (\Delta v_n \Delta v-c\nabla v_n \nabla v)dx\rightarrow 0. |
On the other hand, from v_n\rightharpoonup v in E , we have
\int_\Omega (\Delta v_n \Delta v-c\nabla v_n \nabla v)dx\rightarrow \|v\|^2 |
which implies v = 0 .
Dividing both sides of (2.4) by \|u_n\| , for any \varphi \in E , then there exists a positive constant M(\varphi) such that
\begin{equation} \left|\int_\Omega \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx\right|\leq M(\varphi), \; \forall n\in {\bf N}. \end{equation} | (2.7) |
Set
{\bf f}_n(\varphi) = \int_\Omega \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx, \; \varphi \in E. |
Thus, by (SCP), we know that \{{\bf f}_n\} is a family bounded linear functionals defined on E . Combing (2.7) with the famous Resonance Theorem, we get that \{|{\bf f}_n|\} is bounded, where |{\bf f}_n| denotes the norm of {\bf f}_n . It means that
\begin{equation} |{\bf f}_n|\leq C_*. \end{equation} | (2.8) |
Since E\subset L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) , using the Hahn-Banach Theorem, there exists a continuous functional \hat{{\bf f}}_n defined on L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) such that \hat{{\bf f}}_n is an extension of {\bf f}_n , and
\begin{equation} \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) = {\bf f}_n(\varphi), \; \varphi\in E, \end{equation} | (2.9) |
\begin{equation} \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} = |{\bf f}_n|, \end{equation} | (2.10) |
where \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} denotes the norm of \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) in L^{\frac{p^*}{q}}(\Omega) which is defined on L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) .
On the other hand, from the definition of the linear functional on L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega), we know that there exists a function S_n(x)\in L^{\frac{p^*}{q}}(\Omega) such that
\begin{equation} \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) = \int_\Omega S_n(x)\varphi (x)dx, \; \varphi \in L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega). \end{equation} | (2.11) |
So, from (2.9) and (2.11), we obtain
\int_\Omega S_n(x)\varphi (x)dx = \int_\Omega \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx, \; \varphi \in E, |
which implies that
\int_\Omega \left(S_n(x)-\frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\right)\varphi dx = 0, \; \varphi \in E. |
According to the basic lemma of variational, we can deduce that
S_n(x) = \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\; \; \text{a.e.}\; x\in \Omega. |
Thus, by (2.8) and (2.10), we have
\begin{equation} \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} = \|S_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} = |{\bf f}_n| < C_*. \end{equation} | (2.12) |
Now, taking \varphi = v_n-v in (2.4), we get
\begin{equation} \langle A(v_n), v_n-v \rangle-\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|u_n^+|^{s-2}u_n^+v_ndx-\int_\Omega \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}v_ndx\rightarrow 0, \end{equation} | (2.13) |
where A: E\rightarrow E^* defined by
\langle A(u), \varphi\rangle = \int_\Omega \Delta u \Delta \varphi dx-c\int_\Omega \nabla u \nabla \varphi dx, \ u, \varphi \in E. |
By the H \mathrm{\ddot{o}} lder inequality and (2.12), we obtain
\int_\Omega \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}v_ndx\rightarrow 0. |
Then from (2.13), we can conclude that
v_n\rightarrow v\; \; \text{in} \; E. |
This leads to a contradiction since \|v_n\| = 1 and v = 0. Thus, \{u_n\} is bounded in E .
Step 2. We show that \{u_n\} has a convergence subsequence. Without loss of generality, we can suppose that
\begin{align*} &u_n\rightharpoonup u\ \mbox{ in }\ E, \\ &u_n \rightarrow u \ \mbox{in}\ L^\gamma(\Omega), \ \forall1\leq \gamma < p^*, \\ &u_n(x)\rightarrow u(x)\ \mbox{a.e.}\ x\in \Omega. \end{align*} |
Now, it follows from f satisfies the condition (SCP) that there exist two positive constants c_4, c_5 > 0 such that
f^+(x, t)\leq c_4 +c_5|t|^{q}, \ \forall (x, t)\in \Omega\times \mathbb{R}, |
then
\begin{eqnarray*} &&\left|\int_\Omega f^+(x, u_n)(u_n-u)dx\right|\\ && \leq c_4 \int_\Omega |u_n-u|dx+ c_5\int_\Omega |u_n-u||u_n|^{q}dx \\&&\leq c_4\int_\Omega |u_n-u|dx+c_5\left( \int_\Omega \left(|u_n|^{q}\right)^{\frac{p^*}{q}}dx\right)^{\frac{q}{p^*}}\left(\int_\Omega |u_n-u|^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}dx\right)^{\frac{p^*-q}{p^*}}. \end{eqnarray*} |
Similarly, since u_n\rightharpoonup u in E, \int_\Omega |u_n-u|dx\rightarrow 0 and \int_\Omega |u_n-u|^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}dx\rightarrow 0.
Thus, from (2.4) and the formula above, we obtain
\langle A(u_n), u_n-u\rangle\rightarrow 0, \; \text{as}\; n\rightarrow \infty. |
So, we get \|u_n\|\rightarrow \|u\| . Thus we have u_n\rightarrow u in E which implies that I_\lambda^+ satisfies \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} .
Lemma 2.4. Let \varphi _{1} > 0 be a \mu_{1} -eigenfunction with \| \varphi_{1} \| = 1 and assume that (H_{1}) – (H_{3}) and \mathrm{(SCP)} hold. If f_{0} < \mu _{1}, then:
\mathrm{(i)}\ For \lambda > 0 small enough, there exist \rho, \alpha > 0 such that I_\lambda^{\pm}(u)\geq \alpha for all u\in E with \| u \| = \rho,
\mathrm{(ii)}\ I_\lambda^{\pm}(t\varphi_1)\rightarrow -\infty as t\rightarrow +\infty .
Proof. Since \mathrm{(SCP)} and (H_1) – (H_3), for any \varepsilon > 0, there exist A = A(\varepsilon), M large enough and B = B(\varepsilon) such that for all (x, s)\in \Omega\times \mathbb{R},
\begin{equation} F^{\pm}(x, s)\leq \frac{1}{2}(f_0+\epsilon)s^2+A|s|^q, \end{equation} | (2.14) |
\begin{equation} F^{\pm}(x, s)\geq \frac{M}{2}s^2-B. \end{equation} | (2.15) |
Choose \varepsilon > 0 such that (f_0+\varepsilon) < \mu_1. By (2.14), the Poincaré inequality and the Sobolev embedding, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*} I_\lambda^{\pm}(u)&\geq&\frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2 -\frac{\lambda \|a\|_\infty}{s}\int_\Omega |u|^s dx-\int_\Omega{F^{\pm}(x, u)}dx\\&\geq& \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda \|a\|_\infty}{s}\int_\Omega |u|^s dx-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{2}\|u\|_2^2-A\int_\Omega |u|^qdx\\ &\geq&\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right)\|u\|^2-\lambda K\|u\|^s-C^{**}\|u\|^q \\ &\geq&\|u\|^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right)-\lambda K\|u\|^{s-2}-C^{**}\|u\|^{q-2}\right), \end{eqnarray*} |
where K, C^{**} are constant.
Write
h(t) = \lambda Kt^{s-2}+ C^{**}t^{q-2}. |
We can prove that there exists t^* such that
h(t^*) < \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right). |
In fact, letting h'(t) = 0 , we get
t^* = \left(\frac{\lambda K(2-s)}{C^{**}(q-2)} \right)^{\frac{1}{q-s}}. |
According to the knowledge of mathematical analysis, h(t) has a minimum at t = t^* . Denote
\vartheta = \frac{K(2-s)}{C^{**}(q-2)}, \ \hat{\vartheta} = \frac{s-2}{q-s}, \ \bar{\vartheta} = \frac{q-2}{q-s}, \ \nu = \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right). |
Taking t^* in h(t) , we get
h(t^*) < \nu, \; 0 < \lambda < \Lambda^*, |
where \Lambda^* = (\frac{\nu}{K\vartheta^{\hat{\vartheta}}+C^{**}\vartheta^{\bar{\vartheta}}})^{\frac{1}{\bar{\vartheta}}}. So, part (i) holds if we take \rho = t^* .
On the other hand, from (2.15), we get
I_\lambda^+(t\varphi_1)\leq\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{M}{\mu_1}\right)t^2-t^s\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|\varphi_1|^sdx +B|\Omega|\rightarrow -\infty\ \mbox{as}\ t\rightarrow +\infty. |
Similarly, we have
I_\lambda^-(t(-\varphi_1))\rightarrow -\infty, \ \text{as}\ t\rightarrow +\infty. |
Thus part \mathrm{(ii)} holds.
Lemma 2.5. Let \varphi _{1} > 0 be a \mu_{1} -eigenfunction with \| \varphi_{1} \| = 1 and assume that (H_{1}) – (H_{3}) and \mathrm{(SCE)} (or \mathrm{(CG)} ) hold. If f_{0} < \mu _{1}, then:
\mathrm{(i)}\ For \lambda > 0 small enough, there exist \rho, \alpha > 0 such that I_\lambda^{\pm}(u)\geq \alpha for all u\in E with \| u \| = \rho,
\mathrm{(ii)}\ I_\lambda^{\pm}(t\varphi_1)\rightarrow -\infty as t\rightarrow +\infty .
Proof. From \mathrm{(SCE)} (or (CG)) and (H_1) - (H_3), for any \varepsilon > 0, there exist A_1 = A_1(\varepsilon), M_1 large enough, B_1 = B_1(\varepsilon), \kappa_1 > 0 and q_1 > 2 such that for all (x, s)\in \Omega\times \mathbb{R},
\begin{equation} F^{\pm}(x, s)\leq \frac{1}{2}(f_0+\epsilon)s^2+A_1\exp(\kappa_1 s^{2})|s|^{q_1}, \end{equation} | (2.16) |
\begin{equation} F^{\pm}(x, s)\geq \frac{M_1}{2}s^2-B_1. \end{equation} | (2.17) |
Choose \varepsilon > 0 such that (f_0+\varepsilon) < \mu_1. By (2.16), the Hölder inequality and the Adams inequality (see Lemma 2.2), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*} I_\lambda^{\pm}(u)&\geq&\frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda \|a\|_\infty}{s}\int_\Omega |u|^s dx -\int_\Omega{F^{\pm}(x, u)}dx\\&\geq& \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{\lambda \|a\|_\infty}{s}\int_\Omega |u|^s dx-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{2}\|u\|_2^2-A_1\int_\Omega \exp(\kappa_1 u^{2})|u|^{q_1}dx\\ &\geq&\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right)\|u\|^2-\lambda K\|u\|^s -A_1\left(\int_\Omega \exp(\kappa_1 r_1\|u\|^{2}(\frac{|u|}{\|u\|})^{2}\right)dx)^{\frac{1}{r_1}}\left(\int_\Omega |u|^{r_1'q}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{r_1'}}\\ &\geq&\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{f_0+\varepsilon}{\mu_1}\right)\|u\|^2-\lambda K\|u\|^s-\hat{C}^{**}\|u\|^{q_1}, \end{eqnarray*} |
where r_1 > 1 sufficiently close to 1 , \|u\|\leq \sigma and \kappa_1 r_1\sigma^{2} < 32\pi^2. Remained proof is completely similar to the proof of part (ⅰ) of Lemma 2.4, we omit it here. So, part (ⅰ) holds if we take \|u\| = \rho > 0 small enough.
On the other hand, from (2.17), we get
I_\lambda^+(t\varphi_1)\leq\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{M_1}{\mu_1}\right)t^2-t^s\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|\varphi_1|^sdx +B_1|\Omega|\rightarrow -\infty\ \mbox{as}\ t\rightarrow +\infty. |
Similarly, we have
I_\lambda^-(t(-\varphi_1))\rightarrow -\infty, \ \text{as}\ t\rightarrow +\infty. |
Thus part \mathrm{(ii)} holds.
Lemma 2.6. Assume (H_{1}) and (H_{3}) hold. If f has the subcritical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCE)} ), then I_\lambda^+ ( I_\lambda^- ) satisfies \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} .
Proof. We only prove the case of I_\lambda^+ . The arguments for the case of I_\lambda^- are similar. Let \{u_n\}\subset E be a \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} sequence such that the formulas (2.2)–(2.4) in Lemma 2.3 hold.
Now, according to the previous section of Step 1 of the proof of Lemma 2.3, we also obtain that the formula (2.7) holds. Set
{\bf f}_n(\varphi) = \int_{\Omega} \frac{f^+(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx, \; \varphi \in E. |
Then from for any u\in E , e^{\alpha u^2}\in L^1(\Omega) for all \alpha > 0 , we can draw a conclusion that \{{\bf f}_n\} is a family bounded linear functionals defined on E . Using (2.7) and the famous Resonance Theorem, we know that \{|{\bf f}_n|\} is bounded, where |{\bf f}_n| denotes the norm of {\bf f}_n . It means that the formula (2.8) (see the proof of Lemma 2.3) holds.
Since E\subset L^{q_0}(\Omega) for some q_0 > 1 , using the Hahn-Banach Theorem, there exists a continuous functional \hat{{\bf f}}_n defined on L^{q_0}(\Omega) such that \hat{{\bf f}}_n is an extension of {\bf f}_n , and
\begin{equation} \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) = {\bf f}_n(\varphi), \; \varphi\in E, \end{equation} | (2.18) |
\begin{equation} \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{q_0^*} = |{\bf f}_n|, \end{equation} | (2.19) |
where \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{q_0^*} is the norm of \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) in L^{q_0^*}(\Omega) which is defined on L^{q_0}(\Omega) and q_0^* is the dual number of q_0 .
By the definition of the linear functional on L^{q_0}(\Omega), we know that there is a function S_n(x)\in L^{q_0^*}(\Omega) such that
\begin{equation} \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) = \int_{\Omega} S_n(x)\varphi (x)dx, \; \varphi \in L^{q_0}(\Omega). \end{equation} | (2.20) |
Similarly to the last section of the Step 1 of the proof of Lemma 2.3, we can prove that \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} sequence \{u_n\} is bounded in E . Next, we show that \{u_n\} has a convergence subsequence. Without loss of generality, assume that
\begin{align*} & \|u_n\|\leq \beta^*, \\ &u_n\rightharpoonup u\ \mbox{ in }\; E, \\ &u_n \rightarrow u \ \mbox{in}\ L^\gamma(\Omega), \ \forall \gamma\geq 1, \\ &u_n(x)\rightarrow u(x)\ \mbox{a.e.}\ x\in \Omega. \end{align*} |
Since f has the subcritical exponential growth \mathrm{(SCE)} on \Omega , we can find a constant C_{\beta^*} > 0 such that
|f^+(x, t)|\leq C_{\beta^*} \exp\left(\frac{32\pi^2}{k(\beta^*)^{2}}t^{2}\right), \ \forall (x, t)\in \Omega \times \mathbb{R}. |
Thus, from the revised Adams inequality (see Lemma 2.2),
\begin{eqnarray*} &&\left|\int_{\Omega} f^+(x, u_n)(u_n-u)dx\right|\\ && \leq C_{\beta^*}\left(\int_{\Omega} \exp\left(\frac{32\pi^2}{(\beta^*)^{2}}u_n^{2}\right)dx\right)^{\frac{1}{k}}|u_n-u|_{k'} \\ &&\leq C_{**}|u_n-u|_{k'}\rightarrow0, \end{eqnarray*} |
where k > 1 and k' is the dual number of k . Similar to the last proof of Lemma 2.3, we have u_n\rightarrow u in E which means that I_\lambda^+ satisfies \mathrm{(C)}_{c^*} .
Lemma 2.7. Assume (H_{3}) holds. If f has the standard subcritical polynomial growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCP)} ), then I_\lambda satisfies \mathrm{(PS)}_{c^*} .
Proof. Let \{u_n\}\subset E be a \mathrm{(PS)}_{c^*} sequence such that
\begin{equation} \frac{\|u_n\|^2}{2}-\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|u_n|^sdx-\int_\Omega F(x, u_n)dx\rightarrow c^*, \end{equation} | (2.21) |
\begin{equation} \int_\Omega \Delta u_n\Delta\varphi dx-c\int_\Omega \nabla u_n \nabla \varphi dx-\lambda \int_\Omega a(x)|u_n|^{s-2}u_n\varphi dx-\int_\Omega f(x, u_n)\varphi dx = \circ(1)\|\varphi\|, \ \varphi\in E. \end{equation} | (2.22) |
Step 1. To prove that \{u_n\} has a convergence subsequence, we first need to prove that it is a bounded sequence. To do this, argue by contradiction assuming that for a subsequence, which is still denoted by \{u_n\} , we have
\|u_n\|\rightarrow \infty. |
Without loss of generality, assume that \|u_n\|\geq 1 for all n\in {\bf N} and let
v_n = \frac{u_n}{\|u_n\|}. |
Clearly, \|v_n\| = 1 , \forall n\in {\bf N} and then, it is possible to extract a subsequence (denoted also by \{v_n\} ) converges weakly to v in E , converges strongly in L^p(\Omega) (1\leq p < p^*) and converges v a.e. x\in\Omega .
Dividing both sides of (2.21) by \|u_n\|^2 , we obtain
\begin{equation} \int_{\Omega} \frac{F(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|^2}dx\rightarrow \frac{1}{2}. \end{equation} | (2.23) |
Set
\Omega_0 = \{x\in \Omega: v(x)\neq 0\}. |
By (H_3) , we get that
\begin{equation} \frac{F(x, u_n)}{u_n^2}v_n^2\rightarrow \infty, \; \; x\in \Omega_0. \end{equation} | (2.24) |
If |\Omega_0| is positive, from Fatou's lemma, we obtain
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\Omega} \frac{F(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|^2}dx\geq\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\Omega_0} \frac{F(x, u_n)}{u_n^2}v_n^2dx = +\infty, |
which contradicts with (2.23).
Dividing both sides of (2.22) by \|u_n\| , for any \varphi \in E , then there exists a positive constant M(\varphi) such that
\begin{equation} \left|\int_\Omega \frac{f(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx\right|\leq M(\varphi), \; \forall n\in {\bf N}. \end{equation} | (2.25) |
Set
{\bf f}_n(\varphi) = \int_\Omega \frac{f(x, u_n)}{\|u_n\|}\varphi dx, \; \varphi \in E. |
Thus, by (SCP), we know that \{{\bf f}_n\} is a family bounded linear functionals defined on E . By (2.25) and the famous Resonance Theorem, we get that \{|{\bf f}_n|\} is bounded, where |{\bf f}_n| denotes the norm of {\bf f}_n . It means that
\begin{equation} |{\bf f}_n|\leq \tilde{C}_*. \end{equation} | (2.26) |
Since E\subset L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) , using the Hahn-Banach Theorem, there exists a continuous functional \hat{{\bf f}}_n defined on L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) such that \hat{{\bf f}}_n is an extension of {\bf f}_n , and
\begin{equation} \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) = {\bf f}_n(\varphi), \; \varphi\in E, \end{equation} | (2.27) |
\begin{equation} \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} = |{\bf f}_n|, \end{equation} | (2.28) |
where \|\hat{{\bf f}}_n\|_{\frac{p^*}{q}} denotes the norm of \hat{{\bf f}}_n(\varphi) in L^{\frac{p^*}{q}}(\Omega) which is defined on L^{\frac{p^*}{p^*-q}}(\Omega) .
Remained proof is completely similar to the last proof of Lemma 2.3, we omit it here.
Lemma 2.8. Assume (H_{3}) holds. If f has the subcritical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(SCE)} ), then I_\lambda satisfies \mathrm{(PS)}_{c^*} .
Proof. Combining the previous section of the proof of Lemma 2.7 with slightly modifying the last section of the proof of Lemma 2.6, we can prove it. So we omit it here.
To prove the next Lemma, we firstly introduce a sequence of nonnegative functions as follows. Let \Phi(t)\in C^\infty[0, 1] such that
\Phi(0) = \Phi'(0) = 0, |
\Phi(1) = \Phi'(1) = 0. |
We let
H(t) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{n}\Phi(nt), &\quad \text{if}\; t\leq \frac{1}{n}, \\ t, &\quad \text{if}\; \frac{1}{n} < t < 1-\frac{1}{n}, \\ 1-\frac{1}{n}\Phi(n(1-t)), &\quad \text{if}\; 1-\frac{1}{n}\leq t\leq1, \\ 1, &\quad \text{if}\; 1\leq t, \end{cases} |
and \psi_n(r) = H((ln n)^{-1}ln \frac{1}{r}). Notice that \psi_n(x)\in E , B the unit ball in \mathbb{R}^N , \psi_n(x) = 1 for |x|\leq \frac{1}{n} and, as it was proved in [2],
\|\Delta \psi_n\|_2 = 2\sqrt{2}\pi(ln n)^{-\frac{1}{2}}A_n = \|\psi_n\|+\circ(1), \; \text{as}\; n\rightarrow \infty. |
where 0\leq \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty} A_n\leq 1. Thus, we take x_0\in \Omega and r_0 > 0 such that B(x_0, r)\subset \Omega, denote
\Psi_n(x) = \begin{cases} \frac{\psi_n(|x-x_0|)}{\|\psi_n\|}, &\quad \text{if}\; x\in B(x_0, r_0), \\ 0, &\quad \text{if}\; x\in \Omega\backslash B(x_0, r_0).\\ \end{cases} |
Lemma 2.9. Assume (H_{1}) and (H_{4}) hold. If f has the critical exponential growth on \Omega (condition \mathrm{(CG)} ), then there exists n such that
\max\{I_\lambda^{\pm}(\pm t\Psi_n):t\geq 0\} < \frac{16\pi^2}{\alpha_0}. |
Proof. We only prove the case of I_\lambda^+ . The arguments for the case of I_\lambda^- are similar. Assume by contradiction that this is not the case. So, for all n , this maximum is larger or equal to \frac{16\pi^2}{\alpha_0}. Let t_n > 0 be such that
\begin{equation} \mathcal{I_\lambda^+}(t_n\Psi_n)\geq\frac{16\pi^2}{\alpha_0}. \end{equation} | (2.29) |
From (H_1) and (2.29), we conclude that
\begin{equation} t_n^{2}\geq \frac{32\pi^2}{\alpha_0}. \end{equation} | (2.30) |
Also at t = t_n , we have
t_n-t_n^{s-1}\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|\Psi_n|^{s}dx-\int_\Omega f(x, t_n\Psi_n)\Psi_ndx = 0, |
which implies that
\begin{equation} t_n^{2}\geq t_n^{s}\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|\Psi_n|^{s}dx+\int_{B(x_0, r_0)} f(x, t_n\Psi_n)t_n\Psi_ndx. \end{equation} | (2.31) |
Since (H_4) , for given \epsilon > 0 there exists R_\epsilon > 0 such that
tf(x, t)\geq (\beta-\epsilon)\exp\left(\alpha_0t^{2}\right), \ t\geq R_\epsilon. |
So by (2.31), we deduce that, for large n
\begin{equation} t_n^{2}\geq t_n^{s}\lambda\int_\Omega a(x)|\Psi_n|^{s}dx+ (\beta-\epsilon)\frac{\pi^2}{2}r_0^4\exp\left[ \left((\frac{t_n}{ A_n})^2\frac{\alpha_0}{32\pi^2}-1\right)4ln n\right]. \end{equation} | (2.32) |
By (2.30), the inequality above is true if, and only if
\begin{equation} \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}A_n = 1 \ \ \text{and}\ \ t_n\rightarrow \left( \frac{32\pi^2}{\alpha_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}. \end{equation} | (2.33) |
Set
A_n^* = \{x\in B(x_0, r_0): t_n \Psi_n(x)\geq R_{\epsilon}\}, \; \; B_n = B(x_0, r_0)\setminus A_n^*, |
and break the integral in (2.31) into a sum of integrals over A_n^* and B_n . By simple computation, we have
\begin{equation} \left[\frac{32\pi^2}{\alpha_0}\right]\geq (\beta-\epsilon) \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty} \int_{B(x_0, r_0)}\exp\left[\alpha_0t_n^2|\Psi_n(x)|^2\right]dx-(\beta-\epsilon)r_0^4\frac{\pi^2}{2}. \end{equation} | (2.34) |
The last integral in (2.34), denote I_n is evaluated as follows:
I_n\geq (\beta-\epsilon)r_0^4\pi^2. |
Thus, finally from (2.34) we get
\left[\frac{32\pi^2}{\alpha_0}\right]\geq(\beta-\epsilon)r_0^4\frac{\pi^2}{2}, |
which means \beta\leq \frac{64}{\alpha_0r_0^4}. This results in a contradiction with (H_4) .
To conclude this section we state the Fountain Theorem of Bartsch [32].
Define
\begin{equation} Y_k = \oplus_{j = 1}^kX_j, \ \ Z_k = \overline{\oplus_{j\geq k}X_j}. \end{equation} | (2.35) |
Lemma 2.10. (Dual Fountain Theorem). Assume that I_\lambda\in C^1(\mathbb{E}, \mathbb{R}) satisfies the \mathrm{(PS)_c^*} condition (see [32]), I_\lambda(-u) = I_\lambda(u) . If for almost every k\in {\bf N}, there exist \rho_k > r_k > 0 such that
\mathrm{(i)} a_k: = \inf\limits_{u\in Z_k, \|u\| = \rho_k}I_\lambda(u)\geq 0,
\mathrm{(ii)} b_k: = \max\limits_{u\in Y_k, \|u\| = r_k}I_\lambda(u) < 0,
\mathrm{(iii)} b_k = \inf\limits_{u\in Z_k, \|u\| = \rho_k}I_\lambda(u)\rightarrow 0, \ \mathit{\text{as}}\ k\rightarrow \infty,
then I_\lambda has a sequence of negative critical values converging 0 .
Proof of Theorem 1.1. For I_\lambda^{\pm}, we first demonstrate that the existence of local minimum v_{\pm} with I_\lambda^{\pm}(v_{\pm}) < 0 . We only prove the case of I_\lambda^+. The arguments for the case of I_\lambda^- are similar.
For \rho determined in Lemma 2.4, we write
\bar{B}(\rho) = \{u\in E, \ \|u\|\leq \rho\}, \ \ \partial B(\rho) = \{u\in E, \ \|u\| = \rho\}. |
Then \bar{B}(\rho) is a complete metric space with the distance
\text{dist}(u, v) = \|u-v\|, \quad \forall u, v\in \bar{B}(\rho). |
From Lemma 2.4, we have for 0 < \lambda < \Lambda^*,
I_\lambda^+(u)|_{\partial B(\rho)}\geq \alpha > 0. |
Furthermore, we know that I_\lambda^+\in C^1(\bar{B}(\rho), \mathbb{R}), hence I_\lambda^+ is lower semi-continuous and bounded from below on \bar{B}(\rho) . Set
c_1^* = \inf\{ I_\lambda^+(u), u\in \bar{B}(\rho)\}. |
Taking \tilde{\phi}\in C_0^\infty (\Omega) with \tilde{\phi} > 0, and for t > 0 , we get
\begin{eqnarray*} I_\lambda^+(t\tilde{\phi})& = &\frac{t^2}{2}\|\tilde{\phi}\|^2-\frac{\lambda t^s}{s}\int_\Omega a(x) |\tilde{\phi}|^s dx -\int_\Omega{F^+(x, t\tilde{\phi})}dx\\ &\leq& \frac{t^2}{2}\|\tilde{\phi}\|^2-\frac{\lambda t^s}{s}\int_\Omega a(x) |\tilde{\phi}|^s dx\\ & < & 0, \end{eqnarray*} |
for all t > 0 small enough. Hence, c_1^* < 0 .
Since Ekeland's variational principle and Lemma 2.4, for any m > 1 , there exists u_m with \|u_m\| < \rho such that
I_\lambda^+(u_m)\rightarrow c_1^*, \quad I_\lambda^{+'}(u_m)\rightarrow 0. |
Hence, there exists a subsequence still denoted by \{u_m\} such that
u_m\rightarrow v_+, \quad I_\lambda^{+'}(v_+) = 0. |
Thus v_+ is a weak solution of problem (1.1) and I_\lambda^+(v_+) < 0 . In addition, from the maximum principle, we know v_+ > 0 . By a similar way, we obtain a negative solution v_- with I_\lambda^-(v_-) < 0 .
On the other hand, from Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, the functional I_\lambda^+ has a mountain pass-type critical point u_+ with I_\lambda^+(u_+) > 0. Again using the maximum principle, we have u_+ > 0 . Hence, u_+ is a positive weak solution of problem (1.1). Similarly, we also obtain a negative mountain pass-type critical point u_- for the functional I_\lambda^- . Thus, we have proved that problem (1.1) has four different nontrivial solutions. Next, our method to obtain the fifth solution follows the idea developed in [33] for problem (1.1). We can assume that v_+ and v_- are isolated local minima of I_\lambda . Let us denote by b_\lambda the mountain pass critical level of I_\lambda with base points v_+, v_-:
b_\lambda = \inf\limits_{\gamma\in \Gamma}\max\limits_{0\leq t\leq1}I_\lambda(\gamma(t)), |
where \Gamma = \{\gamma\in C([0, 1], E), \gamma(0) = v_+, \gamma(1) = v_-\} . We will show that b_\lambda < 0 if \lambda is small enough. To this end, we regard
I_\lambda(tv_{\pm}) = \frac{t^2}{2}\|v_{\pm}\|^2-\frac{\lambda t^s}{s}\int_\Omega a(x)|v_{\pm}|^sdx-\int_\Omega F(x, tv_{\pm})dx. |
We claim that there exists \delta > 0 such that
\begin{equation} I_\lambda(tv_{\pm}) < 0, \ \forall t\in (0, 1), \ \forall \lambda\in (0, \delta). \end{equation} | (3.1) |
If not, we have t_0\in (0, 1) such that I_\lambda(t_0v_{\pm})\geq 0 for \lambda small enough. Similarly, we also have I_\lambda(tv_{\pm}) < 0 for t > 0 small enough. Let \rho_0 = t_0\|v_{\pm}\| and \check{c}_*^{\pm} = \inf \{I_\lambda^{\pm}(u), u\in \bar{B}(\rho_0)\}. Since previous arguments, we obtain a solution v_{\pm}^* such that I_\lambda(v_{\pm}^*) < 0, a contradiction. Hence, (3.1) holds.
Now, let us consider the 2 -dimensional plane \Pi_2 containing the straightlines tv_- and tv_+ , and take v\in \Pi_2 with \|v\| = \epsilon. Note that for such v one has \|v\|_s = c_s\epsilon. Then we get
I_\lambda(v)\leq \frac{\epsilon^2}{2}-\frac{\lambda}{s}c_s^sh_0\epsilon^s. |
Thus, for small \epsilon ,
\begin{equation} I_\lambda(v) < 0. \end{equation} | (3.2) |
Consider the path \bar{\gamma} obtained gluing together the segments \{tv_-:\epsilon \|v_-\|^{-1}\leq t\leq 1\}, \{tv_+:\epsilon \|v_+\|^{-1}\leq t\leq 1\} and the arc \{v\in \Pi_2: \|v\| = \epsilon\} . by (3.1)and (3.2), we get
b_\lambda\leq \max\limits_{v\in \bar{\gamma}}I_\lambda(v) < 0, |
which verifies the claim. Since the (PS) condition holds because of Lemma 2.3, the level \{I_\lambda(v) = b_\lambda\} carries a critical point v_3 of I_\lambda , and v_3 is different from v_{\pm} .
Proof of Theorem 1.2. We first use the symmetric mountain pass theorem to prove the case of a) . It follows from our assumptions that the functional I_\lambda is even. Since the condition (SCP), we know that (I_1') of Theorem 9.12 in [30] holds. Furthermore, by condition (H_3) , we easily verify that (I_2') of Theorem 9.12 also holds. Hence, by Lemma 2.7, our theorem is proved.
Next we use the dual fountain theorem (Lemma 2.10) to prove the case of b) . Since Lemma 2.7, we know that the functional I_\lambda satisfies \mathrm{(PS)_c^*} condition. Next, we just need to prove the conditions (ⅰ)-(ⅲ) of Lemma 2.10.
First, we verify (ⅰ) of Lemma 2.10. Define
\beta_k: = \sup\limits_{u\in Z_k, \|u\| = 1}\|u\|_s. |
From the conditions (SCP) and (H_2) , we get, for u\in Z_k, \|u\|\leq R,
\begin{align} I_\lambda(u)&\geq \frac{\|u\|^2}{2}-\lambda \beta_k^s\frac{\|u\|^s}{s}-\frac{f_0+\epsilon}{2}\|u\|_2^2-c_6\|u\|^q\\ &\geq \frac{1}{4}(1-\frac{f_0+\epsilon}{\mu_1})\|u\|^2-\lambda \beta_k^s\frac{\|u\|^s}{s}. \end{align} | (3.3) |
Here, R is a positive constant and \epsilon > 0 small enough. We take \rho_k = (4\mu_1\lambda \beta_k^s/[(\mu_1-f_0-\epsilon)s])^{\frac{1}{2-s}}. Since \beta_k\rightarrow 0, k\rightarrow \infty, it follows that \rho_k\rightarrow 0, k\rightarrow \infty. There exists k_0 such that \rho_k\leq R when k\geq k_0 . Thus, for k\geq k_0, u\in Z_k and \|u\| = \rho_k, we have I_\lambda(u)\geq 0 and (ⅰ) holds. The verification of (ⅱ) and (ⅲ) is standard, we omit it here.
Proof of Theorem 1.3. According to our assumptions, similar to previous section of the proof of Theorem 1.1, we obtain that the existence of local minimum v_{\pm} with I_\lambda^{\pm}(v_{\pm}) < 0 . In addition, by Lemmas 2.5 and 2.6, for I_\lambda^{\pm} , we obtain two mountain pass type critical points u_+ and u_- with positive energy. Similar to the last section of the proof of Theorem 1.1, we can also get another solution u_3 , which is different from v_{\pm} and u_{\pm} . Thus, this proof is completed.
Proof of Theorem 1.4. We first use the symmetric mountain pass theorem to prove the case of a) . It follows from our assumptions that the functional I_\lambda is even. Since the condition (SCE), we know that (I_1') of Theorem 9.12 in [30] holds. In fact, similar to the proof of (ⅰ) of Lemma 2.5, we can conclude it. Furthermore, by condition (H_3) , we easily verify that (I_2') of Theorem 9.12 also holds. Hence, by Lemma 2.8, our theorem is proved.
Next we use the dual fountain theorem (Lemma 2.10) to prove the case of b) . Since Lemma 2.8, we know that the functional I_\lambda satisfies \mathrm{(PS)_c^*} condition. Next, we just need to prove the conditions (ⅰ)-(ⅲ) of Lemma 2.10.
First, we verify (ⅰ) of Lemma 2.10. Define
\beta_k: = \sup\limits_{u\in Z_k, \|u\| = 1}\|u\|_s. |
From the conditions (SCE), (H_2) and Lemma 2.2, we get, for u\in Z_k, \|u\|\leq R,
\begin{align} I_\lambda(u)&\geq \frac{\|u\|^2}{2}-\lambda \beta_k^s\frac{\|u\|^s}{s}-\frac{f_0+\epsilon}{2}\|u\|_2^2-c_7\|u\|^q\\ &\geq \frac{1}{4}(1-\frac{f_0+\epsilon}{\mu_1})\|u\|^2-\lambda \beta_k^s\frac{\|u\|^s}{s}. \end{align} | (3.4) |
Here, R is a positive constant small enough and \epsilon > 0 small enough. We take \rho_k = (4\mu_1\lambda \beta_k^s/[(\mu_1-f_0-\epsilon)s])^{\frac{1}{2-s}}. Since \beta_k\rightarrow 0, k\rightarrow \infty, it follows that \rho_k\rightarrow 0, k\rightarrow \infty. There exists k_0 such that \rho_k\leq R when k\geq k_0 . Thus, for k\geq k_0, u\in Z_k and \|u\| = \rho_k, we have I_\lambda(u)\geq 0 and (ⅰ) holds. The verification of (ⅱ) and (ⅲ) is standard, we omit it here.
Proof of Theorem 1.5. According to our assumptions, similar to previous section of the proof of Theorem 1.1, we obtain that the existence of local minimum v_{\pm} with I_\lambda^{\pm}(v_{\pm}) < 0 . Now, we show that I_\lambda^+ has a positive mountain pass type critical point. Since Lemmas 2.5 and 2.9, then there exists a \mathrm{(C)_{c_M}} sequence \{u_n\} at the level 0 < c_M\leq \frac{16\pi^2}{\alpha_0} . Similar to previous section of the proof of Lemma 2.6, we can prove that \mathrm{(C)_{c_M}} sequence \{u_n\} is bounded in E . Without loss of generality, we can suppose that
u_n\rightharpoonup u_+\; \; \text{in}\; E. |
Following the proof of Lemma 4 in [9], we can imply that u_+ is weak of problem (1.1). So the theorem is proved if u_+ is not trivial. However, we can get this due to our technical assumption (H_5) . Indeed, assume u_+ = 0 , similarly as in [9], we obtain f^+(x, u_n)\rightarrow 0 in L^1(\Omega) . Since (H_5), F^+(x, u_n)\rightarrow 0 in L^1(\Omega) and we get
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|u_n\|^{2} = 2c_M < \frac{32\pi^2}{\alpha_0} , |
and again following the proof in [9], we get a contradiction.
We claim that v_+ and u_+ are distinct. Since the previous proof, we know that there exist sequence \{u_n\} and \{v_n\} in E such that
\begin{equation} u_n\rightarrow v_+, \ I_\lambda^+(u_n)\rightarrow c_*^+ < 0, \ \langle I_\lambda^{+'}(u_n), u_n\rangle\rightarrow 0, \end{equation} | (3.5) |
and
\begin{equation} v_n\rightharpoonup u_+, \ I_\lambda^+(v_n)\rightarrow c_M > 0, \ \langle I_\lambda^{+'}(v_n), v_n\rangle\rightarrow 0. \end{equation} | (3.6) |
Now, argue by contradiction that v_+ = u_+. Since we also have v_n\rightharpoonup v_+ in E , up to subsequence, \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|v_n\|\geq \|v_+\| > 0. Setting
w_n = \frac{v_n}{\|v_n\|}, \ \ w_0 = \frac{v_+}{\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|v_n\|}, |
we know that \|w_n\| = 1 and w_n\rightharpoonup w_0 in E .
Now, we consider two possibilities:
\mathrm{ (i)} \ \|w_0\| = 1, \quad \mathrm{(ii)}\ \|w_0\| < 1. |
If (ⅰ) happens, we have v_n\rightarrow v_+ in E , so that I_\lambda^+(v_n)\rightarrow I_\lambda^+(v_+) = c_*^+. This is a contradiction with (3.5) and (3.6).
Now, suppose that (ⅱ) happens. We claim that there exists \delta > 0 such that
\begin{equation} h\alpha_0\|v_n\|^2\leq \frac{32\pi^2}{1-\|w_0\|^2}-\delta \end{equation} | (3.7) |
for n large enough. In fact, by the proof of v_+ and Lemma 2.9, we get
\begin{equation} 0 < c_M < c_*^++ \frac{16\pi^2}{\alpha_0}. \end{equation} | (3.8) |
Thus, we can choose h > 1 sufficiently close to 1 and \delta > 0 such that
h\alpha_0\|v_n\|^2\leq \frac{16\pi^2}{c_M-I_\lambda^+(v_+)}\|v_n\|^2-\delta. |
Since v_n\rightharpoonup v_+, by condition (H_5) , up to a subsequence, we conclude that
\begin{equation} \frac{1}{2}\|v_n\|^2 = c_M+\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x) v_+^s dx +\int_\Omega F^+(x, v_+)dx+\circ (1). \end{equation} | (3.9) |
Thus, for n sufficiently large we get
\begin{equation} h\alpha_0\|v_n\|^2\leq 32\pi^2\frac{ c_M+\frac{\lambda}{s}\int_\Omega a(x) v_+^s dx +\int_\Omega F^+(x, v_+)dx+\circ (1)}{c_M-I_\lambda^+(v_+)}-\delta. \end{equation} | (3.10) |
Thus, from (3.9) and the definition of w_0 , (3.10) implies (3.7) for n large enough.
Now, taking \tilde{h} = (h+\epsilon)\alpha_0\|v_n\|^2, it follows from (3.7) and a revised Adams inequality (see [28]), we have
\begin{equation} \int_\Omega \exp((h+\epsilon)\alpha_0\|v_n\|^2|w_n|^2dx\leq C \end{equation} | (3.11) |
for \epsilon > 0 small enough. Thus, from our assumptions and the Hölder inequality we get v_n\rightarrow v_+ and this is absurd.
Similarly, we can find a negative mountain pass type critical point u_- which is different that v_- . Thus, the proof is completed.
In this research, we mainly studied the existence and multiplicity of nontrivial solutions for the fourth-order elliptic Navier boundary problems with exponential growth. Our method is based on the variational methods, Resonance Theorem together with a revised Adams inequality.
The authors would like to thank the referees for valuable comments and suggestions in improving this article. This research is supported by the NSFC (Nos. 11661070, 11764035 and 12161077), the NSF of Gansu Province (No. 22JR11RE193) and the Nonlinear mathematical physics Equation Innovation Team (No. TDJ2022-03).
There is no conflict of interest.
[1] | Morinaga M (2018) A Quantum Approach to Alloy Design An Exploration of Material Design and Development Based Upon Alloy Design Theory and Atomization Energy Method, Elsevier. |
[2] | Campbell FC (2006) Manufacturing Technology for Aerospace Structural Materials, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-185617495-4/50011-1 |
[3] |
Tan Z, Pang B, Oliveira JP, et al. (2022) Effect of S-curve laser power for power distribution control on laser oscillating welding of 5A06 aluminum alloy. Opt Laser Technol 149: 107909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2022.107909 doi: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2022.107909
![]() |
[4] |
Zheng M, Yang J, Xu J, et al. (2023) Interfacial microstructure and strengthening mechanism of dissimilar laser al/steel joint via a porous high entropy alloy coating. J Mater Res Technol 23: 3997–4011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.02.040 doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.02.040
![]() |
[5] | Torenbeek E (2013) Advanced Aircraft Design: Conceptual Design, Analysis and Optimization of Subsonic Civil Airplanes, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568101 |
[6] |
Yoon HS, Kim ES, Kim MS, et al. (2015) Towards greener machine tools-A review on energy saving strategies and technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 48: 870–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.100 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.100
![]() |
[7] | Mead I (2017) International Energy Outlook 2017. Available from: https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/mead_91417.pdf |
[8] |
Zhao G, Hou C, Qiao J, et al. (2016) Energy consumption characteristics evaluation method in turning. Adv Mech Eng 8: 168781401668073. https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814016680737 doi: 10.1177/1687814016680737
![]() |
[9] |
Li W, Kara S (2011) An empirical model for predicting energy consumption of manufacturing processes: a case of turning process. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B 225: 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041297511398541 doi: 10.1177/2041297511398541
![]() |
[10] |
Dahmus JB, Gutowski TG (2004) An environmental analysis of machining. IMECE04 2004 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Anaheim, California, USA, 2004: 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2004-62600 doi: 10.1115/IMECE2004-62600
![]() |
[11] | Gutowski T, Dahmus J, Thiriez A (2006) Electrical energy requirements for manufacturing processes. 13th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Leuven, Belgium, 31: 623–638. |
[12] |
Goncharenko AV (2018) Aeronautical and aerospace material and structural damages to failures: Theoretical concepts. Int J Aerosp Eng 2018: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4126085 doi: 10.1155/2018/4126085
![]() |
[13] | Groover MP (2010) Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes, and Systems, Wiley. |
[14] |
Li L, Yan J, Xing Z (2013) Energy requirements evaluation of milling machines based on thermal equilibrium and empirical modelling. J Clean Prod 52: 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.039 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.039
![]() |
[15] |
Benedicto E, Carou D, Rubio EM (2017) Technical, economic and environmental review of the lubrication/cooling systems used in machining processes. Procedia Eng 184: 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.075 doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.075
![]() |
[16] | Kopac J, Pusavec F, Krolczyk G (2015) Cryogenic machining, surface integrity and machining performance. Arch Mater Sci Eng 71: 83–93. |
[17] |
Krolczyk GM, Maruda RW, Krolczyk JB, et al. (2019) Ecological trends in machining as a key factor in sustainable production—A review. J Clean Prod 218: 601–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.017 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.017
![]() |
[18] |
Saleem W, Zain-ul-abdein M, Ijaz H, et al. (2017) Computational analysis and artificial neural network optimization of dry turning parameters-AA2024-T351. Appl Sci 7: 642. https://doi.org/10.3390/app7060642 doi: 10.3390/app7060642
![]() |
[19] |
Do TV, Hsu QC (2016) Optimization of minimum quantity lubricant conditions and cutting parameters in hard milling of AISI H13 steel. Appl Sci 6: 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/app6030083 doi: 10.3390/app6030083
![]() |
[20] |
Dhokia V, Newman ST, Imani-Asrai R (2012) An initial study of the effect of using liquid nitrogen coolant on the surface roughness of inconel 718 nickel-based alloy in CNC milling. Procedia CIRP 3: 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.022 doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.022
![]() |
[21] |
Syed AK, Zhang X, Moffatt JE, et al. (2017) Effect of temperature and thermal cycling on fatigue crack growth in aluminium reinforced with GLARE bonded crack retarders. Int J Fatigue 98: 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.01.018 doi: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.01.018
![]() |
[22] |
Caruso S, Rotella G, Del Prete A, et al. (2019) Finite element modeling of microstructural changes in hard machining of SAE 8620. Appl Sci 10: 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010121 doi: 10.3390/app10010121
![]() |
[23] |
Meng X, Lin Z, Wang F (2013) Investigation on corrosion fatigue crack growth rate in 7075 aluminum alloy. Mater Des 51: 683–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.04.097 doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.04.097
![]() |
[24] |
Warsi SS, Jaffery SHI, Ahmad R, et al. (2018) Development of energy consumption map for orthogonal machining of Al 6061-T6 alloy. P I Mech Eng B-J Eng 232: 2510–2522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405417703424 doi: 10.1177/0954405417703424
![]() |
[25] |
Draganescu F, Gheorghe M, Doicin CV (2003) Models of machine tool efficiency and specific consumed energy. J Mater Process Technol 141: 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(02)00930-5 doi: 10.1016/S0924-0136(02)00930-5
![]() |
[26] |
Pawade RS, Sonawane HA, Joshi SS (2009) An analytical model to predict specific shear energy in high-speed turning of Inconel 718. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 49: 979–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.06.007 doi: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.06.007
![]() |
[27] |
Balogun VA, Mativenga PT (2014) Impact of un-deformed chip thickness on specific energy in mechanical machining processes. J Clean Prod 69: 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.036 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.036
![]() |
[28] |
Warsi SS, Agha MH, Ahmad R, et al. (2019) Sustainable turning using multi-objective optimization: a study of Al 6061 T6 at high cutting speeds. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 100: 843–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2759-2 doi: 10.1007/s00170-018-2759-2
![]() |
[29] |
Ghosh CS, Rao PV (2018) Specific cutting energy modeling for turning nickel-based Nimonic 90 alloy under MQL condition. Int J Mech Sci 146–147: 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.07.033 doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.07.033
![]() |
[30] |
Yao Y, Zhu H, Huang C, et al. (2019) On the relations between the specific cutting energy and surface generation in micro-milling of maraging steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 104: 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03911-y doi: 10.1007/s00170-019-03911-y
![]() |
[31] |
Liu ZJ, Sun DP, Lin CX, et al. (2016) Multi-objective optimization of the operating conditions in a cutting process based on low carbon emission costs. J Clean Prod 124: 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.087 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.087
![]() |
[32] |
Bhattacharya A, Das S, Majumder P, et al. (2009) Estimating the effect of cutting parameters on surface finish and power consumption during high speed machining of AISI 1045 steel using Taguchi design and ANOVA. Prod Eng 3: 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-008-0132-2 doi: 10.1007/s11740-008-0132-2
![]() |
[33] |
Bhushan RK (2013) Optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing power consumption and maximizing tool life during machining of Al alloy SiC particle composites. J Clean Prod 39: 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.008
![]() |
[34] |
Kosaraju S, Chandraker S(2015) Taguchi analysis on cutting force and surface roughness in turning MDN350 steel. Mater Today Proc 2: 3388–3393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2015.07.313 doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2015.07.313
![]() |
[35] |
Warsi SS, Jaffery SHI, Ahmad R, et al. (2018) Development and analysis of energy consumption map for high-speed machining of Al 6061-T6 alloy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96: 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1588-7 doi: 10.1007/s00170-018-1588-7
![]() |
[36] | Find your way to gain an edge in steel turning, Sandvik Coromant. Available from: https://www.sandvik.coromant.com/en-us/campaigns/gain-an-edge-in-steel-turning. |
[37] |
Iqbal SA, Mativenga PT, Sheikh MA (2009) A comparative study of the tool-chip contact length in turning of two engineering alloys for a wide range of cutting speeds. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 42: 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1582-6 doi: 10.1007/s00170-008-1582-6
![]() |
[38] | Shaw MC (2005) Metal Cutting Principles, 2nd Eds., Oxford University Press. https://www.scribd.com/document/344789895/Shaw-Milton-C-Metal-Cutting-Principles# |
[39] |
Trent EM (1988) Metal cutting and the tribology of seizure: Ⅰ seizure in metal cutting. Wear 128: 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(88)90251-7 doi: 10.1016/0043-1648(88)90251-7
![]() |
[40] | Childs T, Maekawa K, Obikawa T, et al. (2000) Metal Machining, Elsevier. |
[41] |
Abukhshim NA, Mativenga PT, Sheikh MA (2006) Heat generation and temperature prediction in metal cutting: A review and implications for high speed machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46: 782–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.07.024 doi: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.07.024
![]() |
[42] | Schmid SR, Kalpakjian S (2015) Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Materials, 5th Eds., Pearson Education India. |
[43] |
Giridhar D, Vijayaraghavan L, Krishnamurthy R (2010) Micro-grooving studies on alumina ceramic material. Mater Manuf Process 25: 1148–1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2010.502952 doi: 10.1080/10426914.2010.502952
![]() |
[44] |
Atkins AG (2003) Modelling metal cutting using modern ductile fracture mechanics: quantitative explanations for some longstanding problems. Int J Mech Sci 45: 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7403(03)00040-7 doi: 10.1016/S0020-7403(03)00040-7
![]() |
[45] |
Akram S, Jaffery SHI, Khan M, et al. (2018) Numerical and experimental investigation of Johnson-Cook material models for aluminum (Al 6061-T6) alloy using orthogonal machining approach. Adv Mech Eng 10: 168781401879779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814018797794 doi: 10.1177/1687814018797794
![]() |
1. | Yongxiang Li, Yanyan Wang, The Existence and Uniqueness of Radial Solutions for Biharmonic Elliptic Equations in an Annulus, 2024, 13, 2075-1680, 383, 10.3390/axioms13060383 | |
2. | Danni Zhang, Ziheng Zhang, Sign-changing Solutions for Fourth Order Elliptic Equation with Concave-convex Nonlinearities, 2024, 11, 2409-5761, 1, 10.15377/2409-5761.2024.11.1 |