
Multi-robot systems are experiencing increasing popularity in joint rescue, intelligent transportation, and other fields. However, path planning and navigation obstacle avoidance among multiple robots, as well as dynamic environments, raise significant challenges. We propose a distributed multi-mobile robot navigation and obstacle avoidance method in unknown environments. First, we propose a bidirectional alternating jump point search A* algorithm (BAJPSA*) to obtain the robot's global path in the prior environment and further improve the heuristic function to enhance efficiency. We construct a robot kinematic model based on the dynamic window approach (DWA), present an adaptive navigation strategy, and introduce a new path tracking evaluation function that improves path tracking accuracy and optimality. To strengthen the security of obstacle avoidance, we modify the decision rules and obstacle avoidance rules of the single robot and further improve the decision avoidance capability of multi-robot systems. Moreover, the mainstream prioritization method is used to coordinate the local dynamic path planning of our multi-robot systems to resolve collision conflicts, reducing the difficulty of obstacle avoidance and simplifying the algorithm. Experimental results show that this distributed multi-mobile robot motion planning method can provide better navigation and obstacle avoidance strategies in complex dynamic environments, which provides a technical reference in practical situations.
Citation: Zhen Yang, Junli Li, Liwei Yang, Qian Wang, Ping Li, Guofeng Xia. Path planning and collision avoidance methods for distributed multi-robot systems in complex dynamic environments[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 145-178. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023008
[1] | Shihe Xu, Junde Wu . Qualitative analysis of a time-delayed free boundary problem for tumor growth with angiogenesis and Gibbs-Thomson relation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 7433-7446. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019372 |
[2] | H. J. Alsakaji, F. A. Rihan, K. Udhayakumar, F. El Ktaibi . Stochastic tumor-immune interaction model with external treatments and time delays: An optimal control problem. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(11): 19270-19299. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023852 |
[3] | 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 |
[4] | Alessandro Bertuzzi, Antonio Fasano, Alberto Gandolfi, Carmela Sinisgalli . Interstitial Pressure And Fluid Motion In Tumor Cords. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2005, 2(3): 445-460. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2005.2.445 |
[5] | Jiaxin Nan, Wanbiao Ma . Stability and persistence analysis of a microorganism flocculation model with infinite delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 10815-10827. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023480 |
[6] | Maria Vittoria Barbarossa, Christina Kuttler, Jonathan Zinsl . Delay equations modeling the effects of phase-specific drugs and immunotherapy on proliferating tumor cells. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2012, 9(2): 241-257. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.241 |
[7] | Marek Bodnar, Monika Joanna Piotrowska, Urszula Foryś . Gompertz model with delays and treatment: Mathematical analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(3): 551-563. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.551 |
[8] | Qiaoling Chen, Fengquan Li, Sanyi Tang, Feng Wang . Free boundary problem for a nonlocal time-periodic diffusive competition model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 16471-16505. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023735 |
[9] | Avner Friedman, Harsh Vardhan Jain . A partial differential equation model of metastasized prostatic cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(3): 591-608. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.591 |
[10] | Hui Cao, Dongxue Yan, Ao Li . Dynamic analysis of the recurrent epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5972-5990. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019299 |
Multi-robot systems are experiencing increasing popularity in joint rescue, intelligent transportation, and other fields. However, path planning and navigation obstacle avoidance among multiple robots, as well as dynamic environments, raise significant challenges. We propose a distributed multi-mobile robot navigation and obstacle avoidance method in unknown environments. First, we propose a bidirectional alternating jump point search A* algorithm (BAJPSA*) to obtain the robot's global path in the prior environment and further improve the heuristic function to enhance efficiency. We construct a robot kinematic model based on the dynamic window approach (DWA), present an adaptive navigation strategy, and introduce a new path tracking evaluation function that improves path tracking accuracy and optimality. To strengthen the security of obstacle avoidance, we modify the decision rules and obstacle avoidance rules of the single robot and further improve the decision avoidance capability of multi-robot systems. Moreover, the mainstream prioritization method is used to coordinate the local dynamic path planning of our multi-robot systems to resolve collision conflicts, reducing the difficulty of obstacle avoidance and simplifying the algorithm. Experimental results show that this distributed multi-mobile robot motion planning method can provide better navigation and obstacle avoidance strategies in complex dynamic environments, which provides a technical reference in practical situations.
Over the past few decades, considerable attention has been paid to the rigorous analysis of mathematical models describing tumor growth and great progress has been achieved. Most work in this direction focuses on the sphere-shaped or nearly sphere-shaped tumor models; see [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] and the references therein. Observing that the work concerning models for tumors having different geometric configurations from spheroids is less frequent, in this paper we are interested in the situation of tumor cord–a kind of tumor that grows cylindrically around the central blood vessel and receives nutrient materials (such as glucose and oxygen) from the blood vessel [10]. The model only describes the evolution of the tumor cord section perpendicular to the length direction of the blood vessel due to the cord's uniformity in that direction. Assume that the radius of the blood vessel is r0 and denote by J and Γ(t) the section of the blood vessel wall and the section of the exterior surface of the tumor cord, respectively, then J={x∈R2;|x|=r0}. We also denote by Ω(t) the region of the section of the tumor cord, so that Ω(t) is an annular-like bounded domain in R2 and ∂Ω(t)=J∪Γ(t). The mathematical formulation of the tumor model under study is as follows:
cσt(x,t)−Δσ(x,t)+σ(x,t)=0,x∈Ω(t),t>0, | (1.1) |
−Δp(x,t)=μ[σ(ξ(t−τ;x,t),t−τ)−˜σ],x∈Ω(t),t>0, | (1.2) |
{dξds=−∇p(ξ,s),t−τ≤s≤t,ξ=x,s=t, | (1.3) |
σ(x,t)=ˉσ,∂→np(x,t)=0,x∈J,t>0, | (1.4) |
∂→νσ(x,t)=0,p(x,t)=γκ(x,t),x∈Γ(t),t>0, | (1.5) |
V(x,t)=−∂→νp(x,t),x∈Γ(t),t>0, | (1.6) |
Γ(t)=Γ0,−τ≤t≤0, | (1.7) |
σ(x,t)=σ0(x),x∈Ω0,−τ≤t≤0, | (1.8) |
p(x,t)=p0(x),x∈Ω0,−τ≤t≤0. | (1.9) |
Here, σ and p denote the nutrient concentration and pressure within the tumor, respectively, which are to be determined together with Ω(t), and c=Tdiffusion /Tgrowth is the ratio of the nutrient diffusion time scale to the tumor growth (e.g., tumor doubling) time scale; thus, it is very small and can sometimes be set to be 0 (quasi-steady state approximation). Assume that the time delay τ is reflected between the time at which a cell commences mitosis and the time at which the daughter cells are produced and ξ(s;x,t) represents the cell location at time s as cells are moving with the velocity field →V, then the function ξ(s;x,t) satisfies
{dξds=→V(ξ,s),t−τ≤s≤t,ξ|s=t=x. | (1.10) |
In other words, ξ tracks the path of the cell currently located at x. (1.3) is further derived from (1.10) under the assumption of a porous medium structure for the tumor, where Darcy's law →V=−∇p holds true. Because of the presence of time delay, the tumor grows at a rate that is related to the nutrient concentration when it starts mitosis and a combination of the conservation of mass and Darcy's law yields (1.2), in which μ represents the growth intensity of the tumor and ˜σ is the nutrient concentration threshold required for tumor cell growth. Additionally, ˉσ is the nutrient concentration in the blood vessel, ˉσ>˜σ, V, κ and →ν denote the normal velocity, the mean curvature and the unit outward normal field of the outer boundary Γ(t), respectively, →n denotes the unit outward normal field of the fixed inner boundary J, and γ is the outer surface tension coefficient. Thus, the boundary condition σ=ˉσ on J indicates that the tumor receives constant nutrient supply from the blood vessel, ∂→νσ=0 on Γ(t) implies that the nutrient cannot pass through Γ(t), ∂→np=0 on J means that tumor cells cannot pass through the blood vessel wall, p=γκ on Γ(t) is due to the cell-to-cell adhesiveness, and V=−∂→νp on Γ(t) is the well-known Stefan condition representing that the normal velocity of the tumor cord outer boundary Γ(t) is the same with that of tumor cells adjacent to Γ(t). Finally, σ0(x), p0(x), Γ0 are given initial data and Ω(t)=Ω0 for −τ≤t≤0.
Before going to our interest, we prefer to recall some relevant works. Models for the growth of the strictly cylindrical tumor cord were studied in [11,12,13]. For the model (1.1)–(1.9) without the time delay, if c=0, Zhou and Cui [14] showed that the unique radially symmetric stationary solution exists and is asymptotically stable for any sufficiently small perturbations. Meanwhile, if c>0, Wu et al. [15] proved that the stationary solution is locally asymptotically stable provided that c is small enough. On the other hand, Zhao and Hu [16] considered the multicell spheroids with time delays. For the case c=0, they analyzed the linear stability of the radially symmetric stationary solution as well as the impact of the time delay.
Motivated by the works [14,15,16], here we aim to discuss the linear stability of stationary solutions to the problem (1.1)–(1.9) with the quasi-steady-state assumption, i.e., c=0, and investigate the effect of time delay on tumor growth. Our first main result is given below.
Theorem 1.1. For small time delay τ, the problem (1.1)–(1.9) admits a unique radially symmetric stationary solution.
Next, in order to deal with the linear stability of the radially symmetric stationary solution, denoted by (σ∗,p∗,Ω∗), where Ω∗={x∈R2: r0<r=|x|<R∗}, we assume that the initial conditions are perturbed as follows:
Ω(t)={x∈R2:r0<r<R∗+ερ0(θ)},−τ≤t≤0,σ(r,θ,t)=σ∗(r)+εw0(r,θ),p(r,θ,t)=p∗(r)+εq0(r,θ),−τ≤t≤0. |
The linearized problem of (1.1)–(1.9) at (σ∗,p∗,Ω∗) is then obtained by substituting
Ω(t):r0<r<R∗+ερ(θ,t)+O(ε2), | (1.11) |
σ(r,θ,t)=σ∗(r)+εw(r,θ,t)+O(ε2), | (1.12) |
p(r,θ,t)=p∗(r)+εq(r,θ,t)+O(ε2) | (1.13) |
into (1.1)–(1.9) and collecting the ε-order terms. Now, we can state the second main result of this paper.
Theorem 1.2. For small time delay τ, the radially symmetric stationary solution (σ∗,p∗,Ω∗) of (1.1)–(1.9) with c=0 is linearly stable, i.e.,
max0≤θ≤2π|ρ(θ,t)|≤Ce−δt,t>0 | (1.14) |
for some positive constants C and δ.
Remark 1.1. Compared with results of the problem modeling the growth of tumor cord without time delays in [14], the introduction of the time delay does not affect the stability of the radially symmetric stationary solution even under non-radial perturbations. However, as we shall see in Subsection 3.3, the numerical result shows that adding time delay would result in a larger stationary tumor. Moreover, the stronger the growth intensity of the tumor is, the greater the influence of time delay on the size of the stationary tumor is.
Remark 1.2. Compared with results of the nearly sphere-shaped tumor model with time delays in [16], which state that the radially symmetric stationary solution is linearly stable for small μ in the sense that limt→∞max0≤θ≤2π|ρ(θ,t)−(a1cosθ+b1sinθ)|=0 for some constants a1 and b1, the radially symmetric stationary solution of tumor cord with the time delay is linearly stable for any μ>0 in the normal sense.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give the proof of Theorem 1.1 by first transforming the free boundary problem into an equivalent problem with fixed boundary and then applying the contraction mapping principle combined with Lp estimates to this fixed boundary problem. In Section 3, we prove Theorem 1.2 and Remark 1.1 by first introducing the linearization of (1.1)–(1.9) at the radially symmetric stationary solution (σ∗,p∗,Ω∗), and then making a delicate analysis of the expansion in the time delay τ provided that τ is sufficiently small. A brief conclusion in Section 4 completes the paper.
In this section, we study radially symmetric stationary solutions (σ∗,p∗,Ω∗) to the system (1.1)–(1.9), which satisfy
−Δrσ∗(r)+σ∗(r)=0,σ∗(r0)=ˉσ,σ′∗(R∗)=0,r0<r<R∗, | (2.1) |
−Δrp∗(r)=μ[σ∗(ξ(−τ;r,0))−˜σ],p′∗(r0)=0,p∗(R∗)=γR∗,r0<r<R∗, | (2.2) |
{dξds(s;r,0)=−∂p∗∂r(ξ(s;r,0)),−τ≤s≤0,ξ(s;r,0)=r,s=0, | (2.3) |
∫R∗r0[σ∗(ξ(−τ;r,0))−˜σ]rdr=0, | (2.4) |
where Δr is the radial part of the Laplacian in R2.
Before proceeding further, let us recall that the modified Bessel functions Kn(r) and In(r), standard solutions of the equation
r2y′′+ry′−(r2+n2)y=0,r>0, | (2.5) |
have the following properties:
In+1(r)=In−1(r)−2nrIn(r),Kn+1(r)=Kn−1(r)+2nrKn(r),n≥1, | (2.6) |
I′n(r)=12[In−1(r)+In+1(r)],K′n(r)=−12[Kn−1(r)+Kn+1(r)],n≥1, | (2.7) |
I′n(r)=In−1(r)−nrIn(r), K′n(r)=−Kn−1(r)−nrKn(r),n≥1, | (2.8) |
I′n(r)=nrIn(r)+In+1(r), K′n(r)=nrKn(r)−Kn+1(r),n≥0, | (2.9) |
In(r)Kn+1(r)+In+1(r)Kn(r)=1r,n≥0 | (2.10) |
and
I′n(r)>0,K′n(r)<0. |
Proof of Theorem 1.1 In view of (2.5), the solution of (2.1) is clearly given by
σ∗(r)=ˉσI0(r)K1(R∗)+I1(R∗)K0(r)I0(r0)K1(R∗)+I1(R∗)K0(r0). | (2.11) |
Introducing the notations:
ˆr=r−r0R∗−r0,ˆσ(ˆr)=σ∗(r),ˆp(ˆr)=(R∗−r0)p∗(r),ˆξ(s,ˆr,0)=ξ(s,r,0)−r0R∗−r0, |
(2.1)–(2.4) reduces to the following system after dropping the "^" in the above variables:
∂2σ∂r2+R∗−r0r(R∗−r0)+r0∂σ∂r=(R∗−r0)2σ,σ(0)=ˉσ,σ′(1)=0, | (2.12) |
{∂2p∂r2+R∗−r0r(R∗−r0)+r0∂p∂r=−μ(R∗−r0)3[σ(r+1(R∗−r0)3∫0−τ∂p∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(s;r,0)+r0)ds)−˜σ],p′(0)=0,p(1)=γ(R∗−r0)R∗, | (2.13) |
{dξds(s;r,0)=−1(R∗−r0)3∂p∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(s;r,0)+r0),−τ≤s≤0,ξ(s;r,0)=r,s=0, | (2.14) |
∫10[r(R∗−r0)+r0][σ(r+1(R∗−r0)3∫0−τ∂p∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(s;r,0)+r0)ds)−˜σ]dr=0. | (2.15) |
It is clear that (2.12) can be solved explicitly. For convenience, we extend the solution of (2.12) outside [0, 1]:
σ(r;R∗)={ˉσI0(r(R∗−r0)+r0)K1(R∗)+I1(R∗)K0(r(R∗−r0)+r0)I0(r0)K1(R∗)+I1(R∗)K0(r0),0≤r≤1,ˉσI0(R∗)K1(R∗)+I1(R∗)K0(R∗)I0(r0)K1(R∗)+I1(R∗)K0(r0),1<r≤2. | (2.16) |
Assume that Rmin and Rmax are positive constants to be determined later and r0<Rmin<Rmax. For any R∗∈[Rmin,Rmax], we will prove that p is also uniquely determined by applying the contraction mapping principle.
Noticing that 0 is a lower solution of (2.14), but there is no assurance that ξ(s;r,0)≤1 for −τ≤s≤0, we suppose ξ(s;r,0)∈[0,2] and take
X={p∈W2,∞[0,2];‖p‖W2,∞[0,2]≤M}, |
where M>0 is to be determined. For each p∈X, we first solve for ξ from (2.14) and substitute it into (2.13), then the following system
{∂2ˉp∂r2+R∗−r0r(R∗−r0)+r0∂ˉp∂r=−μ(R∗−r0)3[σ(r+1(R∗−r0)3∫0−τ∂p∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(s;r,0)+r0)ds)−˜σ],ˉp(1)=γ(R∗−r0)R∗,∂ˉp∂r(0)=0 | (2.17) |
allows a unique solution ˉp∈W2,∞[0,1]. Applying the strong maximum principle combined with the Hopf lemma to (2.1) shows that σ(r;R∗)≤ˉσ. Thus, integrating (2.17), we obtain
‖1r(R∗−r0)+r0∂ˉp∂r‖L∞[0,1]≤μ2(Rmax−r0)2(ˉσ+˜σ), | (2.18) |
‖ˉp‖L∞[0,1]≤γ(Rmax−r0)Rmin+μ4R2max(Rmax−r0)(ˉσ+˜σ), | (2.19) |
‖∂2ˉp∂r2‖L∞[0,1]≤3μ2(Rmax−r0)3(ˉσ+˜σ). | (2.20) |
Define the mapping
Lp(r)={ˉp(r),0≤r≤1,ˉp(1)+ˉp′(1)(r−1),1<r≤2,p∈X, |
then ‖Lp‖∈W2,∞[0,2] and ‖Lp‖W2,∞[0,2]≤2‖ˉp‖W2,∞[0,1]. Combining (2.18)–(2.20), we find
‖Lp‖W2,∞[0,2]≤2{μ2(Rmax−r0)2(ˉσ+˜σ)+3μ2(Rmax−r0)3(ˉσ+˜σ)+γ(Rmax−r0)Rmin+μ4R2max(Rmax−r0)(ˉσ+˜σ)}≜M1. | (2.21) |
If we choose M≥M1, then Lp∈X by (2.21) and L maps X to itself.
We now show that L is a contraction. Given p(1),p(2)∈X, one can first get ξ(1),ξ(2) from the following two systems:
{dξ(1)ds(s;r,0)=−1(R∗−r0)3∂p(1)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(1)(s;r,0)+r0),−τ≤s≤0,ξ(1)(s;r,0)=r,s=0, | (2.22) |
{dξ(2)ds(s;r,0)=−1(R∗−r0)3∂p(2)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(2)(s;r,0)+r0),−τ≤s≤0,ξ(2)(s;r,0)=r,s=0. | (2.23) |
Integrating (2.22) and (2.23) with regard to s over the interval [−τ,0] and making a subtraction yield
|ξ(1)−ξ(2)|≤τ(R∗−r0)3max−τ≤s≤00≤r≤1[|∂p(1)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(1)+r0)−∂p(2)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(1)+r0)|+|∂p(2)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(1)+r0)−∂p(2)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(2)+r0)|]≤τ(R∗−r0)3‖p(1)−p(2)‖W2,∞[0,2]+τM(R∗−r0)2max−τ≤s≤00≤r≤1|ξ(1)−ξ(2)| |
for all −τ≤s≤0 and 0≤r≤1. Consequently,
max−τ≤s≤00≤r≤1|ξ(1)−ξ(2)|≤τ(R∗−r0)3−τM(R∗−r0)‖p(1)−p(2)‖W2,∞[0,2]. | (2.24) |
Next, we substitute ξ(1),ξ(2) into (2.17) and solve for ˉp(1) and ˉp(2), respectively, then it follows from (2.17) that (ˉp(1)−ˉp(2))(1)=0, ∂∂r(ˉp(1)−ˉp(2))(0)=0 and
−∂2∂r2(ˉp(1)−ˉp(2))−R∗−r0r(R∗−r0)+r0∂∂r(ˉp(1)−ˉp(2))=μ(R∗−r0)3[σ(r+1(R∗−r0)3∫0−τ∂p(1)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(1)(s;r,0)+r0)ds)−σ(r+1(R∗−r0)3∫0−τ∂p(2)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(2)(s;r,0)+r0)ds)]. |
Using (2.24), we derive
‖1r(R∗−r0)+r0∂∂r(ˉp(1)−ˉp(2))‖L∞[0,1]≤μ2(R∗−r0)2‖σ(r+1(R∗−r0)3∫0−τ∂p(1)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(1)+r0)ds)−σ(r+1(R∗−r0)3∫0−τ∂p(2)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(2)+r0)ds)‖L∞[0,1]≤μ2(R∗−r0)‖∂σ∂r‖L∞[0,2]∫0−τ(∂p(1)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(1)+r0)−∂p(2)∂r((R∗−r0)ξ(2)+r0))ds≤μτ2(R∗−r0)‖∂σ∂r‖L∞[0,2](‖p(1)−p(2)‖W2,∞[0,2]+(R∗−r0)‖p(2)‖W2,∞[0,2]max−τ≤s≤00≤r≤1|ξ(1)−ξ(2)|)≤M2τ‖p(1)−p(2)‖W2,∞[0,2] |
and similarly,
‖ˉp(1)−ˉp(2)‖L∞[0,1]≤M3τ‖p(1)−p(2)‖W2,∞[0,2],‖∂2∂r2(ˉp(1)−ˉp(2))‖L∞[0,1]≤M4τ‖p(1)−p(2)‖W2,∞[0,2], |
where
M2=μˉσRmax2r0(Rmax−r0)3(Rmin−r0)2−Mτ,M3=μˉσR3max4r0(Rmax−r0)2(Rmin−r0)2−Mτ,M4=3μˉσRmax2r0(Rmax−r0)4(Rmin−r0)2−Mτ. |
Here, we employed the fact that
‖∂σ∂r‖L∞[0,2]=‖∂σ∂r‖L∞[0,1]≤ˉσRmaxr0(Rmax−r0)2 |
by (2.1) and σ≤ˉσ. Let M5=M2+M3+M4, then M5 is independent of τ and
‖ˉp(1)−ˉp(2)‖W2,∞[0,1]≤M5τ‖p(1)−p(2)‖W2,∞[0,2], |
which together with Lp(1)(1)=Lp(2)(1)=γ(R∗−r0)R∗ and (Lp(1))′(0)=(Lp(2))′(0)=0 implies that
‖Lp(1)−Lp(2)‖W2,∞[0,2]≤2M5τ‖p(1)−p(2)‖W2,∞[0,2]. |
Hence, if τ is sufficiently small such that 2M5τ<1, then we derive a contracting mapping L. The existence and uniqueness of p are therefore obtained.
It suffices to prove that there exists a unique R∗∈[Rmin,Rmax] satisfying (2.15). Substituting (2.16) into (2.15), we find that it is equivalent to solving the following equation for R:
G(R,τ)=∫10r(R−r0)+r0R+r0[σ∗(r+1(R−r0)3∫0−τ∂p∗∂r((R−r0)ξ(s;r,0)+r0)ds)−˜σ]dr=0. |
Clearly,
G(R,0)=∫10(σ∗(r;R)−˜σ)r(R−r0)+r0R+r0dr=∫10σ∗(r;R)r(R−r0)+r0R+r0dr−˜σ2. |
Using Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.2 in [14] and the condition ˉσ>˜σ, we know that
limR→r0G(R,0)=ˉσ−˜σ2>0,limR→∞G(R,0)=−˜σ2<0,∂G(R,0)∂R<0, |
which implies that the equation G(R,0)=0 has a unique solution, denoted by RS, and
G(12(RS+r0),0)>0,G(32RS,0)<0. |
Since
∂G(R,τ)∂R=∂G(R,0)∂R+∂2G(R,η)∂R∂ττ+O(τ2),0≤η≤τ |
when τ is sufficiently small, ∂G(R,τ)∂R and ∂G(R,0)∂R have the same sign. Thus, G(R,τ) is monotone decreasing in R. Using the fact that G(R,τ) is continuous in τ, we further have
G(12(RS+r0),τ)>0,G(32RS,τ)<0. |
Hence, when τ is sufficiently small, the equation G(R,τ)=0 has a unique solution R∗. Taking Rmin=12(RS+r0) and Rmax=32RS, we complete the proof of the theorem.
This section is devoted to the linear stability of the radially symmetric stationary solution (σ∗,p∗,Ω∗) of the problem (1.1)–(1.9) and the effect of time delay on the stability and the size of the stationary tumor. Let (σ,p,Ω(t)), given by (1.11)–(1.13), be solutions to (1.1)–(1.9), and denote by →er, →eθ the unit normal vectors in r, θ directions, respectively. Written in the rectangular coordinates in R2,
→er=(cosθ,sinθ)T,→eθ=(−sinθ,cosθ)T. |
Using the notation ξ1(s;r,θ,t), ξ2(s;r,θ,t) for the polar radius and angle of ξ(s;r,θ,t), respectively, we have
ξ(s;r,θ,t)=ξ1(s;r,θ,t)→er(ξ)=ξ1(s;r,θ,t)(cosξ2(s;r,θ,t),sinξ2(s;r,θ,t))T. |
Expand ξ1, ξ2 in ε as
{ξ1=ξ10+εξ11+O(ε2),ξ2=ξ20+εξ21+O(ε2), | (3.1) |
then we derive from (1.3) and (1.13) that
{dξ10ds=−∂p∗∂r(ξ10),t−τ≤s≤t,ξ10|s=t=r; | (3.2) |
{dξ11ds=−∂2p∗∂r2(ξ10)ξ11−∂q∂r(ξ10,ξ20,s),t−τ≤s≤t,ξ11|s=t=0; | (3.3) |
{dξ20ds=0,t−τ≤s≤t,ξ20|s=t=θ; | (3.4) |
{dξ21ds=−1ξ210∂q∂θ(ξ10,ξ20,s),t−τ≤s≤t,ξ21|s=t=0. | (3.5) |
It is evident that ξ20≡θ. Noticing that the equation for ξ10 is the same as that for ξ∗ in the radially symmetric case, ξ10 is independent of θ.
Substituting (1.11)–(1.13) and (3.1)–(3.5) into (1.1), (1.2), (1.4)–(1.6), using the mean-curvature formula in the 2-dimensional case for the curve r=ρ(θ):
κ=ρ2+2ρ2θ−ρ⋅ρθθ(ρ2+(ρθ)2)3/2 |
and collecting the ε-order terms, we obtain the linearized system in BR∗×{t>0}:
Δω(r,θ,t)=ω(r,θ,t),ω(r0,θ,t)=0,∂ω∂r(R∗,θ,t)+σ∗(R∗)ρ(θ,t)=0, | (3.6) |
{Δq(r,θ,t)=−μ∂σ∗∂r(ξ10(t−τ;r,t))ξ11(t−τ;r,θ,t)−μw(ξ10(t−τ;r,t),θ,t−τ),∂q∂r(r0,θ,t)=0,q(R∗,θ,t)+γR2∗(ρ(θ,t)+∂2ρ∂θ2(θ,t))=0, | (3.7) |
∂ρ(θ,t)∂t=−∂q∂r(R∗,θ,t)−∂2p∗∂r2(R∗,θ,t)ρ(θ,t). | (3.8) |
Due to the presence of the time delay, the linearization problem (3.6)–(3.8) cannot be solved explicitly. Assume that ω,q, ρ and ξ11 have the following Fourier expansions:
{ω(r,θ,t)=A0(r,t)+∑∞n=1[An(r,t)cosnθ+Bn(r,t)sinnθ],q(r,θ,t)=E0(r,t)+∑∞n=1[En(r,t)cosnθ+Fn(r,t)sinnθ],ρ(θ,t)=a0(t)+∑∞n=1[an(t)cosnθ+bn(t)sinnθ],ξ11(s;r,θ,t)=e0(s;r,t)+∑∞n=1[en(s;r,t)cosnθ+fn(s;r,t)sinnθ]. | (3.9) |
Substituting (3.9) into (3.6)–(3.8) yields the following system in BR∗×{t>0}:
{∂2An∂r2(r,t)+1r∂An∂r(r,t)−n2r2An(r,t)=An(r,t),An(r0,t)=0,∂An∂r(R∗,t)+σ∗(R∗)an(t)=0, | (3.10) |
{∂2Bn∂r2(r,t)+1r∂Bn∂r(r,t)−n2r2Bn(r,t)=Bn(r,t),Bn(r0,t)=0,∂Bn∂r(R∗,t)+σ∗(R∗)bn(t)=0, | (3.11) |
{∂2En∂r2(r,t)+1r∂En∂r(r,t)−n2r2En(r,t)=−μ∂σ∗∂r(ξ10(t−τ;r,t))en(t−τ;r,t)−μAn(ξ10(t−τ;r,t),t−τ),∂En∂r(r0,t)=0,En(R∗,t)+γ(1−n2)R2∗an(t)=0, | (3.12) |
{∂2Fn∂r2(r,t)+1r∂Fn∂r(r,t)−n2r2Fn(r,t)=−μ∂σ∗∂r(ξ10(t−τ;r,t))fn(t−τ;r,t)−μBn(ξ10(t−τ;r,t),t−τ),∂Fn∂r(r0,t)=0,Fn(R∗,t)+γ(1−n2)R2∗bn(t)=0, | (3.13) |
{∂en∂s(s;r,t)=−∂2p∗∂r2(ξ10)en(s;r,t)−∂En∂r(ξ10,s),t−τ≤s≤t,en∣s=t=0, | (3.14) |
{∂fn∂s(s;r,t)=−∂2p∗∂r2(ξ10)fn(s;r,t)−∂Fn∂r(ξ10,s),t−τ≤s≤t,fn∣s=t=0, | (3.15) |
dan(t)dt=−∂2p∗∂r2(R∗)an(t)−∂En∂r(R∗,t), | (3.16) |
dbn(t)dt=−∂2p∗∂r2(R∗)bn(t)−∂Fn∂r(R∗,t). | (3.17) |
Since it is impossible to solve the systems (2.1)–(2.4) and (3.10)–(3.17) explicitly and the time delay τ is actually very small, in what follows, we analyze the expansion in τ for (2.1)–(2.4) and (3.10)–(3.17).
Let
R∗=R0∗+τR1∗+O(τ2),σ∗=σ0∗+τσ1∗+O(τ2),p∗=p0∗+τp1∗+O(τ2),An=A0n+τA1n+O(τ2),Bn=B0n+τB1n+O(τ2),En=E0n+τE1n+O(τ2),Fn=F0n+τF1n+O(τ2),an=a0n+τa1n+O(τ2),bn=b0n+τb1n+O(τ2). |
Substitute these expansions into (2.1)–(2.4) and (3.10)–(3.17). Since an(t) and bn(t) have the same asymptotic behavior at ∞, we will only make an analysis of an(t). For this, we discuss the expansions of R∗, σ∗, p∗, An, En and an. Since the equations for the expansions of σ∗, p∗, An, En and an are the same as those in [16], here we only compute the expansions of the boundary conditions of σ∗, p∗, An and En.
● Expansions of the boundary conditions of σ∗:
It follows from (2.10) and (2.11) that
σ∗(r)=ˉσK1(R∗)I0(r)+I1(R∗)K0(r)I0(r0)K1(R∗)+I1(R∗)K0(r0)=ˉσK1(R0∗)I0(r)+I1(R0∗)K0(r)I0(r0)K1(R0∗)+I1(R0∗)K0(r0)+τˉσR1∗R0∗I0(r0)K0(r)−K0(r0)I0(r)[I0(r0)K1(R0∗)+I1(R0∗)K0(r0)]2+O(τ2), |
which implies
σ0∗(r)=ˉσK1(R0∗)I0(r)+I1(R0∗)K0(r)I0(r0)K1(R0∗)+I1(R0∗)K0(r0), | (3.18) |
σ1∗(r)=ˉσR1∗R0∗I0(r0)K0(r)−K0(r0)I0(r)[I0(r0)K1(R0∗)+I1(R0∗)K0(r0)]2. | (3.19) |
By the boundary conditions in (2.1), we find
σ0∗(r0)+τσ1∗(r0)+O(τ2)=ˉσ,∂σ0∗∂r(R0∗)+τ∂2σ0∗∂r2(R0∗)R1∗+τ∂σ1∗∂r(R0∗)+O(τ2)=0. |
● Expansions of the boundary conditions of p∗:
One obtains from the boundary conditions in (2.2) that
∂p0∗∂r(r0)+τ∂p1∗∂r(r0)+O(τ2)=0,p0∗(R0∗)+τ∂p0∗∂r(R0∗)R1∗+τp1∗(R0∗)+O(τ2)=γR0∗−τγR1∗(R0∗)2+O(τ2). |
● Expansion of (2.4):
In view of (4.31) in [16], there holds
0=∫R∗r0[σ∗(ξ(−τ;r,0))−˜σ]rdr=∫R∗r0[σ0∗(r)−˜σ]rdr+τ∫R0∗r0(∂σ0∗∂r(r)∂p0∗∂r(r)+σ1∗(r))rdr+O(τ2). | (3.20) |
Using (3.18), we compute
∫R∗r0[σ0∗(r)−˜σ]rdr=∫R∗r0(ˉσK1(R0∗)I0(r)+I1(R0∗)K0(r)I0(r0)K1(R0∗)+I1(R0∗)K0(r0)−˜σ)rdr=ˉσr0I1(R0∗)K1(r0)−I1(r0)K1(R0∗)I0(r0)K1(R0∗)+I1(R0∗)K0(r0)+˜σ2[r20−(R0∗)2]+τR1∗(ˉσI0(r0)K1(R0∗)+I1(R0∗)K0(r0)−˜σR0∗)+O(τ2). | (3.21) |
A combination of (3.20) and (3.21) gives
τ[ˉσR1∗I0(r0)K1(R0∗)+I1(R0∗)K0(r0)−˜σR0∗R1∗+∫R0∗r0(∂σ0∗∂r(r)∂p0∗∂r(r)+σ1∗(r))rdr]+ˉσr0I1(R0∗)K1(r0)−I1(r0)K1(R0∗)I0(r0)K1(R0∗)+I1(R0∗)K0(r0)+˜σ2[r20−(R0∗)2]+O(τ2)=0. | (3.22) |
● Expansions of the boundary conditions of An:
We derive from the boundary conditions in (3.10) that
A0n(r0,t)+τA1n(r0,t)+O(τ2)=0,0=∂A0n∂r(R0∗+τR1∗,t)+τ∂A1n∂r(R0∗,t)+[σ0∗(R0∗+τR1∗)+τσ1∗(R0∗)][a0n(t)+τa1n(t)]+O(τ2)=∂A0n∂r(R0∗,t)+σ0∗(R0∗)a0n(t)+τ(∂2A0n∂r2(R0∗,t)R1∗+∂A1n∂r(R0∗,t)+∂σ0∗∂r(R0∗,t)R1∗a0n(t)+σ0∗(R0∗)a1n(t)+σ1∗(R0∗)a0n(t))+O(τ2). |
● Expansions of the boundary conditions of En:
Substituting the expansion of En into the boundary conditions in (3.12) yields
∂E0n∂r(r0,t)+τ∂E1n∂r(r0,t)+O(τ2)=0,0=E0n(R0∗+τR1∗,t)+τE1n(R0∗,t)+γ1−n2(R0∗+τR1∗)2[a0n(t)+τa1n(t)]+O(τ2)=E0n(R0∗,t)+γ1−n2(R0∗)2a0n(t)+τ(∂E0n∂r(R0∗,t)R1∗+E1n(R0∗,t)−2γ1−n2(R0∗)3R1∗a0n(t)+γ1−n2(R0∗)2a1n(t))+O(τ2). |
Collecting all zeroth-order terms in \tau leads to the following system for r_0 < r < R^0_\ast :
\begin{align} &-\frac{\partial^2 \sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial \sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r} = -\sigma^0_\ast, \qquad \sigma^0_\ast(r_0) = \bar{\sigma}, \qquad \frac{\partial \sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r}(R_\ast^0) = 0, \end{align} | (3.23) |
\begin{align} &-\frac{\partial^2 p^0_\ast}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial p^0_\ast}{\partial r} = \mu(\sigma^0_\ast-\tilde{\sigma}), \quad \frac{\partial p^0_\ast}{\partial r}(r_0) = 0, \quad p^0_\ast(R^0_\ast) = \frac{\gamma}{R^0_\ast}, \end{align} | (3.24) |
\begin{align} &\bar{\sigma}r_0\frac{I_1(R^0_\ast)K_1(r_0)-I_1(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)}{I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)} +\frac{\widetilde{\sigma}}{2}[r_0^2-(R^0_\ast)^2] = 0, \end{align} | (3.25) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} -\frac{\partial^2 A^0_n}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial A^0_n}{\partial r}+\bigg(\frac{n^2}{r^2}+1\bigg)A^0_n = 0, \\ A^0_n(r_0,t) = 0,\quad\frac{\partial A^0_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)+\sigma^0_\ast(R^0_\ast)a^0_n(t) = 0, \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.26) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} -\frac{\partial^2 B^0_n}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial B^0_n}{\partial r}+\bigg(\frac{n^2}{r^2}+1\bigg)B^0_n = 0, \\ B^0_n(r_0,t) = 0,\quad\frac{\partial B^0_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)+\sigma^0_\ast(R^0_\ast)b^0_n(t) = 0, \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.27) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} -\frac{\partial^2 E^0_n}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial E^0_n}{\partial r}+\frac{n^2}{r^2}E^0_n = \mu A^0_n, \\ \frac{\partial E^0_n}{\partial r}(r_0,t) = 0, \quad E^0_n(R^0_\ast,t) = \gamma\frac{n^2-1}{(R_\ast^0)^2}a^0_n(t), \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.28) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} -\frac{\partial^2 F^0_n}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial F^0_n}{\partial r}+\frac{n^2}{r^2}F^0_n = \mu B^0_n, \\ \frac{\partial F^0_n}{\partial r}(r_0,t) = 0, \quad F^0_n(R^0_\ast,t) = \gamma\frac{n^2-1}{(R_\ast^0)^2}b^0_n(t), \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.29) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\mathrm{d}a^0_n(t)}{\mathrm{d}t} = -\frac{\partial^2 p^0_\ast}{\partial r^2}(R^0_\ast)a^0_n(t)-\frac{\partial E^0_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t), \end{align} | (3.30) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\mathrm{d}b^0_n(t)}{\mathrm{d}t} = -\frac{\partial^2 p^0_\ast}{\partial r^2}(R^0_\ast)b^0_n(t)-\frac{\partial F^0_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t). \end{align} | (3.31) |
A direct calculation gives
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial p^0_\ast}{\partial r}(r) = \frac{\mu\bar{\sigma}}{I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)}\bigg\{K_1(R^0_\ast)\left(\frac{r_0}{r}I_1(r_0)-I_1(r)\right) \\ &\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \qquad\qquad+I_1(R^0_\ast)\left(K_1(r)-\frac{r_0}{r}K_1(r_0)\right)\bigg\}+\frac{\mu\tilde{\sigma}r}{2}-\frac{\mu\tilde{\sigma}r^2_0}{2r}, \end{align} | (3.32) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial^2 p^0_\ast}{\partial r^2}(R^0_\ast) = \frac{\mu\bar{\sigma}}{R^0_\ast[(R^0_\ast)^2-r^2_0]}\frac{2r_0R^0_\ast[I_1(R^0_\ast)K_1(r_0)-I_1(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)]-(R^0_\ast)^2+r^2_0}{I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)}, \end{align} | (3.33) |
\begin{align} &A^0_n(r,t) = \frac{\bar{\sigma}a^0_n(t)h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)}{R^0_\ast }\frac{K_n(r_0)I_n(r)-I_n(r_0)K_n(r)}{I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)}, \end{align} | (3.34) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial A^0_n}{\partial r}(r,t) = \frac{-\bar{\sigma}a^0_n(t)h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)}{R^0_\ast [I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)]}\frac1{h_n(r_0,r)}, \end{align} | (3.35) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial^2 A^0_n}{\partial r^2}(R^0_\ast,t) = \frac{-\bar{\sigma}a^0_n(t)h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)g_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)}{R^0_\ast [I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)]}, \end{align} | (3.36) |
where
\begin{align} &h_n(r_0,x) = \frac1{I_n(r_0)\left(\frac{n}{x}K_n(x)-K_{n+1}(x)\right) -K_n(r_0)\left(\frac{n}{x}I_n(x)+I_{n+1}(x)\right)}, \\ &g_n(r_0,x) = I_n(r_0)\left[\left(1+\frac{n(n-1)}{x^2}\right)K_n(x)+\frac{1}{x}K_{n+1}(x)\right] \\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-K_n(r_0)\bigg[\left(1+\frac{n(n-1)}{x^2}\right)I_n(x)-\frac{1}{x}I_{n+1}(x)\bigg]. \end{align} | (3.37) |
Let \eta^0_n = E^0_n+\mu A^0_n , then we find from (3.26) and (3.28) that \eta^0_n satisfies
\begin{align*} -\frac{\partial^2 \eta^0_n}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial \eta^0_n}{\partial r}+\frac{n^2}{r^2}\eta^0_n = 0, \end{align*} |
whose solution is
\begin{align*} \eta^0_n(r,t) = C_1(t)r^n+C_2(t)r^{-n} \end{align*} |
and thus,
\begin{equation} E^0_n(r,t) = \eta^0_n(r,t)-\mu A^0_n(r,t) = C_1(t)r^n+C_2(t)r^{-n}-\mu A^0_n(r,t), \end{equation} | (3.38) |
where C_1(t) and C_2(t) are to be determined by the boundary conditions in (3.28). By (2.10), (3.34), (3.35) and (3.37), we get
\begin{align} C_1(t) = &\frac{\mu\bar{\sigma} a^0_n(t)h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)}{nR^0_\ast[(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}]}\frac{n(R^0_\ast)^n[I_n(R^0_\ast)K_n(r_0)-I_n(r_0)K_n(R^0_\ast)]+r^n_0}{I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)} \\ &+\frac{(n^2-1)\gamma a^0_n(t)}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}(R^0_\ast)^{n-2}, \end{align} | (3.39) |
\begin{align} C_2(t) = &\frac{\mu\bar{\sigma} a^0_n(t)h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)r_0^n(R^0_\ast)^{n}}{nR^0_\ast[(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}]}\frac{nr_0^n[I_n(R^0_\ast)K_n(r_0)-I_n(r_0)K_n(R^0_\ast)]-(R^0_\ast)^n}{I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)} \\ &+\frac{(n^2-1)\gamma a^0_n(t)}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}r_0^{2n}(R^0_\ast)^{n-2}. \end{align} | (3.40) |
Using (3.35) and (3.38)–(3.40), we further derive
\begin{align} \frac{\partial E^0_n}{\partial r}(r,t) = &\frac{\mu\bar{\sigma} a^0_n(t)h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)}{R^0_\ast [I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)]}\bigg\{r_0^{n}\frac{r^{n-1}+(R^0_\ast)^{2n}r^{-n-1}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}} \\ &\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; +n(R^0_\ast)^n\frac{r^{n-1}-r_0^{2n}r^{-n-1}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}[I_n(R^0_\ast)K_n(r_0)-I_n(r_0)K_n(R^0_\ast)] \\ &\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; +\frac1{h_n(r_0,r)}\bigg\}+n(n^2-1)\gamma a^0_n(t)(R^0_\ast)^{n-2}\frac{r^{n-1}-r_0^{2n}r^{-n-1}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}. \end{align} | (3.41) |
Substituting (3.33) and (3.41) into (3.30) yields
\begin{equation} \frac{\mathrm{d}a^0_n(t)}{\mathrm{d}t} = U_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)a^0_n(t), \end{equation} | (3.42) |
whose solution is explicitly given by
\begin{equation} a^0_n(t) = a^0_n(0)\exp\{U_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)t\}. \end{equation} | (3.43) |
Here,
\begin{align} U_n(r_0,R^0_\ast) = &\frac{\mu\bar{\sigma}h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)} {I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)} \bigg[\frac{2r_0(I_1(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)-I_1(R^0_\ast)K_1(r_0))} {h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)[(R^0_\ast)^2-r_0^2]} \\ &+\frac{n}{(R^0_\ast)^2}\frac{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}-r_0^{2n}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}} (I_n(r_0)K_n(R^0_\ast)-I_n(R^0_\ast)K_n(r_0)) -\frac{2r_0^n(R^0_\ast)^{n-2}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}\bigg] \\ &-\frac{\gamma n(n^2-1) }{(R^0_\ast)^3}\frac{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}-r_0^{2n}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}. \end{align} | (3.44) |
It was proven in Lemma 4.4 of [14] that U_n(r_0, R^0_\ast) < 0 for any n\geq 0 . Thus, we have the following:
Lemma 3.1. For any n\geq 0 , there exists \delta > 0 such that |a_0^n(t)|\leq|a_0^n(0)|e^{-\delta t} for all t > 0 .
Lemma 3.1 shows that a_n^0(t) decays to 0 exponentially at +\infty ; hence, when \tau = 0 , the radially symmetric stationary solution is asymptotically stable for all \mu > 0 .
Recalling that R_\ast = R^0_\ast + \tau R^1_\ast + O(\tau^2) , in order to see the effect of the time delay \tau on the size of the stationary tumor, in this subsection we discuss the sign of R^1_\ast by a theoretical analysis combined with numerical simulations.
We obtain from (3.22) that
\begin{equation} \frac{\bar{\sigma}R^1_\ast}{I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)}-\tilde{\sigma}R^0_\ast R^1_\ast+\int^{R^0_\ast}_{r_0}\left(\frac{\partial \sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r}(r)\frac{\partial p^0_\ast}{\partial r}(r)+\sigma^1_\ast(r)\right)rdr = 0, \end{equation} | (3.45) |
then by using (2.6)–(2.10), (3.18), (3.19), (3.25) and (3.32), one can solve (3.45) to obtain
\begin{equation} R^1_\ast = -\frac{\mu\bar{\sigma}}{2R^0_\ast}\frac{T(r_0,R^0_\ast)}{S(r_0,R^0_\ast)}, \end{equation} | (3.46) |
where
\begin{align*} T(r_0,R^0_\ast)& = 1-r_0^2[I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)]^2 +r_0^2\frac{(R^0_\ast)^2-r_0^2-4}{(R^0_\ast)^2-r_0^2} [I_1(R^0_\ast)K_1(r_0)-I_1(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)]^2, \\ S(r_0,R^0_\ast)& = \frac{2r_0}{(R^0_\ast)^2-r_0^2}[I_1(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)-I_1(R^0_\ast)K_1(r_0)] [I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast) +I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)]+\frac{1}{(R^0_\ast)^2}. \end{align*} |
Since
U_0(r_0, R^0_\ast) = \frac{\mu\bar{\sigma}}{[I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)]^2}S(r_0,R^0_\ast) |
by (3.44), we know S(r_0, R^0_\ast) < 0 . Additionally, we numerically compute the function T(r_0, R^0_\ast) and find it is positive (see Figure 1). Hence, it follows from (3.46) that R^1_\ast > 0 and R^1_\ast is monotone increasing in \mu .
Remark 3.1. The discussion above indicates that the presence of the time delay leads to a larger stationary tumor. Furthermore, the bigger the tumor aggressive parameter \mu is, the greater the effect of time delay on the size of the stationary tumor is.
Now, we tackle the system consisting of all the first-order terms in \tau for r_0 < r < R^0_\ast :
\begin{align} &-\frac{\partial^2 \sigma^1_\ast}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial \sigma^1_\ast}{\partial r} = -\sigma^1_\ast, \quad \sigma^1_\ast(r_0) = 0, \quad \frac{\partial \sigma^1_\ast}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast)+\frac{\partial^2 \sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r^2}(R^0_\ast)R^1_\ast = 0, \end{align} | (3.47) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} -\frac{\partial^2 p^1_\ast}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial p^1_\ast}{\partial r} = \mu\frac{\partial \sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r}\frac{\partial p^0_\ast}{\partial r}+\mu\sigma^1_\ast, \\ \frac{\partial p^1_\ast}{\partial r}(r_0) = 0,\quad p_\ast^1(R_\ast^0) = -\frac{\gamma R_\ast^1}{(R_\ast^0)^2}-\frac{\partial p_\ast^0}{\partial r}(R_\ast^0)R_\ast^1, \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.48) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\bar{\sigma}R^1_\ast}{I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)}-\tilde{\sigma}R^0_\ast R^1_\ast+\int^{R^0_\ast}_{r_0}\left(\frac{\partial \sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r}(r)\frac{\partial p^0_\ast}{\partial r}(r)+\sigma^1_\ast(r)\right)rdr = 0, \end{align} | (3.49) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} -\frac{\partial^2 A^1_n}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial A^1_n}{\partial r}+\left(\frac{n^2}{r^2}+1\right)A^1_n = 0, \\ A^1_n(r_0,t) = 0, \quad\frac{\partial^2 A^0_n}{\partial r^2}(R^0_\ast,t)R^1_\ast+\frac{\partial A^1_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)+\sigma^0_\ast(R^0_\ast)a^1_n(t)+\sigma^1_\ast(R^0_\ast)a^0_n(t) = 0, \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.50) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} -\frac{\partial^2 B^1_n}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial B^1_n}{\partial r}+\left(\frac{n^2}{r^2}+1\right)B^1_n = 0, \\ B^1_n(r_0,t) = 0, \quad\frac{\partial^2 B^0_n}{\partial r^2}(R^0_\ast,t)R^1_\ast+\frac{\partial B^1_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)+\sigma^0_\ast(R^0_\ast)b^1_n(t)+\sigma^1_\ast(R^0_\ast)b^0_n(t) = 0, \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.51) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} -\frac{\partial^2 E^1_n}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial E^1_n}{\partial r}+\frac{n^2}{r^2}E^1_n = \mu\frac{\partial \sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r}\frac{\partial E^0_n}{\partial r}+\mu\frac{\partial A_n^0}{\partial r}\frac{\partial p^0_\ast}{\partial r}-\mu\frac{\partial A_n^0}{\partial t}+\mu A_n^1, \\ \frac{\partial E^1_n}{\partial r}(r_0,t) = 0,\; E^1_n(R_\ast^0,t) = \gamma\frac{n^2-1}{(R_\ast^0)^2}a^1_n(t)-\frac{\partial E^0_n}{\partial r}(R_\ast^0,t)R_\ast^1-2\gamma\frac{n^2-1}{(R_\ast^0)^3}R_\ast^1a^0_n(t), \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.52) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} -\frac{\partial^2 F^1_n}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial F^1_n}{\partial r}+\frac{n^2}{r^2}F^1_n = \mu\frac{\partial \sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r}\frac{\partial F^0_n}{\partial r}+\mu\frac{\partial B_n^0}{\partial r}\frac{\partial p^0_\ast}{\partial r}-\mu\frac{\partial B_n^0}{\partial t}+\mu B_n^1, \\ \frac{\partial F^1_n}{\partial r}(r_0,t) = 0,\; F^1_n(R_\ast^0,t) = \gamma\frac{n^2-1}{(R_\ast^0)^2}b^1_n(t)-\frac{\partial F^0_n}{\partial r}(R_\ast^0,t)R_\ast^1-2\gamma\frac{n^2-1}{(R_\ast^0)^3}R_\ast^1b^0_n(t), \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.53) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\mathrm{d}a_n^1(t)}{\mathrm{d}t} = -\frac{\partial^2 p_\ast^0}{\partial r^2}(R_\ast^0) a_n^1(t)-\frac{\partial^3 p_\ast^0}{\partial r^3}(R_\ast^0)R_\ast^1a_n^0(t) \\ &\qquad\qquad-\frac{\partial^2 p_\ast^1}{\partial r^2}(R_\ast^0) a_n^0(t)-\frac{\partial^2 E_n^0}{\partial r^2}(R_\ast^0,t)R_\ast^1-\frac{\partial E_n^1}{\partial r}(R_\ast^0,t), \end{align} | (3.54) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\mathrm{d}b_n^1(t)}{\mathrm{d}t} = -\frac{\partial^2 p_\ast^0}{\partial r^2}(R_\ast^0) b_n^1(t)-\frac{\partial^3 p_\ast^0}{\partial r^3}(R_\ast^0)R_\ast^1b_n^0(t) \\ &\qquad\qquad-\frac{\partial^2 p_\ast^1}{\partial r^2}(R_\ast^0) b_n^0(t)-\frac{\partial^2 F_n^0}{\partial r^2}(R_\ast^0,t)R_\ast^1-\frac{\partial F_n^1}{\partial r}(R_\ast^0,t). \end{align} | (3.55) |
To obtain the asymptotic behavior of a_n^1(t) as \infty , by (3.54) and the boundedness of the modified Bessel functions I_n(r) and K_n(r) on [r_0, R^0_\ast] , it suffices to analyze \frac{\partial E^1_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast, t) . For this purpose, in view of (3.52), we first compute A^1_n(r, t) . Solving (3.50) yields
\begin{align} A_n^1(r,t) = \frac{\bar{\sigma}h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)}{R^0_\ast} \frac{I_n(r_0)K_n(r)-K_n(r_0)I_n(r)}{I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)} V_n(r_0,R^0_\ast,R^1_\ast,a^0_n(t),a^1_n(t)) \end{align} | (3.56) |
with
\begin{align*} V_n(r_0,R^0_\ast,R^1_\ast,a^0_n(t),a^1_n(t)) = &a_n^0(t)R^1_\ast h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)g_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)-a_n^1(t) \\ &+a_n^0(t)R^1_\ast\frac{I_0(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)-I_0(r_0)K_0(R^0_\ast)} {I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)}, \end{align*} |
where we have employed (2.8)–(2.10), (3.19), (3.36) and (3.37). Furthermore,
\begin{align} \frac{\partial A_n^1}{\partial r}(r,t) = \frac{\bar{\sigma}h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)V_n(r_0,R^0_\ast,R^1_\ast,a^0_n(t),a^1_n(t))} {R^0_\ast[I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)]} \frac1{h_n(r_0,r)}. \end{align} | (3.57) |
Next, being similar to the computation of E^0_n , we set \eta^1_n = E^1_n+\mu A^1_n , then we derive from (3.50), (3.52) and (3.56) that
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} -\frac{\partial^2 \eta^1_n}{\partial r^2}-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial \eta^1_n}{\partial r}+\frac{n^2}{r^2}\eta^1_n = \mu\frac{\partial \sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r}\frac{\partial E^0_n}{\partial r}+\mu\frac{\partial A^0_n}{\partial r}\frac{\partial p^0_\ast}{\partial r}-\mu\frac{\partial A^0_n}{\partial t}, \\ \frac{\partial \eta^1_n}{\partial r}(r_0,t) = \mu\frac{\partial A^1_n}{\partial r}(r_0,t),\quad \eta^1_n(R^0_\ast,t) = E^1_n(R^0_\ast,t)+\mu A^1_n(R^0_\ast,t). \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.58) |
For brevity, we introduce the differential operator L_n = -\partial_{rr}-\frac1r\partial_r+\frac{n^2}{r^2} and write \eta^1_n = u^{(1)}_n+u^{(2)}_n+u^{(3)}_n+u^{(4)}_n , where u^{(1)}_n , u^{(2)}_n , u^{(3)}_n and u^{(4)}_n solve the following problems, respectively:
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} L_nu^{(1)}_n = \mu\frac{\partial\sigma^0_\ast}{\partial r}\frac{\partial E^0_n}{\partial r}, \\ \frac{\partial u^{(1)}_n}{\partial r}(r_0,t) = 0, \quad u^{(1)}_n(R^0_\ast,t) = 0; \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.59) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} L_nu^{(2)}_n = \mu\frac{\partial A^0_n}{\partial r}\frac{\partial p^0_\ast}{\partial r}, \\ \frac{\partial u^{(2)}_n}{\partial r}(r_0,t) = 0, \quad u^{(2)}_n(R^0_\ast,t) = 0; \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.60) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} L_nu^{(3)}_n = -\mu\frac{\partial A^0_n}{\partial t}, \\ \frac{\partial u^{(3)}_n}{\partial r}(r_0,t) = 0, \quad u^{(3)}_n(R^0_\ast,t) = 0; \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.61) |
\begin{align} &\left\{\begin{array}{l} L_nu^{(4)}_n = 0, \\ \frac{\partial u^{(4)}_n}{\partial r}(r_0,t) = \mu\frac{\partial A_n^1}{\partial r}(r_0,t), \quad u^{(4)}_n(R^0_\ast,t) = E^1_n(R^0_\ast,t)+\mu A^1_n(R^0_\ast,t). \end{array}\right. \end{align} | (3.62) |
Let us first estimate u^{(1)}_n . By (3.18), (3.41) and (3.59), we have
\begin{align} L_nu^{(1)}_n = &\mu\bar{\sigma}a_n^0(t)\frac{K_1(R^0_\ast)I_1(r)-I_1(R^0_\ast)K_1(r)}{I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)}\bigg\{n(n^2-1)\gamma(R^0_\ast)^{n-2}\frac{r^{n-1}-r_0^{2n}r^{-n-1}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}} \\ &\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; +\frac{\mu\bar{\sigma}h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)}{R^0_\ast[I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)]} \bigg[\frac1{h_n(r_0,r)}+r_0^n\frac{r^{n-1}+(R^0_\ast)^{2n}r^{-n-1}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}} \\ &\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; +n(R^0_\ast)^n\frac{r^{n-1}-r_0^{2n}r^{-n-1}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}(I_n(R^0_\ast)K_n(r_0)-I_n(r_0)K_n(R^0_\ast))\bigg]\bigg\}. \end{align} | (3.63) |
Based on the properties of the modified Bessel functions I_n(r) and K_n(r) , the righthand side of (3.63) is less than Q(n)a^0_n(t) when r_0 \leq r < R^0_\ast . Here, Q(n) denotes a polynomial function of n . Similar estimates can be established for u^{(2)}_n and u^{(3)}_n by (3.60) and (3.61).
Lemma 3.2. Consider the elliptic problem
\begin{align} &-\Delta\omega(x,t)+\frac{n^2}{|x|^2}\omega(x,t) = b(x,t), \qquad x\in\Omega_R, \end{align} | (3.64) |
\begin{align} &\partial_{\vec n}\omega\big|_{|x| = r_0} = 0, \quad \omega\big|_{|x| = R} = 0, \end{align} | (3.65) |
where \Omega_R = \big\{x\in \mathbb{R}^2: r_0 < |x| < R\big\} . If b(x, t) = b(|x|, t) and b(\cdot, t)\in L^2(\Omega_R) , then the problem (3.64) and (3.65) admits a unique solution \omega in H^2(\Omega_R) with estimates
\begin{align} \|\omega(\cdot,t)\|_{H^2(\Omega_R)}\leq C\bigg(\int^R_{r_0}|b(r,t)|^2rdr\bigg)^{1/2}; \end{align} | (3.66) |
\begin{align} \big\|\partial_{\vec\nu}\omega(\cdot,t)\big\|_{L^\infty(\partial B_R)}\leq C\bigg(\int^R_{r_0}|b(r,t)|^2rdr\bigg)^{1/2}, \end{align} | (3.67) |
where the constant C in (3.66) and (3.67) is independent of n .
The lemma can be proven by combining the proofs of [16, Lemma 4.6] and [17, Lemma 3.2]. The details are omitted here.
Lemma 3.2 ensures the existence and uniqueness of u^{(k)}_n in H^2(\Omega{_\ast}) for k = 1, 2, 3 . Furthermore, there holds
\begin{equation} \bigg|\frac{\partial u^{(1)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)\bigg|+\bigg|\frac{\partial u^{(2)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)\bigg|+\bigg|\frac{\partial u^{(3)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)\bigg|\leq Ce^{-\delta t}. \end{equation} | (3.68) |
Obviously, the solution u^{(4)}_n to the problem (3.62) has the form:
\begin{equation} u^{(4)}_n(r,t) = C_5(t)r^n+C_6(t)r^{-n}, \end{equation} | (3.69) |
where C_5(t) and C_6(t) are determined by the boundary conditions in (3.62). Using (2.10), (3.41), (3.56), (3.57) and the boundary conditions in (3.52), we get
\begin{align} C_5(t) = &\frac{a_n^1(t)}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}\bigg\{\frac{\mu\bar{\sigma}h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)}{R^0_\ast[I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)]}\bigg[\frac{r_0^n}{n}+(R^0_\ast)^n(K_n(r_0)I_n(R^0_\ast) \\ &\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; -I_n(r_0)K_n(R^0_\ast))\bigg]+\gamma (n^2-1)(R^0_\ast)^{n-2}\bigg\}+H_1(r_0,R^0_\ast,R^1_\ast)a_n^0(t), \end{align} | (3.70) |
\begin{align} C_6(t) = &\frac{a_n^1(t)r_0^n(R^0_\ast)^n}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}\bigg\{\frac{\mu\bar{\sigma}h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)}{R^0_\ast[I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)]}\bigg[-\frac{(R^0_\ast)^n}{n}+r_0^n(K_n(r_0)I_n(R^0_\ast) \\ &\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; -I_n(r_0)K_n(R^0_\ast))\bigg]+\frac{\gamma (n^2-1)r_0^n}{(R^0_\ast)^2}\bigg\}+H_2(r_0,R^0_\ast,R^1_\ast)a_n^0(t), \end{align} | (3.71) |
where H_1 , H_2 are functions of r_0 , R^0_\ast and R^1_\ast .
Now, since
\begin{align*} E^1_n(r,t) = \eta^1_n-\mu A^1_n = u^{(1)}_n+u^{(2)}_n+u^{(3)}_n+u^{(4)}_n-\mu A^1_n, \end{align*} |
we derive
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial E^1_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t) = \frac{\partial u^{(1)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)+\frac{\partial u^{(2)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)+\frac{\partial u^{(3)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)+\frac{\partial u^{(4)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)-\mu\frac{\partial A^1_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t). \end{align} | (3.72) |
By (3.33), (3.57) and (3.69)–(3.72), we obtain from (3.54) that
\begin{align*} \frac{\mathrm{d}a^1_n(t)}{\mathrm{d}t} = &-\frac{\partial^2 p^0_\ast}{\partial r^2}(R^0_\ast)a^1_n(t)-\frac{\partial^3 p^0_\ast}{\partial r^3}(R^0_\ast)R^1_\ast a^0_n(t)-\frac{\partial^2 p^1_\ast}{\partial r^2}(R^0_\ast)a^0_n(t)-\frac{\partial^2 E^0_n}{\partial r^2}(R^0_\ast,t)R^1_\ast-\frac{\partial E^1_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t) \\ = &a_n^1(t)\bigg\{\frac{\mu\bar{\sigma}h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)} {I_0(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)+I_1(R^0_\ast)K_0(r_0)} \bigg[\frac{n}{(R^0_\ast)^2}\frac{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}-r_0^{2n}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n} +r_0^{2n}}(I_n(r_0)K_n(R^0_\ast)-I_n(R^0_\ast)K_n(r_0)) \\ &\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; +\frac{2 r_0(I_1(r_0)K_1(R^0_\ast)-I_1(R^0_\ast)K_1(r_0))} {(R^0_\ast)^2-r_0^2}\frac1{h_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)}-\frac{2r_0^n(R^0_\ast)^{n-2}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}\bigg] \\ &\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; -\frac{\gamma n(n^2-1)}{(R^0_\ast)^3}\frac{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}-r_0^{2n}}{(R^0_\ast)^{2n}+r_0^{2n}}\bigg\}+\tilde{H}(n,r_0,R^0_\ast,R^1_\ast)a_n^0(t) \\ &-\frac{\partial u^{(1)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)-\frac{\partial u^{(2)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)-\frac{\partial u^{(3)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t) \\ = &a_n^1(t)U_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)-\frac{\partial u^{(1)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)-\frac{\partial u^{(2)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)-\frac{\partial u^{(3)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t) +\tilde{H}(n,r_0,R^0_\ast,R^1_\ast)a_n^0(t), \end{align*} |
where \tilde{H} is a known function of n , r_0 , R^0_\ast , R^1_\ast and satisfies
\begin{equation} |\tilde{H}(n,r_0,R^0_\ast,R^1_\ast)|\leq C. \end{equation} | (3.73) |
Thus, using Lemma 3.1, (3.68) and (3.73) gives
\begin{align} \bigg|&\frac{\mathrm{d}a_n^1(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}-a_n^1(t)U_n(r_0,R^0_\ast)\bigg| \\ \leq& |\tilde{H}(n,r_0,R^0_\ast,R^1_\ast)a_n^0(t)|+\bigg|\frac{\partial u^{(1)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)\bigg|+\bigg|\frac{\partial u^{(2)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)\bigg|+\bigg|\frac{\partial u^{(3)}_n}{\partial r}(R^0_\ast,t)\bigg| \\ \leq& Ce^{-\delta t}. \end{align} | (3.74) |
In addition, for n\geq0 , Lemma 3.1 implies
\begin{equation*} -U_n(r_0,R^0_\ast) > \delta > 0. \end{equation*} |
Therefore, applying [16, Lemma 4.7] to (3.74) yields
\begin{align} |a^1_n(t)|\leq Ce^{-\delta t}, \qquad \quad t > 0, \end{align} | (3.75) |
i.e., a^1_n(t) decays exponentially as t\to\infty . Noticing that b_n(t) and a_n(t) have the same asymptotic behavior, we also have
\begin{align} |b^0_n(t)|+|b^1_n(t)|\leq Ce^{-\delta t},\qquad t > 0. \end{align} | (3.76) |
Proof of Theorem 1.2 The desired result (1.14) follows from Lemma 3.1, (3.75) and (3.76). The proof is complete.
Remark 3.2. The results on tumor cord without time delays in [14] show that the radially symmetric stationary solution is asymptotically stable under nonradially symmetric perturbations. Here, our Theorem 1.2 says that such asymptotic stability does not be affected by small time delay.
In this paper, we have investigated the effects of a time delay in cell proliferation on the growth of tumor cords, where the domain is a bounded subset in \mathbb{R}^2 and its boundary consists of two disjoint closed curves, one fixed and the other moving and a priori unknown. The existence, uniqueness and linear stability of the radially symmetric stationary solution were studied.
Here are some interesting findings. 1) Adding the time delay would not change the stability of the radially symmetric stationary solution when compared with the same system without delay [14], but adding the time delay would result in a larger stationary tumor. The bigger the tumor growth intensity \mu is, the greater impact that time delay has on the size of the stationary tumor. 2) By the result of [16], we know that for tumor spheroids with the same time delay, there exists a threshold \mu_\ast > 0 for the tumor aggressiveness constant \mu such that only for \mu < \mu_\ast , the radially symmetric stationary solution is linearly stable under non-radial perturbations. For tumor cords, however, from Theorem 1.2 we saw that the radially symmetric stationary solution is always linearly stable, regardless of the value of \mu . It showed that there is an essential difference between tumor cords and tumor spheroids with the same time delay.
We think that the linear stability analysis for the full system without quasi-steady state simplification, i.e., c > 0 , may be very challenging, which we expect to solve in future work.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. This work was partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12161045 and No. 12261047), Jiangxi Provincial Natural Science Foundation (No. 20224BCD41001 and No. 20232BAB201010), the Science and Technology Planning Project from Educational Commission of Jiangxi Province, China (No. GJJ2200319), the Scientific Research Project of Hunan Provincial Education Department, China (No. 22B0725, No. 23B0670 and No. 23C0234), and the Research Initiation Project of Hengyang Normal University, China (No. 2022QD01).
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
F. Rubio, F. Valero, C. Llopis-Albert, A review of mobile robots: Concepts, methods, theoretical framework, and applications, Int. J. Adv. Rob.Syst., 16 (2019), 1729881419839596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881419839596 doi: 10.1177/1729881419839596
![]() |
[2] |
S. J. Fusic, G. Kanagaraj, K. Hariharan, S. Karthikeyan, Optimal path planning of autonomous navigation in outdoor environment via heuristic technique, Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect., 12 (2021), 100473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100473 doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2021.100473
![]() |
[3] |
J. Li, J. Sun, L. Liu, J. Xu, Model predictive control for the tracking of autonomous mobile robot combined with a local path planning, Meas. Control, 54 (2021), 1319–1325. https://doi.org/10.1177/00202940211043070 doi: 10.1177/00202940211043070
![]() |
[4] |
A. V. Le, V. Prabakaran, V. Sivanantham, R. E. Mohan, Modified a-star algorithm for efficient coverage path planning in tetris inspired self-reconfigurable robot with integrated laser sensor, Sensors, 18 (2018), 2585. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082585 doi: 10.3390/s18082585
![]() |
[5] |
H. Wang, X. Qi, S. Lou, J. Jing, H. He, W. Liu, An efficient and robust improved A* algorithm for path planning, Symmetry, 13 (2021), 2213. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13112213 doi: 10.3390/sym13112213
![]() |
[6] |
B. Zhang, D. Zhu, A new method on motion planning for mobile robots using jump point search and Bezier curves, Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst., 18 (2021), 17298814211019220. https://doi.org/10.1177/17298814211019220 doi: 10.1177/17298814211019220
![]() |
[7] |
F. H. Ajeil, I. Ibraheem, A. T. Azar, A. J. Humaidi, Grid-based mobile robot path planning using aging-based ant colony optimization algorithm in static and dynamic environments, Sensors, 20 (2020), 1880. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20071880 doi: 10.3390/s20071880
![]() |
[8] |
C. Miao, G. Chen, C. Yan, Y. Wu, Path planning optimization of indoor mobile robot based on adaptive ant colony algorithm, Comput. Indust. Eng., 156 (2021), 107230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107230 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107230
![]() |
[9] |
B. Song, Z. Wang, L. Zou, An improved PSO algorithm for smooth path planning of mobile robots using continuous high-degree Bezier curve, Appl. Soft Comput., 100 (2021), 106960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106960 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106960
![]() |
[10] |
X. Guo, M. Ji, Z. Zhao, W. Zhang, Global path planning and multi-objective path control for unmanned surface vehicle based on modified particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm, Ocean Eng., 216 (2020), 107693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107693 doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107693
![]() |
[11] |
M. A. Hossain, I. Ferdous, Autonomous robot path planning in dynamic environment using a new optimization technique inspired by bacterial foraging technique, Robot. Auton. Syst., 64 (2015), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2014.07.002 doi: 10.1016/j.robot.2014.07.002
![]() |
[12] |
Y. P. Chen, Y. Li, G. Wang, Y. F. Zheng, Q. Xu, J. H. Fan, et al., A novel bacterial foraging optimization algorithm for feature selection, Expert Syst. Appl., 83 (2017), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.04.019 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.04.019
![]() |
[13] |
H. Tang, W. Sun, H. Yu, A. Lin, M. Xue, A multirobot target searching method based on bat algorithm in unknown environments, Expert Syst. Appl., 141 (2020), 112945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112945 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112945
![]() |
[14] |
G. G. Wang, H. E. Chu, S. Mirjalili, Three-dimensional path planning for UCAV using an improved bat algorithm, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 49 (2016), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2015.11.040 doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2015.11.040
![]() |
[15] |
Z. Yan, J. Zhang, J. Zeng, J. Tang, Three-dimensional path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles based on a whale optimization algorithm, Ocean Eng., 250 (2022), 111070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111070 doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111070
![]() |
[16] |
F. Gul, I. Mir, L. Abualigah, S. Mir, M. Altalhi, Cooperative multi-function approach: A new strategy for autonomous ground robotics, Future Gener. Comput. Syst., 134 (2022), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2022.04.007 doi: 10.1016/j.future.2022.04.007
![]() |
[17] |
D. Foead, A. Ghifari, M. B. Kusuma, N. Hanafiah, E. Gunawan, A systematic literature review of A* pathfinding, Proc. Comput. Sci., 179 (2021), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.034 doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.034
![]() |
[18] |
Q. Wu, Z. Chen, L. Wang, H. Lin, Z. Jiang, S. Li, et al., Real-time dynamic path planning of mobile robots: A novel hybrid heuristic optimization algorithm, Sensors, 20 (2020), 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20010188 doi: 10.3390/s20010188
![]() |
[19] |
L. Chang, L. Shan, Y. Dai, Multi-robot formation control in unknown environment based on improved DWA, Control Decis., (2021), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.13195/j.kzyjc.2020.1817. doi: 10.13195/j.kzyjc.2020.1817
![]() |
[20] |
J. Sun, G. Liu, G. Tian, J. Zhang, Smart obstacle avoidance using a danger index for a dynamic environment, Appl. Sci., 9 (2019), 1589. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9081589 doi: 10.3390/app9081589
![]() |
[21] |
L. Chang, L. Shan, C. Jiang, Y. Dai, Reinforcement based mobile robot path planning with improved dynamic window approach in unknown environment, Auton. Robot., 45 (2021), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-020-09947-4 doi: 10.1007/s10514-020-09947-4
![]() |
[22] |
Z. Lin, M. Yue, G. Chen, J. Sun, Path planning of mobile robot with PSO-based APF and fuzzy-based DWA subject to moving obstacles, Trans. Inst. Meas. Control, 44 (2022), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/01423312211024798 doi: 10.1177/01423312211024798
![]() |
[23] |
Y. Chen, G. Luo, Y. Mei, J. Yu, X. Su, UAV path planning using artificial potential field method updated by optimal control theory, Int. J. Syst. Sci., 47 (2016), 1407–1420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2014.929191 doi: 10.1080/00207721.2014.929191
![]() |
[24] |
U. Orozco-Rosas, O. Montiel, R. Sepúlveda, Mobile robot path planning using membrane evolutionary artificial potential field, Appl. Soft Comput., 77 (2019), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.01.036 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.01.036
![]() |
[25] |
X. Zhong, J. Tian, H. Hu, X. Peng, Hybrid path planning based on safe A* algorithm and adaptive window approach for mobile robot in large-scale dynamic environment, J. Intell. Robot. Syst., 99 (2020), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-019-01112-z doi: 10.1007/s10846-019-01112-z
![]() |
[26] |
X. Ji, S. Feng, Q. Han, H. Yin, S. Yu, Improvement and fusion of A* algorithm and dynamic window approach considering complex environmental information, Arab. J. Sci. Eng., 46 (2021), 7445–7459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-05445-6 doi: 10.1007/s13369-021-05445-6
![]() |
[27] |
Z. Wang, G. Li, J. Ren, Dynamic path planning for unmanned surface vehicle in complex offshore areas based on hybrid algorithm, Comput. Commun., 166 (2021), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.11.012 doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2020.11.012
![]() |
[28] |
B. Sahu, P. K. Das, M. Kabat, Multi-robot cooperation and path planning for stick transporting using improved Q-learning and democratic robotics PSO, J. Comput. Sci., 60 (2022), 101637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2022.101637 doi: 10.1016/j.jocs.2022.101637
![]() |
[29] |
Y. Dai, Y. Kim, S. Wee, D. Lee, S. Lee, A switching formation strategy for obstacle avoidance of a multi-robot system based on robot priority model, ISA Trans., 56 (2015), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2014.10.008 doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2014.10.008
![]() |
[30] |
H. Sang, Y. You, X. Sun, Y. Zhou, F. Liu, The hybrid path planning algorithm based on improved A* and artificial potential field for unmanned surface vehicle formations, Ocean Eng., 23 (2021), 108709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.108709 doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.108709
![]() |
[31] |
P. K. Das, H. S. Behera, B. K. Panigrahi, A hybridization of an improved particle swarm optimization and gravitational search algorithm for multi-robot path planning, Swarm Evol. Comput., 28 (2016), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2015.10.011 doi: 10.1016/j.swevo.2015.10.011
![]() |
[32] |
P. K. Das, P. K. Jena, Multi-robot path planning using improved particle swarm optimization algorithm through novel evolutionary operators, Appl. Soft Comput., 92 (2020), 106312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106312 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106312
![]() |
[33] |
R. K. Dewangan, A. Shukla, W. W. Godfrey, A solution for priority-based multi-robot path planning problem with obstacles using ant lion optimization, Mod. Phys. Lett. B, 34 (2020), 2050137. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217984920501377 doi: 10.1142/S0217984920501377
![]() |
[34] |
J. M. Yang, C. M. Tseng, P. S. Tseng, Path planning on satellite images for unmanned surface vehicles, Int. J. Naval Archit. Ocean Eng., 7 (2015), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnaoe-2015-0007 doi: 10.1515/ijnaoe-2015-0007
![]() |
[35] |
L. Yang, L. Fu, P. Li, J. Mao, N. Guo, L. Du, LF-ACO: An effective formation path planning for multi-mobile robot, Math. Biosci. Eng., 19 (2022), 225–252. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2022012 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022012
![]() |
[36] | D. Harabor, A. Grastien, Online graph pruning for pathfinding on grid maps, in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 25 (2011), 1114–1119. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v25i1.7994 |
[37] | D. Harabor, A. Grastien, Improving jump point search, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, 24 (2014), 128–135. |
[38] |
C. Li, X. Huang, J. Ding, K. Song, S. Lu, Global path planning based on a bidirectional alternating search A* algorithm for mobile robots, Comput. Indust. Eng., 168 (2022), 108123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108123 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2022.108123
![]() |
[39] |
Y. Singh, S. Sharma, R. Sutton, D. Hatton, A. Khan, A constrained A* approach towards optimal path planning for an unmanned surface vehicle in a maritime environment containing dynamic obstacles and ocean currents, Ocean Eng., 169 (2018), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.09.016 doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.09.016
![]() |
[40] |
L. Yang, L. Fu, P. Li, J. Mao, N. Guo, An effective dynamic path planning approach for mobile robots based on ant colony fusion dynamic windows, Machines, 10 (2022), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10010050 doi: 10.3390/machines10010050
![]() |
[41] |
S. M. H. Rostami, A. K. Sangaiah, J. Wang, X. Liu, Obstacle avoidance of mobile robots using modified artificial potential field algorithm, EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw., 2019 (2019), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13638-019-1396-2 doi: 10.1186/s13638-019-1396-2
![]() |
[42] |
E. A. Torkamani, Z. Xi, Systematical collision avoidance reliability analysis and characterization of reliable system operation for autonomous navigation using the dynamic window approach, ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part B, 8 (2022), 031106. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4053941 doi: 10.1115/1.4053941
![]() |
[43] |
C. Liang, X. Zhang, Y. Watanabe, Y. Deng, Autonomous collision avoidance of unmanned surface vehicles based on improved A star and minimum course alteration algorithms, Appl. Ocean Res., 113 (2021), 102755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2021.102755 doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2021.102755
![]() |
[44] |
M. Kobayashi, N. Motoi, Local path planning: Dynamic window approach with virtual manipulators considering dynamic obstacles, IEEE Access, 10 (2022), 17018–17029. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3150036 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3150036
![]() |
[45] |
E. Olcay, F. Schuhmann, B. Lohmann, Collective navigation of a multi-robot system in an unknown environment, Robot. Auton. Syst., 132 (2020), 103604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2020.103604 doi: 10.1016/j.robot.2020.103604
![]() |
[46] |
L. Gracia, A. Sala, F. Garelli, Robot coordination using task-priority and sliding-mode techniques, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 30 (2024), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2013.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2013.08.003
![]() |