Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Special Issues

Long-time Reynolds averaging of reduced order models for fluid flows: Preliminary results

  • We perform a preliminary theoretical and numerical investigation of the time-average of energy exchange among modes of Reduced Order Models (ROMs) of fluid flows. We are interested in the statistical equilibrium problem, and especially in the possible forward and backward average transfer of energy among ROM basis functions (modes). We consider two types of ROM modes: Eigenfunctions of the Stokes operator and Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) modes. We prove analytical results for both types of ROM modes and we highlight the differences between them. We also investigate numerically whether the time-average energy exchange between POD modes is positive. To this end, we utilize the one-dimensional Burgers equation as a simplified mathematical model, which is commonly used in ROM tests. The main conclusion of our numerical study is that, for long enough time intervals, the time-average energy exchange from low index POD modes to high index POD modes is positive, as predicted by our theoretical results.

    Citation: Luigi C. Berselli, Traian Iliescu, Birgul Koc, Roger Lewandowski. Long-time Reynolds averaging of reduced order models for fluid flows: Preliminary results[J]. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(1): 1-25. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020001

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yudan Ma, Ming Zhao, Yunfei Du . Impact of the strong Allee effect in a predator-prey model. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16296-16314. doi: 10.3934/math.2022890
    [2] Chaoxiong Du, Wentao Huang . Hopf bifurcation problems near double positive equilibrium points for a class of quartic Kolmogorov model. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26715-26730. doi: 10.3934/math.20231367
    [3] Yougang Wang, Anwar Zeb, Ranjit Kumar Upadhyay, A Pratap . A delayed synthetic drug transmission model with two stages of addiction and Holling Type-II functional response. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(1): 1-22. doi: 10.3934/math.2021001
    [4] Jawdat Alebraheem . Asymptotic stability of deterministic and stochastic prey-predator models with prey herd immigration. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 4620-4640. doi: 10.3934/math.2025214
    [5] Komal Bansal, Trilok Mathur, Narinderjit Singh Sawaran Singh, Shivi Agarwal . Analysis of illegal drug transmission model using fractional delay differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 18173-18193. doi: 10.3934/math.20221000
    [6] Binfeng Xie, Na Zhang . Influence of fear effect on a Holling type III prey-predator system with the prey refuge. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 1811-1830. doi: 10.3934/math.2022104
    [7] Sahabuddin Sarwardi, Hasanur Mollah, Aeshah A. Raezah, Fahad Al Basir . Direction and stability of Hopf bifurcation in an eco-epidemic model with disease in prey and predator gestation delay using Crowley-Martin functional response. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 27930-27954. doi: 10.3934/math.20241356
    [8] Ruizhi Yang, Dan Jin, Wenlong Wang . A diffusive predator-prey model with generalist predator and time delay. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 4574-4591. doi: 10.3934/math.2022255
    [9] Yingyan Zhao, Changjin Xu, Yiya Xu, Jinting Lin, Yicheng Pang, Zixin Liu, Jianwei Shen . Mathematical exploration on control of bifurcation for a 3D predator-prey model with delay. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 29883-29915. doi: 10.3934/math.20241445
    [10] Ming Wu, Hongxing Yao . Stability and bifurcation of a delayed diffusive predator-prey model affected by toxins. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 21943-21967. doi: 10.3934/math.20231119
  • We perform a preliminary theoretical and numerical investigation of the time-average of energy exchange among modes of Reduced Order Models (ROMs) of fluid flows. We are interested in the statistical equilibrium problem, and especially in the possible forward and backward average transfer of energy among ROM basis functions (modes). We consider two types of ROM modes: Eigenfunctions of the Stokes operator and Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) modes. We prove analytical results for both types of ROM modes and we highlight the differences between them. We also investigate numerically whether the time-average energy exchange between POD modes is positive. To this end, we utilize the one-dimensional Burgers equation as a simplified mathematical model, which is commonly used in ROM tests. The main conclusion of our numerical study is that, for long enough time intervals, the time-average energy exchange from low index POD modes to high index POD modes is positive, as predicted by our theoretical results.


    In the last two decades, the fractional difference equations have recently received considerable attention in many fields of science and engineering, see [1,2,3,4] and the references therein. On the other hand, the q-difference equations have numerous applications in diverse fields in recent years and has gained intensive interest [5,6,7,8,9]. It is well know that the q-fractional difference equations can be used as a bridge between fractional difference equations and q-difference equations, many papers have been published on this research direction, see [10,11,12,13,14,15] for examples. We recommend the monograph [16] and the papers cited therein.

    For 0<q<1, we define the time scale Tq={qn:nZ}{0}, where Z is the set of integers. For a=qn0 and n0Z, we denote Ta=[a,)q={qia:i=0,1,2,...}.

    In [17], Abdeljawad et.al generalized the q-fractional Gronwall-type inequality in [18], they obtained the following q-fractional Gronwall-type inequality.

    Theorem 1.1 ([17]). Let α>0, u and ν be nonnegative functions and w(t) be nonnegative and nondecreasing function for t[a,)q such that w(t)M where M is a constant. If

    u(t)ν(t)+w(t)qαau(t),

    then

    u(t)ν(t)+k=1(w(t)Γq(α))kqkαaν(t). (1.1)

    Based on the above result, Abdeljawad et al. investigated the following nonlinear delay q-fractional difference system:

    {qCαax(t)=A0x(t)+A1x(τt)+f(t,x(t),x(τt)),t[a,)q,x(t)=ϕ(t),tIτ, (1.2)

    where qCαa means the Caputo fractional difference of order α(0,1), ˉIτ={τa,q1τa,q2τa,...,a}, τ=qdTq with dN0={0,1,2,...}.

    Remark 1.1. The domain of t in (1.2) is inaccurate, please see the reference [19].

    In [20], Sheng and Jiang gave the following extended form of the fractional Gronwall inequality :

    Theorem 1.2 ([20]). Suppose α>0, β>0, a(t) is a nonnegative function locally integrable on [0,T), ˜g(t), and ˉg(t) are nonnegative, nondecreasing, continuous functions defined on [0,T); ˜g(t)˜M, ˉg(t)ˉM, where ˜M and ˉM are constants. Suppose x(t) is a nonnegative and locally integrable on [0,T) with

    x(t)a(t)+˜g(t)t0(ts)α1x(s)ds+ˉg(t)t0(ts)β1x(s)ds,t[0,T).

    Then

    x(t)a(t)+t0n=1[g(t)]nnk=0Ckn[Γ(α)]nk[Γ(β)]kΓ[(nk)α+kβ](ts)(nk)α+kβ1a(s)ds, (1.3)

    where t[0,T), g(t)=˜g(t)+ˉg(t) and Ckn=n(n1)(nk+1)k!.

    Corollary 1.3 [20] Under the hypothesis of Theorem 1.2, let a(t) be a nondecreasing function on [0,T). Then

    x(t)a(t)Eγ[g(t)(Γ(α)tα+Γ(β)tβ)], (1.4)

    where γ=min{α,β}, Eγ is the Mittag-Leffler function defined by Eγ(z)=k=0zkΓ(kγ+1).

    Finite-time stability is a more practical method which is much valuable to analyze the transient behavior of nature of a system within a finite interval of time. It has been widely studied of integer differential systems. In recent decades, the finite-time stability analysis of fractional differential systems has received considerable attention, for instance [21,22,23,24,25] and the references therein. In [26], Du and Jia studied the finite-time stability of a class of nonlinear fractional delay difference systems by using a new discrete Gronwall inequality and Jensen inequality. Recently, Du and Jia in [27] obtained a criterion on finite time stability of fractional delay difference system with constant coefficients by virtue of a discrete delayed Mittag-Leffler matrix function approach. In [28], Ma and Sun investigated the finite-time stability of a class of fractional q-difference equations with time-delay by utilizing the proposed delayed q-Mittag-Leffler type matrix and generalized q-Gronwall inequality, respectively. Based on the generalized fractional (q,h)-Gronwall inequality, Du and Jia in [19] derived the finite-time stability criterion of nonlinear fractional delay (q,h)-difference systems.

    Motivated by the above works, we will extend the q-fractional Gronwall-type inequality (Theorem 1.1) to the spreading form of the q-fractional Gronwall inequality. As applications, we consider the existence and uniqueness of the solution of the following nonlinear delay q-fractional difference damped system :

    {qCαax(t)A0qCβax(t)=B0x(t)+B1x(τt)+f(t,x(t),x(τt)),t[a,b)q,x(t)=ϕ(t),qx(t)=ψ(t),tIτ, (1.5)

    where [a,b)q=[a,b)Ta, bTa, Iτ={qτa,τa,q1τa,q2τa,...,a}, τ=qdTq with dN0={0,1,2,...}, qCαa and qCβa mean the Caputo fractional difference of order α(1,2) and order β(0,1), respectively, and the constant matrices A0, B0 and B1 are of appropriate dimensions. Moreover, a novel criterion of finite-time stability criterion of (1.5) is established. We generalized the main results of [17] in this paper.

    The organization of this paper is given as follows: In Section 2, we give some notations, definitions and preliminaries. Section 3 is devoted to proving a spreading form of the q-fractional Gronwall inequality. In Section 4, the existence and uniqueness of the solution of system (1.5) are given and proved, and the finite-time stability theorem of nonlinear delay q-fractional difference damped system is obtained. In Section 5, an example is given to illustrate our theoretical result. Finally, the paper is concluded in Section 6.

    In this section, we provided some basic definitions and lemmas which are used in the sequel.

    Let f:TqR (q(0,1)), the nabla q-derivative of f is defined by Thabet et al. as follows:

    qf(t)=f(t)f(qt)(1q)t,tTq{0},

    and q-derivatives of higher order by

    nqf(t)=q(n1qf)(t),nN.

    The nabla q-integral of f has the following form

    t0f(s)qs=(1q)ti=0qif(tqi) (2.1)

    and for 0aTq

    taf(s)qs=t0f(s)qsa0f(s)qs. (2.2)

    The definition of the q-factorial function for a nonpositive integer α is given by

    (ts)αq=tαi=01stqi1stqi+α. (2.3)

    For a function f:TqR, the left q-fractional integral qαa of order α0,1,2,... and starting at 0<aTq is defined by

    qαaf(t)=1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1qf(s)qs, (2.4)

    where

    Γq(α+1)=1qα1qΓq(α),Γq(1)=1, α>0. (2.5)

    The left q-fractional derivative qβa of order β>0 and starting at 0<aTq is defined by

    qβaf(t)=(qmaq(mβ)af)(t), (2.6)

    where m is the smallest integer greater or equal than β.

    Definition 2.1 ([11]). Let 0<αN and f:TaR. Then the Caputo left q-fractional derivative of order α of a function f is defined by

    qCαaf(t):=q(nα)anqf(t)=1Γq(nα)ta(tqs)nα1qnqf(s)qs,tTa, (2.7)

    where n=[α]+1.

    Let us now list some properties which are needed to obtain our results.

    Lemma 2.1 ([29]). Let α,β>0 and f be a function defined on (0,b). Then the following formulas hold:

    (qβaqαaf)(t)=q(α+β)af(t),0<a<t<b,
    (qαaqαaf)(t)=f(t),0<a<t<b.

    Lemma 2.2 ([11]). Let α>0 and f be defined in a suitable domain. Thus

    qαaqCαaf(t)=f(t)n1k=0(ta)kqΓq(k+1)kqf(a) (2.8)

    and if 0<α1 we have

    qαaqCαaf(t)=f(t)f(a). (2.9)

    The following identity plays a crucial role in solving the linear q-fractional equations:

    qαa(xa)μq=Γq(μ+1)Γq(α+μ+1)(xa)μ+αq,0<a<x<b, (2.10)

    where αR+ and μ(1,).

    Apply qαa on both sides of (2.10), by virtue of Lemma 2.1, one can obtain

    qαa(xa)μ+αq=Γq(α+μ+1)Γq(μ+1)(xa)μq,0<a<x<b, (2.11)

    where αR+ and μ(1,).

    By Theorem 7 in [11], for any 0<β<1, one has

    (qCβaf)(t)=(qβaf)(t)(ta)βqΓq(1β)f(a). (2.12)

    For any 1<α2, by (2.8), one has

    qαaqCαaf(t)=f(t)f(a)(ta)1qqf(a). (2.13)

    Apply qαa on both sides of (2.13), by Lemma 2.1 and (2.11), we get

    (qCαaf)(t)=(qαaf)(t)f(a)qαa(ta)0qf(a)qαa(ta)1q=(qαaf)(t)(ta)αqΓq(1α)f(a)(ta)1αqΓq(2α)qf(a). (2.14)

    In this section, we give and prove the following spreading form of generalized q-fractional Gronwall inequality, which extend a q-fractional Gronwall inequality in Theorem 1.1.

    Theorem 3.1. Let α>0 and β>0. Assume that u(t) and g(t) are nonnegative functions for t[a,T)q. Let wi(t) (i=1,2) be nonnegative and nondecreasing functions for t[a,T)q with wi(t)Mi, where Mi are positive constants (i=1,2) and

    [Γq(α)Tα(1q)α+Γq(β)Tβ(1q)β]max{M1Γq(α), M2Γq(β)}<1. (3.1)

    If

    u(t)g(t)+w1(t)qαau(t)+w2(t)qβau(t),t[a,T)q, (3.2)

    then

    u(t)g(t)+n=1w(t)nnk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(β)kq((nk)α+kβ)ag(t),t[a,T)q, (3.3)

    where w(t)=max{w1(t)Γq(α), w2(t)Γq(β)}.

    Proof. Define the operator

    Au(t)=w(t)ta[(tqs)α1q+(tqs)β1q]u(s)qs,t[a,T)q. (3.4)

    According to (3.2), one has

    u(t)g(t)+Au(t). (3.5)

    By (3.5) and the monotonicity of the operator A, we obtain

    u(t)n1k=0Akg(t)+Anu(t),t[a,T)q. (3.6)

    In the following, we will prove that

    Anu(t)w(t)nnk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(β)kq((nk)α+kβ)au(t),t[a,T)q, (3.7)

    and

    limnAnu(t)=0. (3.8)

    Obviously, the inequality (3.7) holds for n=1. Assume that (3.7) is true for n=m, that is

    Amu(t)w(t)mmk=0CkmΓq(α)mkΓq(β)kq((mk)α+kβ)au(t)=w(t)mmk=0CkmΓq(α)mkΓq(β)kΓq((mk)α+kβ)ta(tqs)(mk)α+kβ1qu(s)qs,t[a,T)q. (3.9)

    When n=m+1, by using (3.4), (3.9), (2.10) and the nondecreasing of function w(t), we get

    Am+1u(t)=A(Amu(t))

    w(t)ta[(tqs)α1q+(tqs)β1q]

    ×(w(s)mmk=0CkmΓq(α)mkΓq(β)kΓq((mk)α+kβ)sa(sqr)(mk)α+kβ1qu(r)qr)qs

    w(t)m+1tamk=0CkmΓq(α)mkΓq(β)kΓq((mk)α+kβ)[(tqs)α1q+(tqs)β1q]

    ×[sa(sqr)(mk)α+kβ1qu(r)qr]qs

    =w(t)m+1mk=0CkmΓq(α)mkΓq(β)kΓq((mk)α+kβ)[ta(tqs)α1qsa(sqr)(mk)α+kβ1qu(r)qrqs

    +ta(tqs)β1qsa(sqr)(mk)α+kβ1qu(r)qrqs]

    =w(t)m+1mk=0CkmΓq(α)mkΓq(β)kΓq((mk)α+kβ)[tatqr(tqs)α1q(sqr)(mk)α+kβ1qu(r)qrqs

    +tatqr(tqs)β1q(sqr)(mk)α+kβ1qu(r)qrqs]

    =w(t)m+1mk=0CkmΓq(α)mkΓq(β)kΓq((mk)α+kβ)

    ×(Γq(α)ta[1Γq(α)tqr(tqs)α1q(sqr)(mk)α+kβ1qqs]u(r)qr

    +Γq(β)ta[1Γq(β)tqr(tqs)β1q(sqr)(mk)α+kβ1qqs]u(r)qr)

    =w(t)m+1mk=0CkmΓq(α)mkΓq(β)kΓq((mk)α+kβ)

    ×(Γq(α)taqαqr(tqr)(mk)α+kβ1qu(r)qr

    +Γq(β)taqβqr(tqr)(mk)α+kβ1qu(r)qr)

    =w(t)m+1mk=0CkmΓq(α)mkΓq(β)kΓq((mk)α+kβ)

    ×(Γq(α)Γq((mk)α+kβ)Γq((mk+1)α+kβ)ta(tqr)(mk+1)α+kβ1qu(r)qr

    +Γq(β)Γq((mk)α+kβ)Γq((mk)α+(k+1)β)ta(tqr)(mk)α+(k+1)β1qu(r)qr)

    =w(t)m+1mk=0CkmΓq(α)mkΓq(β)k

    ×(Γq(α)q((mk+1)α+kβ)au(t)+Γq(β)q((mk)α+(k+1)β)au(t))

    =w(t)m+1mk=0CkmΓq(α)m+1kΓq(β)kq((mk+1)α+kβ)au(t)

    +w(t)m+1m+1k=1Ck1mΓq(α)m+1kΓq(β)kq((m+1k)α+kβ)au(t)

    =w(t)m+1[C0mΓq(α)m+1q((m+1)α)au(t)

    +mk=1(Ckm+Ck1m)Γq(α)m+1kΓq(β)kq((mk+1)α+kβ)au(t)

    +CmmΓq(β)m+1q((m+1)β)au(t)]

    =w(t)m+1m+1k=0Ckm+1Γq(α)m+1kΓq(β)kq((m+1k)α+kβ)au(t).

    Thus, (3.7) is proved.

    Using Stirling's formula of the q-gamma function [30], yields that

    Γq(x)=[2]1/2qΓq2(1/2)(1q)12xeθqx(1q)qx,0<θ<1,

    that is

    Γq(x)D(1q)12x,x, (3.10)

    where D=[2]1/2qΓq2(1/2). Moreover, if t>a>0 and γ>0 (γ is not a positive integer), then 1atqj<1atqγ+j for each j=0,1,..., and

    (ta)γq=tγj=01atqj1atqγ+j<tγ. (3.11)

    By w1(t)<M1 and w2(t)<M2, one has that w(t)<max{M1Γq(α), M2Γq(β)}:=M. Applying the first mean value theorem for definite integrals [31], (3.10) and (3.11), there exists a ξ[a,t]q such that

    limnAnu(t)limnu(ξ)nk=0MnCknΓq(α)nkΓq(β)kΓq((nk)α+kβ)ta(tqr)(nk)α+kβ1qqs=limnu(ξ)nk=0MnCknΓq(α)nkΓq(β)kΓq((nk)α+kβ+1)(ta)(nk)α+kβqlimnu(ξ)nk=0MnCknΓq(α)nkΓq(β)kΓq((nk)α+kβ+1)t(nk)α+kβ=limnu(ξ)nk=0MnCknΓq(α)nkΓq(β)kD(1q)12((nk)α+kβ+1)t(nk)α+kβ=limnu(ξ)1qDnk=0MnCkn[Γq(α)tα(1q)α]nk[Γq(β)tβ(1q)β]k=limnu(ξ)1qD[M(Γq(α)(1q)αtα+Γq(β)(1q)βtβ)]n.

    From (3.1), for each t[a,T)q, we have

    [M(Γq(α)(1q)αtα+Γq(β)(1q)βtβ)]n0,as n.

    Thus, Anu(t)0 as n. Let n in (3.6), by (3.8) we get

    u(t)g(t)+k=1Akg(t). (3.12)

    From (3.7) and (3.12), we obtain (3.3). This completes the proof.

    Corollary 3.2. Under the hypothesis of Theorem 3.1, let g(t) be a nondecreasing function on t[a,T)q. Then

    u(t)g(t)n=0w(t)nnk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(β)kΓq((nk)α+kβ+1)(ta)(nk)α+kβq (3.13)

    Proof. By (3.3), (2.10) and the assumption that g(t) is nondecreasing function for t[a,T)q, we have

    u(t)g(t)[1+n=1w(t)nnk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(β)kq((nk)α+kβ)a1]=g(t)[1+n=1w(t)nnk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(β)k1Γq((nk)α+kβ+1)(ta)(nk)α+kβq]=g(t)n=0w(t)nnk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(β)kΓq((nk)α+kβ+1)(ta)(nk)α+kβq.

    Throughout this paper, we make the following assumptions:

    (H1) fD(Tq×Rn×Rn,Rn) is a Lipschitz-type function. That is, for any x,y:TτaRn, there exists a positive constant L>0 such that

    f(t,y(t),y(τt))f(t,x(t),x(τt))L(y(t)x(t)+y(τt)x(τt)), (4.1)

    for t[a,T)q.

    (H2)

    f(t,0,0)=[0,0,...,0]nT. (4.2)

    (H3)

    [Γq(α)Tα(1q)α+Γq(αβ)Tαβ(1q)αβ]max{B0+B1+2LΓq(α), A0Γq(αβ)}<1. (4.3)

    Definition 4.1. The system (1.5) is finite-time stable w.r.t.{δ,ϵ,Te}, with δ<ϵ, if and only if max{ϕ,ψ}<δ implies x(t)<ϵ, t[a,Te]q=[a,Te][a,T)q.

    Theorem 4.1. Assume that (H1) and (H3) hold. Then the problem (1.5) has a unique solution.

    Proof. First we have to prove that x:TτaRm is a solution of system (1.5) if and only if

    x(t)=ϕ(a)+ψ(a)(ta)A0(ta)αβqΓq(αβ+1)ϕ(a)+A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qx(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0x(s)+B1x(τs)+f(s,x(s),x(τs))]qs,t[a,T)q,x(t)=ϕ(t),qx(t)=ψ(t),tIτ. (4.4)

    For tIτ, it is clear that x(t)=ϕ(t) with qx(t)=ψ(t) is the solution of (1.5). For t[a,T)q, we apply qαa on both sides of (4.4) to obtain

    qαax(t)=ϕ(a)(ta)αqΓq(1α)+ψ(a)(ta)1αqΓq(2α)ϕ(a)A0(ta)βqΓq(1β)+A0qβax(t)+B0x(t)+B1x(τt)+f(t,x(t),x(τt)), (4.5)

    where (qαaqαax)(t)=x(t) and (qαaq(αβ)ax)(t)=qβax(t) (by Lemma 2.1) have been used. By using (2.12) and (2.14), we get

    qCαax(t)A0qCβax(t)=B0x(t)+B1x(τt)+f(t,x(t),x(τt)),t[a,T)q.

    Conversely, from system (1.5), we can see that x(t)=ϕ(t) and qx(t)=ψ(t) for tIτ. For t[a,T)q, we apply qαa on both sides of (1.5) to get

    qαa[qCαax(t)A0qCβax(t)]=1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0x(s)+B1x(τs)+f(s,x(s),x(τs))]qs.

    According to Lemma 2.2, we obtain

    x(t)=ϕ(a)+ψ(a)(ta)A0(ta)αβqΓq(αβ+1)ϕ(a)+A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qx(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0x(s)+B1x(τs)+f(s,x(s),x(τs))]qs,t[a,T)q.

    Secondly, we will prove the uniqueness of solution to system (1.5). Let x and y be two solutions of system (1.5). Denote z by z(t)=x(t)y(t). Obviously, z(t)=0 for tIτ, which implies that system (1.5) has a unique solution for tIτ.

    For t[a,T)q, one has

    z(t)=A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qz(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0z(s)+B1z(τs)+f(s,x(s),x(τs))f(s,y(s),y(τs))]qs. (4.6)

    If tJτ={a,q1a,...,τ1a}, then τtIτ and z(τt)=0. Hence,

    z(t)=A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qz(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0z(s)+f(s,x(s),x(τs))f(s,y(s),y(τs))]qs,

    which implies that

    z(t)A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qz(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0z(s)+f(s,x(s),x(τs))f(s,y(s),y(τs))]qsA0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qz(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0z(s)+L(z(s)+z(τs))]qs(by (H1))=A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qz(s)qs+B0+LΓq(α)ta(tqs)α1qz(s)qs. (4.7)

    By applying Corollary 3.2 and (H3), we get

    z(t)0n=0wn1nk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(αβ)kΓq((nk)α+k(αβ)+1)(ta)(nk)α+k(αβ)q=0, (4.8)

    where w1=max{A0Γ(αβ),B0+LΓ(α)}. This implies x(t)=y(t) for tJτ.

    For t[τ1a,T)q, we obtain

    z(t)=A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qz(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0z(s)+f(s,x(s),x(τs))f(s,y(s),y(τs))]qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1qB1z(τs)qs. (4.9)

    Therefore,

    z(t)=A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qz(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0z(s)+f(s,x(s),x(τs))f(s,y(s),y(τs))]qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1qB1z(τs)qsA0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qz(s)qs+B0+LΓq(α)ta(tqs)α1qz(s)qs+B1+LΓq(α)ta(tqs)α1qz(τs)qs. (4.10)

    Let z(t)=maxθ[a,t]q{z(θ),z(τθ)} for t[τ1a,T)q, where [a,t]q=[a,t]Ta, it is obvious that z(t) is a increasing function. From (4.10), we obtain that

    z(t)A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qz(s)qs+B0+LΓq(α)ta(tqs)α1qz(s)qs+B1+LΓq(α)ta(tqs)α1qz(s)qs=A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qz(s)qs+B0+B1+2LΓq(α)ta(tqs)α1qz(s)qs. (4.11)

    By applying Corollary 3.2 and (H3) again, we get

    z(t)z(t)0n=0wn2nk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(αβ)kΓq((nk)α+k(αβ)+1)(ta)(nk)α+k(αβ)q=0,

    where w2=max{A0Γ(αβ),B0+B1+2LΓ(α)}. Thus, we end up with x(t)=y(t) for t[τ1a,T)q. The proof is completed.

    Theorem 4.2. Assume that the conditions (H1), (H2) and (H3) hold. Then the system (1.5) is finite-time stable if the following condition is satisfied:

    (1+(ta)+A0(ta)αβqΓq(αβ+1))n=0wn2nk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(αβ)kΓq((nk)α+k(αβ)+1)(ta)(nk)α+k(αβ)q<εδ, (4.12)

    where w2=max{B0+B1+2LΓq(α),A0Γq(αβ)}.

    Proof. Applying left q-fractional integral on both sides of (1.5), we obtain

    qαa(qCαax(t))A0qαa(qCβax(t))=qΔαa(B0x(t)+B1x(τt)+f(t,x(t),x(τt))). (4.13)

    By (4.12) and utilizing Lemma 2.2 we have

    x(t)=ϕ(a)+ψ(a)(ta)A0(ta)αβqΓq(αβ+1)ϕ(a)+A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qx(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0x(s)+B1x(τs)+f(s,x(s),x(τs))]qs.

    Thus, by (H1) and (H2), we get

    x(t)ϕ+ψ(ta)+A0ϕ(ta)αβqΓq(αβ+1)+A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qx(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[B0x(s)+B1x(τs)+f(s,x(s),x(τs))]qsϕ+ψ(ta)+A0ϕ(ta)αβqΓq(αβ+1)+A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qx(s)qs+1Γq(α)ta(tqs)α1q[(B0+L)x(s)+(B1+L)x(τs)]qs. (4.14)

    Let g(t)=ϕ+ψ(ta)+A0ϕ(ta)αβqΓq(αβ+1), then g is a nondecreasing function.

    Set ˉx(t)=maxθ[a,t]q{x(θ),x(τθ)}, then by (4.14) we get

    ˉx(t)g(t)+A0Γq(αβ)ta(tqs)αβ1qˉx(s)qs+B0+B1+2LΓq(α)ta(tqs)α1qˉx(s)qs=g(t)+(B0+B1+2L)qαaˉx(t)+A0q(αβ)aˉx(t). (4.15)

    Applying the result of Corollary 3.2, we have

    x(t)ˉx(t)g(t)n=0wn2nk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(αβ)kΓq((nk)α+k(αβ)+1)(ta)(nk)α+k(αβ)qδ(1+(ta)+A0(ta)αβqΓq(αβ+1))n=0wn2nk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(αβ)kΓq((nk)α+k(αβ)+1)(ta)(nk)α+k(αβ)q<ε. (4.16)

    Therefore, the system (1.5) is finite-time stable. The proof is completed.

    If xRn, then x=ni=1|xi|. If ARn×n, then the induced norm is defined as A=max1jnni=1|aij|.

    Example 5.1. Consider the nonlinear delay q-fractional differential difference system

    {qC1.8ax(t)(00.620.560)qC0.8ax(t)=(00.080.1090)x(t)+(0.15000.12)x(τt)+f(t,x(t),x(τt)),t[a,T)q,x(t)=ϕ(t),qx(t)=ψ(t),tIτ, (5.1)

    where α=1.8, β=0.8, q=0.6, a=q5=0.65, T=q1=0.61, τ=q3=0.63, x(t)=[x1(t),x2(t)]TR2,

    f(t,x(t),x(τt))=14[sinx1(t),sinx2(τt)]T15[arctanx1(τt),arctanx2(τt)]T,

    and

    ϕ(t)=[0.05,0.035]T,ψ(t)=[0.04,0.045]T,tIτ={0.69,0.68,0.67,0.66,0.65}.

    Obviously, ϕ=ψ=0.0085<0.1=δ, ϵ=1. We can see that f satisfies conditions (H1) (L=14) and (H2). We can calculate A0=0.62, B0=0.109, B1=0.15.

    When T=0.61, it is easy to check that

    [Γq(α)Tα(1q)α+Γq(αβ)Tαβ(1q)αβ]max{B0+B1+2LΓq(α),A0Γq(αβ)}=0.8992<1,

    that is, (H3) holds. By using Matlab (the pseudo-code to compute different values of Γq(σ), see [32]), when t=1[a,T)q,

    (1+(ta)+A0(ta)αβqΓq(αβ+1))n=0wn2nk=0CknΓq(α)nkΓq(αβ)kΓq((nk)α+k(αβ)+1)(ta)(nk)α+k(αβ)q8.4593<10=ϵδ.

    Thus, we obtain Te=1.

    In this paper, we introduced and proved new generalizations for q-fractional Gronwall inequality. We examined the validity and applicability of our results by considering the existence and uniqueness of solutions of nonlinear delay q-fractional difference damped system. Moreover, a novel and easy to verify sufficient conditions have been provided in this paper which are easy to determine the finite-time stability of the solutions for the considered system. Finally, an example is given to illustrate the effectiveness and feasibility of our criterion. Motivated by previous works [33,34], the possible applications of fractional q-difference in the field of stability theory will be considered in the future.

    The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions that helped to improve the quality of the paper. This work is supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (11571136).

    The authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest.



    [1] Batchelor GK (1953) The Theory of Homogeneous Turbulence, Cambridge University Press.
    [2] Berselli LC, Iliescu T, Layton WJ (2006) Mathematics of Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flows, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    [3] Berselli LC, Lewandowski R (2019) On the Reynolds time-averaged equations and the long-time behavior of Leray-Hopf weak solutions, with applications to ensemble averages. Nonlinearity 32: 4579-4608. doi: 10.1088/1361-6544/ab32bc
    [4] Berselli LC, Fagioli S, Spirito S (2019) Suitable weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations constructed by a space-time numerical discretization. J Math Pures Appl 125: 189-208.
    [5] Rebollo TC, Lewandowski R (2014) Mathematical and Numerical Foundations of Turbulence Models and Applications, New York: Springer.
    [6] Constantin P, Foias C (1988) Navier-Stokes Equations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [7] Couplet M, Sagaut P, Basdevant C (2003) Intermodal energy transfers in a proper orthogonal decomposition-Galerkin representation of a turbulent separated flow. J Fluid Mech 491: 275-284.
    [8] DeCaria V, Layton WJ, McLaughlin M (2017) A conservative, second order, unconditionally stable artificial compression method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 325: 733-747.
    [9] DeCaria V, Iliescu T, Layton W, et al. (2019) An artificial compression reduced order model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09061.
    [10] Girault V, Raviart PA (1986) Finite Element Methods for Navier-Stokes Equations, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    [11] Foiaş C (1972/73) Statistical study of Navier-Stokes equations. I, Ⅱ. Rend Sem Mat Univ Padova 48: 219-348; 49: 9-123.
    [12] Foias C, Manley O, Rosa R, et al. (2001) Navier-Stokes Equations and Turbulence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [13] Guermond JL, Minev P, Shen J (2006) An overview of projection methods for incompressible flows. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 195: 6011-6045.
    [14] Guermond JL, Oden JT, Prudhomme S (2004) Mathematical perspectives on large eddy simulation models for turbulent flows. J Math Fluid Mech 6: 194-248.
    [15] Hesthaven JS, Rozza G, Stamm B (2016) Certified Reduced Basis Methods for Parametrized Partial Differential Equations, Berlin: Springer.
    [16] Iliescu T, Wang Z (2014) Are the snapshot difference quotients needed in the proper orthogonal decomposition? SIAM J Sci Comput 36: A1221-A1250.
    [17] Iliescu T, Liu H, Xie X (2018) Regularized reduced order models for a stochastic Burgers equation Int J Numer Anal Mod 15: 594-607.
    [18] Jiang N, Layton WJ (2016) Algorithms and models for turbulence not at statistical equilibrium. Comput Math Appl 71: 2352-2372.
    [19] Kolmogorov AN (1941) The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluids for very large Reynolds number. Dokl Akad Nauk SSR 30: 9-13.
    [20] Kunisch K, Volkwein S (1999) Control of the Burgers equation by a reduced-order approach using proper orthogonal decomposition. J Optim Theory Appl 102: 345-371.
    [21] Kunisch K, Volkwein S (2001) Galerkin proper orthogonal decomposition methods for parabolic problems. Numer Math 90: 117-148.
    [22] Kunisch K, Volkwein S, Xie L (2004) HJB-POD-based feedback design for the optimal control of evolution problems. SIAM J Appl Dyn Syst 3: 701-722.
    [23] Kunisch K, Xie L (2005) POD-based feedback control of the Burgers equation by solving the evolutionary HJB equation. Comput Math Appl 49: 1113-1126.
    [24] Kunisch K, Volkwein S (2008) Proper orthogonal decomposition for optimality systems. ESAIM: Math Model Numer Anal 42: 1-23.
    [25] Lassila T, Manzoni A, Quarteroni A, et al. (2014) Model order reduction in fluid dynamics: Challenges and perspectives. In: Reduced order methods for modeling and computational reduction, Springer, 9: 235-273.
    [26] Layton WJ (2014) The 1877 Boussinesq conjecture: Turbulent fluctuations are dissipative on the mean flow. Technical Report TR-MATH 14-07, Pittsburgh Univ.
    [27] Layton WJ, Rebholz L (2012) Approximate Deconvolution Models of Turbulence Approximate Deconvolution Models of Turbulence, Heidelberg: Springer.
    [28] Lewandowski R (2015) Long-time turbulence model deduced from the Navier-Stokes equations. Chin Ann Math Ser B 36: 883-894.
    [29] Lions JL, (1969) Quelques Méthodes de Résolution des Problèmes aux Limites Non Linéaires, Paris: Dunod.
    [30] Málek J, Nečas J, Rokyta M, et al. (1996) Weak and Measure-valued Solutions to Evolutionary PDEs, London: Chapman & Hall.
    [31] Park HM, Jang YD (2000) Control of Burgers equation by means of mode reduction. Int J of Eng Sci 38: 785-805.
    [32] Prandtl L (1925) Bericht über Untersuchungen zur ausgebildeten Turbulenz. Z Angew Math Mech 5: 136-139. doi: 10.1002/zamm.19250050212
    [33] Prodi G (1960) Teoremi ergodici per le equazioni della idrodinamica, In: Sistemi Dinamici e Teoremi Ergodici, Berlin: Springer, 159-177.
    [34] Prodi G (1961) On probability measures related to the Navier-Stokes equations in the 3-dimensional case. Technical Report AF61(052)-414, Trieste Univ.
    [35] Quarteroni A, Manzoni A, Negri F (2016) Reduced Basis Methods for Partial Differential Equations, Berlin: Springer.
    [36] Quarteroni A, Rozza G, Manzoni A (2011) Certified reduced basis approximation for parametrized partial differential equations and applications. J Math Ind 1: 3.
    [37] Reynolds O (1895) On the dynamic theory of the incompressible viscous fluids and the determination of the criterion. Philos Trans Roy Soc London Ser A 186: 123-164.
    [38] Rozza G (2014) Fundamentals of reduced basis method for problems governed by parametrized PDEs and applications, In: Separated Representations and PGD-based Model Reduction, Vienna: Springer, 153-227.
    [39] Sagaut P (2001) Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    [40] San O, Maulik R (2018) Neural network closures for nonlinear model order reduction. Adv Comput Math 44: 1717-1750.
    [41] Wells D, Wang Z, Xie X, et al. (2017) An evolve-then-filter regularized reduced order model for convection-dominated flows. Internat J. Numer Methods Fluids 84: 598-615.
    [42] Xie X, Wells D, Wang Z, et al. (2017) Approximate deconvolution reduced order modeling. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 313: 512-534.
    [43] Xie X, Mohebujjaman M, Rebholz LG, et al. (2018) Data-driven filtered reduced order modeling of fluid flows. SIAM J Sci Comput 40: B834-B857.
    [44] Xie X, Mohebujjaman M, Rebholz LG, et al. (2018) Lagrangian data-driven reduced order modeling of finite time Lyapunov exponents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.05635.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Wellington F. da Silva, Ricardo B. Viana, Naiane S. Morais, Thalles G. Costa, Rodrigo L. Vancini, Gustavo C. T. Costa, Marilia S. Andrade, Claudio A. B. de Lira, Acute effects of exergame-based calisthenics versus traditional calisthenics on state-anxiety levels in young adult men: a randomized trial, 2022, 18, 1824-7490, 715, 10.1007/s11332-021-00841-9
    2. Myungjin Jung, Emily Frith, Minsoo Kang, Paul D. Loprinzi, Effects of Acute Exercise on Verbal, Mathematical, and Spatial Insight Creativity, 2023, 5, 2096-6709, 87, 10.1007/s42978-021-00158-6
    3. Sedat Sen, Süreyya Yörük, A Reliability Generalization Meta‐Analysis of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale, 2023, 0022-0175, 10.1002/jocb.620
    4. Ramón Romance, Adriana Nielsen-Rodríguez, Rui Sousa Mendes, Juan Carlos Dobado-Castañeda, Gonçalo Dias, The influence of physical activity on the creativity of 10 and 11-year-old school children, 2023, 48, 18711871, 101295, 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101295
    5. Petra J. Luteijn, Inge S. M. van der Wurff, Piet van Tuijl, Amika S. Singh, Hans H. C. M. Savelberg, Renate H. M. de Groot, The Effect of Standing Versus Sitting on Creativity in Adolescents—A Crossover Randomized Trial: The PHIT2LEARN Study, 2023, 17, 1751-2271, 209, 10.1111/mbe.12381
    6. Myungjin Jung, Matthew B. Pontifex, Charles H. Hillman, Minsoo Kang, Michelle W. Voss, Kirk I. Erickson, Paul D. Loprinzi, A mechanistic understanding of cognitive performance deficits concurrent with vigorous intensity exercise, 2024, 180, 02782626, 106208, 10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106208
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

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

Metrics

Article views(4984) PDF downloads(454) Cited by(11)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog