Denis Serre Systems of Conservation Laws 1 - Hyperbolicity, Entropies, Shock Waves 1999 PDF

Systems of
Conservation Laws 1:
Hyperbolicity, Entropies,
Shock Waves
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
DENIS SERRE
Translated by
I . N. SNEDDON
Systems of Conservation Laws 1
Systems of conservation laws arise naturally in several areas of physics and chemistry. To
understand them and their consequences (shock waves, nite velocity wave propagation)
properly in mathematical terms requires, however, knowledge of a broad range of topics.
This book sets up the foundations of the modern theory of conservation laws describing
the physical models and mathematical methods, leading to the Glimm scheme. Building
on this the author then takes the reader to the current state of knowledge in the subject. In
particular, he studies in detail viscous approximations, paying special attention to viscous
proles of shock waves. The maximum principle is considered from the viewpoint of
numerical schemes and also in terms of viscous approximation, whose convergence is
studied using the technique of compensated compactness. Small waves are studied using
geometrical optics methods. Finally, the initialboundary problem is considered in depth.
Throughout, the presentation is reasonably self-contained, with large numbers of exercises
and full discussion of all the ideas. This will make it ideal as a text for graduate courses in
the area of partial differential equations.
Denis Serre is Professor of Mathematics at the Ecole Normale Sup erieure de Lyon and was
a Member of the Institut Universitaire de France (19927).
This page intentionally left blank
Systems of
Conservation Laws 1
Hyperbolicity, Entropies, Shock Waves
DENIS SERRE
Translated by
I . N. SNEDDON
PUBLISHED BY CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS (VIRTUAL PUBLISHING)
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 IRP
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
http://www.cambridge.org
Originally published in French by Diderot as Systmes de lois de conservation I: hyperbolicit, entropies, ondes de
choc and 1996 Diderot
First published in English by Cambridge University Press 1999 as Systems of Conservation Laws 1:
Hyperbolicity, Entropies, Shock Waves
English translation Cambridge University Press 1999
This edition Cambridge University Press (Virtual Publishing) 2003
First published in printed format 1999
A catalogue record for the original printed book is available
from the British Library and from the Library of Congress
Original ISBN 0 521 58233 4 hardback
ISBN 0 511 00900 3 virtual (netLibrary Edition)
To Paul and Fanny
Contents
Acknowledgments page xi
Introduction xiii
1 Some models 1
1.1 Gas dynamics in eulerian variables 1
1.2 Gas dynamics in lagrangian variables 8
1.3 The equation of road trafc 10
1.4 Electromagnetism 11
1.5 Magneto-hydrodynamics 14
1.6 Hyperelastic materials 17
1.7 Singular limits of dispersive equations
2 Scalar equations in dimension d = 1 2
19
1.8 Electrophoresis 22
5
2.1 Classical solutions of the Cauchy problem 25
2.2 Weak solutions, non-uniqueness 27
2.3 Entropy solutions, the Kru zkov existence theorem 32
2.4 The Riemann problem 43
2.5 The case of f convex. The Lax formula 45
2.6 Proof of Theorem 2.3.5: existence 47
2.7 Proof of Theorem 2.3.5: uniqueness 51
2.8 Comments 57
2.9 Exercises 60
3 Linear and quasi-linear systems 68
3.1 Linear hyperbolic systems 69
3.2 Quasi-linear hyperbolic systems 79
vii
viii Contents
3.3 Conservative systems 80
3.4 Entropies, convexity and hyperbolicity 82
3.5 Weak solutions and entropy solutions 86
3.6 Local existence of smooth solutions 91
3.7 The wave equation 101
4 Dimension d = 1, the Riemann problem 106
4.1 Generalities on the Riemann problem 106
4.2 The Hugoniot locus 107
4.3 Shock waves 111
4.4 Contact discontinuities 116
4.5 Rarefaction waves. Wave curves 119
4.6 Laxs theorem 122
4.7 The solution of the Riemann problem for the p-system 127
4.8 The solution of the Riemann problem for gas dynamics 132
4.9 Exercises 143
5 The Glimm scheme 146
5.1 Functions of bounded variation 146
5.2 Description of the scheme 149
5.3 Consistency 153
5.4 Convergence 156
5.5 Stability 161
5.6 The example of Nishida 167
5.7 2 2 Systems with diminishing total variation 174
5.8 Technical lemmas 177
5.9 Supplementary remarks 180
5.10 Exercises 182
6 Second order perturbations 186
6.1 Dissipation by viscosity 187
6.2 Global existence in the strictly dissipative case 193
6.3 Smooth convergence as 0
203
6.4 Scalar case. Accuracy of approximation 210
6.5 Exercises 216
7 Viscosity proles for shock waves 220
7.1 Typical example of a limit of viscosity solutions 220
7.2 Existence of the viscosity prole for a weak shock 225
7.3 Proles for gas dynamics 229
Contents ix
7.4 Asymptotic stability 230
7.5 Stability of the prole for a Lax shock 235
7.6 Inuence of the diffusion tensor 242
7.7 Case of over-compressive shocks 245
7.8 Exercises 250
Bibliography 255
Index 261
Acknowledgments
This book would not have seen the light of day without a great deal of help. First
of all that of the Institut Universitaire de France, by whom I was engaged, who
assisted me by giving me the time and the freedom necessary to bring the rst draft
to a conclusion. Later my colleagues at the Ecole Normale Sup erieure de Lyon gave
similar support by accepting my release from normal duties for a considerable time
so that I should be able to concentrate on this book. Finally and above all to my
students, former students and friends, who have believed in using this work, who
have supported me by discussing it often and have read it in detail. Their interest has
been the most powerful of stimulants. I owe a considerable debt to Sylvie Benzoni,
who has read the greater part of this book and whose severe criticismhas constantly
led me to improve the text.
I give heartfelt thanks also to Pascale Bergeret, Marguerite Gisclon, Florence
Hubert, Christophe Cheverry, Herv e Gilquin, Arnaud Heibig, Peng Yue Jun, Julien
Michel and Bruno S evennec for their collaboration. Finally certain persons have
taught me about topics which I did not properly know: Jean-Yves Chemin,
Constantin Dafermos, Heinrich Freist uhler, David Hoff, Sergiu Klainerman,
Ling Hsiao, Tai-Ping Liu, Guy M etivier and Roberto Natalini.
xi
Introduction
The conservation laws that are the subject of this work are those of physics or
mechanics, when the state of the system considered is a eld, that is a vector-
valued function (x. t ) . u(x. t ) of space variables x = (x
1
. . . . . x
d
) and of the
time t . The domain Ocovered by x is an open set of R
d
, with in general 1 d 3.
The scalar components u
1
. . . . . u
n
of u are variables dependent on x and t : if O is
bounded and in the absence of any exchange with the exterior,
1
the mean state of
the system
u :=
1
[O[
_
O
u(x. t ) dx
is independent of the time and the system tends to a homogeneous equilibrium
u u as the time increases. The fact that we speak of the mean indicates that the
set U of admissible values of the eld u is a convex set of R
n
.
A conservation law is a partial differential equation
u
i
t
div
x
q
i
= g
i
.
where g
i
(x. t ) represents the density (per unit volume) of the interaction with ex-
ternal elds. Among these elds, we can even nd some which depend on u; for
example the conservation of momentum of an electrically neutral continuum can
be written
:
i
t
div
x
(:
i
:

T
i
) = G
i
.
where is the mass density ( is one of the components of u), T = (
T
1
. . . . .

T
d
) is
the strain tensor, : is the velocity and

G the gravity eld. Hence, in general we shall
1
The boundary O is thus impermeable and insulated, for example electrically, in short, there is no interaction
with a eld other than u.
xiii
xiv Introduction
have g
i
(x. t ) = h
i
(x. t. u(x. t )) where h
i
is a known function: here g
i
= u
1
G
i 1
since is u
1
. We call

h the sources of the system.
An equivalent formulation of a conservation lawis given by an integral condition,
which expresses the physical balance for the quantity represented by u
i
in an
arbitrary part of O:
d
dt
_
u
i
(x. t ) dx
_
q
i
(x. t ) (x) dx =
_
g
i
(x. t ) dx
where (x) denotes the outward unit normal at a point x on the boundary of . The
vector eld q
i
is thus the ux of the variable u
i
:
ux of mass if u
i
is the mass density,
ux of energy if u
i
is the energy density per unit volume,
electric current if u
i
is the electric charge density, . . . .
The third formulation of a conservation lawis also the most practical for nding the
new equation when we have to effect a change of variables. We dene a differential
form
i
of degree d in O(0. T) by
i
:= u
i
dx
1
dx
2
dx
d
q
i 1
dt dx
2
dx
d
()
d
q
i d
dt dx
1
dx
d1
.
The conservation law is then written
d
i
= g
i
dt dx
1
dx
d
.
This way of looking at the problem suggests that other conservation laws have a
natural formd = where is a differential formof degree p, not necessarily equal
to d. This is the case of Maxwells electromagnetic equations or the YangMills
equations for which p = 2 and d = 3.
In this form, the conservation laws are intangible, in so far as the scales of time,
length, velocity . . . are compatible with a representation of the system by elds.
2
However, the description of the evolution of the state of the physical system is
possible only if the system of equations
t
u
i
div
x
q
i
= g
i
. 1 i n.
is closed under the state laws:
q
i
:= Q
i
[u; ].
These laws, in which denotes one or several dimensionless parameters,
3
describe
2
Quantum effects are therefore excluded, but relativistic effects can, in general, be taken into account.
3
Such as the inverse of a Reynolds number, a mean free path, a relaxation time.
Introduction xv
in an empirical manner the behaviour of a continuumput into a given homogeneous
state u U. For example, a xed mass of gas, in a prescribed volume and at an
imposed temperature, exerts on the boundary a force whose density per unit surface
area (the pressure) is constant and depends only on the thermodynamic parameters
and on the nature of the gas; however, the complete ranges of time and of the space
variables are not allowable and in certain cases, recourse must be had to a statistical
description or to molecular dynamics. Care must always be taken, specially when
an asymptotic analysis is being made, to ensure the validity of the model being
used.
The description of the road trafc on a highway shows that the state law depends
as much on human sciences as on physics: the average speed of vehicles is a function
of the trafc density and reects the average behaviour of human beings (the drivers)
and depends on circumstances; again, there is nothing absolute about it as it varies
according to material conditions (the reliability and security of the vehicles, the
quality of circulation lanes), and the regulations in force and even the culture of a
country.
The point common to all the models studied here is the fact that f
i
:u . Q
i
[u. 0]
is an ordinary local function: its value at (x. t ) depends only on that of u at this point.
By an abuse of notation, we may therefore write f
i
[u](x. t ) = f
i
(x. t. u(x. t )) and,
on this occasion, f
i
denotes a function dened on U and with values in R, which,
in general, will be regular. In rst approximation, the evolution of the system can
be deduced from the knowledge of its initial state u
0
() = (u
01
. . . . . u
0n
) given on
O, in the solution of the system of non-linear partial differential equations
t
u
i
div
x
f
i
(u) = g
i
(x. t. u). 1 i n. x O. t > 0. (0.1)
augmented by the appropriate boundary conditions. This is the mixed problem
which when O = R
d
we rather call the Cauchy problem.
The apparent simplicity of these equations contrasts with the difculty of the
problems encountered when solving the Cauchy problem or the mixed problem, as
much from the theoretical point of view as from that of numerical analysis. These
two ways of considering the Cauchy problem are equally interesting and difcult.
However, the present work is devoted only to the theoretical aspects, in particular
because the numerical part is covered by a number of very good books. Let us cite
at least those of Leveque [62], Godlewski and Raviart [34], Richtmyer and Morton
[86], Sod [98], and Vichnevetsky and Bowles [109].
To illustrate the mathematical difculties, let us say that there is not a satisfactory
result concerning the existence of a solution of the Cauchy problem. For given
regular initial data,
4
there exists a regular solution, but only during a nite time
4
Let us say of class H
s
, with s > 1 d,2 with the result that u
0
is of class C
1
.
xvi Introduction
(Theorem 3.6.1) inversely proportional to
x
u
0
. Since, beyond a certain time,
discontinuities in u must develop, this theorem is not satisfactory for applications.
The results which concern weak solutions (those which have a chance of being
dened for all time) are limited to the scalar case (n = 1) or to the one-dimensional
case (d = 1)! Again in this latter case the restrictions themselves are severe: the
global existence in time (Theorem 5.2.1) is known if the total variation of u
0
is
sufciently small (if n = 2, only if the product TV(u
0
)|u
0
|
is supposed small).
There is there a threshold effect, for a local result does not exist where the time
of existence would depend on the scale of the data. This question is discussed by
Temple and Young [105], who have obtained recently a result of this type for the
systemof gas dynamics.
5
For bounded initial data, but of arbitrary size, the situation
is worse; only 2 2 systems (i.e. with n = 2 and d = 1) and related systems (see
Chapter 12) have been tackled by the method of compensated compactness, under
restrictive hypotheses and for results of relatively poor quality. Among these, the
Temple systems gain from a suitable theory (see Chapter 13) in large part because
they are a faithful generalisation of the scalar laws of conservation.
The appearance of discontinuities in nite time has led specialists in function
spaces to pay particular attention to spaces such as L
or BV(functions of bounded
variation). It is in one or the other space that existence theorems have been obtained
in one-dimensional space. The reason for their success is that these are algebras,
which permits the treatment of the rather strong non-linearity of the equations.
However, the work of Brenner [4], which is concerned with linear systems, shows
that these spaces cannot be adapted to the multi-dimensional case. To the contrary,
the spaces would have to be of Hilbert type, at least to be constructed on L
2
. We are
thus in the presence of a paradox which has up to the present not been resolved: to
nd a function space which is an algebra, probably constructed on L
2
and which
contains enough discontinuous functions.
The study of discontinuous solutions, called weak solutions, makes use of the
integral form of the conservation laws, in the equivalent form below:
6
__
OR
_
u
i
t
f
i
(u)
x
_
dx dt
_
O
u
i 0
(. u) dx =
__
OR
g
i
dx dt
for every test function , of class C
and with compact support in OR
. We show
easily the equivalence with the partial differential equation
i
u
t
div
x
f
i
(u) = g
i
everywhere u is of class C
1
. On the other hand, when u is of class C
1
on both sides
of a hypersurface Y R
d1
, with the boundary values u
(x. t ) on one side and

u
(x. t ) on the other, the integral formulation expresses a transmission condition,

5
Their work is based on the particular structure of the system of gas dynamics and cannot be extended to systems
of general conservation laws, by reason of an estimation due to Joly, M etivier and Rauch [47].
6
The eventual boundary conditions have not been taken into account here, so as not to overburden the formulae.
Introduction xvii
called the RankineHugoniot condition:
0
[u
i
]
d
=1
[ f
i
(u)] = 0
where (x. t ) .(
0
. . . . .
d
) is a normal vector eld to Y. This formula suggests
that the role of the sources g
i
in the propagation of discontinuities is negligible.
This is the reason why these terms are omitted very frequently in this work.
A quick look at the systems of the form (0.1) suggests that they govern re-
versible phenomena, at least when g 0: if u is a solution so also is the function
u(x. t ) := u(x. t ). This is obvious if u is of class C
1
, it is also true for a weak
solution. Nevertheless it is known that thermodynamics modelled by the equations
of Euler which are the archetype of systems of conservation laws is the centre of ir-
reversible processes. This paradox is bound to the lack of uniqueness of the solution
of the Cauchy problem in the framework of weak solutions. The regular solutions
are effectively reversible, but the discontinuous solutions are not. We attack there
a central question of the theory: how to separate the wheat from the chaff, the so-
lutions observed in nature (called physically admissible) from those that are only
mathematical artefacts? There are two major types of reply to this question.
The rst is descriptive and concerns only piecewise continuous solutions whose
discontinuities occur along regular hypersurfaces of OR
. These discontinuities
are physically admissible if they obey a causality principle: the state of the system
cannot contain more information than it has at the initial instant.
7
Mathematically,
we consider the coupled systemformed, on the one hand, partly of the conservation
laws and partly of the hypersurface and, on the other hand, of the RankineHugoniot
condition, seen as an evolution equation for the location of the discontinuity. It is
thus a free boundary problem, which can be transformed to a mixed problem in
a xed domain. We demand that this mixed problem be well-posed for increasing
time. In dimension d = 1, an equivalent condition, at least if the amplitude of the
jump in u is moderate, is the shock criterion of Lax, formed of four inequalities,
described in 4.3. In a higher dimension, the characterisation of the admissible
discontinuities, much more complex, is explained in Chapter 14. There are prin-
cipally two kinds of good discontinuities, according as the Lax inequalities are
strict or two among them are equalities. Only the rst type, called shock waves,
are irreversible. The second type, reversible, bear the name contact discontinuities.
Concerning thermodynamics, A. Majda [74, 73] has shown (see Chapter 14) that
the shock waves are, in general, stable (that is, that the mixed problem introduced
above is locally well-posed), while the contact discontinuities (the vortex sheets)
7
or that the boundary conditions provide.
xviii Introduction
are strongly unstable.
8
This instability ` a la Hadamard is a stone in the garden of
the mechanics of uids; it renders Eulers equations unsuited to the prediction of
ows and casts doubt on this model for thermodynamics.
9
The second reply is of more general signicance but manifests itself less prac-
tically in applications. To begin with is the criticism of the approximation made
above. To simplify the matter, let us suppose to be a scalar. It is reasonable to
replace Q
i
[u; ] by f
i
(u) where the solution varies moderately, but it is debatable
where it varies greatly. Nowmost often, the solution of the real problem(denoted by
u
) is regular, of class C
1
, but varies rapidly in the neighbourhood of a discontinuity
of u. Typically this neighbourhood has a width of the order of and the gradient
of u
must be of the order of 1,. In this narrow zone, what has been neglected is
of the same order of magnitude as f
i
(u). We have in fact
Q
i
[:; ] f
i
(:) B
i
(:)
x
:.
where B(:) is a tensor with four indices. Adescription of the evolution more faithful
than (0.1) is therefore
t
u
i
div
x
f
i
(u
) = div
x
(B
i
(u
)
x
u
). 1 i n. (0.2)
The tensor B is such that the Cauchy problem for (0.2) is well-posed for >0 and
increasing time.
10
It represents, according to the case, the effect of a viscosity, that
of thermal conduction, the Joule effect, . . . . In the model of road trafc, where the
scalar u is the density of the vehicles, it represents the faculty of anticipation of the
drivers as a function of the ow of trafc in the vicinity of their vehicle; it is this
anticipation that causes irreversibility.
The system(0.2) is irreversible. This is the essential difference from(0.1), which
is expressed quantitatively as follows. The undisturbed system is in general com-
patible, for the regular solutions, with a supplementary conservation law
11
t
E(u) div
x
F(u) = dE(u) g(x. t. u) (0.3)
where E: U R is strictly convex. This can always be reduced to the case in
which E has positive values. The equation (0.3) then yields an a priori estimate of
8
save in dimension d = 1 where the contact discontinuities are stable.
9
It is not difcult to see that the vortex sheets necessarily appear, if d > 2, as a by-product of the interaction of
multi-dimensional shocks. The case d = 1 is less clear.
10
It would be wrong nevertheless to believe that the system (0.2) is parabolic, that is, that the operator : .
div
x
B(:)
x
: is elliptic. Its symbol is generally positive but not positive denite.
11
It is principally in this setting that this work is placed.
Introduction xix
u in a SobolevOrlicz space via the differential equation
12
d
dt
_
O
E(u(x. t )) dx =
_
O
dE(u) g(x. t. u) dx.
This allows us to control the value of the positive expression
E (t ) :=
_
O
E(u(x. t )) dx.
For example, in the absence of sources, E (t ) remains equal to E (0), which depends
only on the initial condition. Of course, this calculation, in which we differentiate
composite functions (for example E u), does not have a rigorous basis for weak
solutions. On the other hand, the solution of the perturbed problem is in general
regular and satises the equation
t
E(u
) div
x

F(u
) = dE(u
) ( div
x
(B(u
)
x
u
) g(x. t. u
)).
If g 0 and if the boundary values are favourable, we obtain at the best
E
/
(t ) =
_
O
(D
2
E(u
)
x
u
B(u
)
x
u
) dx
which is negative for all the realistic examples. But, above all, the right-hand side
does not tend to zero with , because we integrate an expression of the order of
1
(because of (
x
u
)
2
) over a zone whose measure is of the order of . The
decay of E , certainly preserved by passage to the limit when 0
, thus will be
strict in the presence of discontinuities. A criterion of the admissibility of solutions
is thus
__
OR
(E(u)
t
F(u)
x
) dx dt
_
R
E(u
0
)(. 0) dx 0 (0.4)
for every positive test function D(OR), with equality for a classical solution
of (0.1). On the level of the discontinuities, (0.4) is translated as the jump condition
13
0
[E(u)]
d
=1
[F
(u)] 0. (0.5)
The equality in (0.5) is in general incompatible with the RankineHugoniot condi-
tion except where this concerns the contact discontinuities.
12
To simplify the exposition, no account has been taken of the boundary conditions. For example, the reader
could assume that

F is null on the boundary.
13
We remark that this condition is independent of the orientation of Y.
xx Introduction
A function E like that introduced above carries the name, in so far as it is a
mathematical object, of entropy. By extension, we call a function E, not necessarily
convex, in a conservation law compatible with (0.1), also an entropy. The vector
eld

F is called the entropy ux associated with E. Again, this terminology is
due to thermodynamics, as the form of the equations of motion in lagrangian
14
variables is a system of conservation laws compatible with a supplementary law
in which E is equal to S, the opposite of physical entropy of the uid. This
change of sign, which renders convex that which is concave and conversely, is
a cultural difference between mathematicians and physicists. For the physicist,
the entropy has a tendency to increase, while for the mathematician the opposite
holds. In the eulerian representation, in which O is a domain in physical space, the
difference is still more marked, as E corresponds to S. Despite this, the historical
link between the physical theory and mathematics has led to the inequality (0.4)
being called the entropy condition, when a system of conservation laws can be
modelled on something other than the ow of a uid. The weak solutions which
satisfy (0.4) are called entropy solutions. By extension and in an improper manner,
we again speak of entropy conditions with regard to the Lax shock condition,
principally because in thermodynamics, the Lax inequalities express the fact that the
entropy S, constant when it follows a particle, in fact grows when it crosses a shock
wave.
The mechanismof dissipation, which makes E decrease and renders the evolution
irreversible, is so central that it would not make sense to study theoretically (0.1),
in isolation. This necessarily leads to the algebraic notion of a hyperbolic system
in the linear case, but the understanding of the non-linear case calls for as much
attention to be paid to the (partially) parabolic (0.2). This is why this book is
not entitled Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws. Chapters 6, 7 and 15 are
principally devoted to parabolic systems and these are involved in a signicant way
in Chapters 8 and 9.
Some references This volume owes a great deal to those which preceded it, in
particular that of Majda [75]; this, at the same time short and profound, remains
an essential reference and the energy which animates it gives birth to a sense of
vocation. It is the only one to deal with nearly all the topics which deal with
multi-dimensional or asymptotic problems. It is with this that we have tried to deal
here, with more detail but less animation. Although dealing with many subjects, this
work does not go on as long on classical problems as more specialised works. Thus,
the reader who wishes to deepen his knowledge of the Riemann problemshould read
14
In these variables, a particle is represented by a xed value of the variable x. This is therefore not a space
variable as strictly dened.
Introduction xxi
the text of Ling Hsiao and Tong Zhang [46]. The global methods, based on the Con-
ley index, for studying the viscosity proles, are found in Smoller [97]. Asystematic
study of the propagation and the interaction of non-linear waves is greatly devel-
oped by Whitham [112]; see also the monograph of Boillat [2]. For questions con-
cerning the mechanics of uids, with the description of multi-dimensional shocks,
Courant and Friedrichs [11] should be consulted. Various types of singular pertur-
bations (models of combustion, the incompressible limit) and the stability of multi-
dimensional shocks are presented in Majda [75]. For mixed problems in a (partly)
parabolic context, a good reference is Kreiss and Lorenz [55]. In the lecture notes
by H ormander [45] is found a simple presentation of the blow-up mechanisms for
a general system (not necessarily rich) as well as the global (or nearly global) exis-
tence for a perturbation of the wave equation in dimension d 2. The notes of Evans
[20] give a view of the methods utilising weak convergence, which goes beyond
mere compensated compactness. The decay of entropic solutions to N-waves is the
subject of the memoir of Glimmand Lax [33]. Concerning the Cauchy problemand
mixed problems for linear equations there are many references; let us, at least, cite
Ivrii [48], Sakamoto [87] and again Kreiss and Lorenz [55]. The quasi-linear mixed
problem in dimension d = 1, which includes the free boundary problems, is sys-
tematically studied in Li Ta-Tsien and Yu Wen-ci [65]. The geometrical aspects of
the conservation laws, especially afne and convex, are the subject of the memoir of
S evennec [93].
The way the chapters of this book are ordered is merely an indication to the
reader, since the chapters depend little on one another. The core of the theory is
constituted by Chapters 2, 3, 4, 6 and 14. For a postgraduate course in which the
aim is the solution of the Riemann problem for gas dynamics, Chapters 2 and 4
are indispensable but are not enough to give an advanced student a representative
picture of the subject.
In spite of its length, this work does not pretend to be exhaustive. It leads to a
blind alley on several questions, of which some are important. Uniqueness is the
most important of these; the reason is that it is a matter of a subject which is much
less advanced than that of existence (with, however, recent progress by A. Bressan),
and on which we could not give a synthetic view. Likewise, this book does not tackle
questions which touch on pathology: systems not strictly hyperbolic have other
conditions for the admission of shock waves. At times, it has been mathematical
rigour that has been neglected (with the hope that it is not too frequent for the
taste of the reader): above all an attempt has been made to be the most descriptive
possible, giving perhaps too many criteria and formulae, asymptotic analysis, and
not enough proofs. Some new results will be found (few enough and none major in
all cases) and lists of exercises which should satisfy those who believe in acquiring
insight by the solution of examples. In spite of this range of descriptive material,
xxii Introduction
there is not a word on the phenomenon of relaxation, nor on kinetic formulations,
and not more on the description by N-waves of behaviour in large times, three
important subjects of the theory. Perhaps, if the occasion arises, a future edition . . .
Lyon, November 1995
. . . cela peut durer pendant tr` es longtemps,
si lon ne fait pas domelette avant!
(Robert Desnos, Chantefables)
1
Some models
1.1 Gas dynamics in eulerian variables
Let us consider a homogeneous gas (all the molecules are identical with mass m)
in a region O, whose coordinates x = (x
1
. . . . . x
d
) are our independent variables.
From a macroscopic point of view, it is described by its mass density , its mo-
mentum per unit volume q and its total energy per unit volume E. In a sub-domain
containing at an instant N molecules
1
of velocities :
1
. . . . . :
N
respectively, we
have
_
dx = Nm.
_
q dx = m
N
j =1
:
j
from which it follows that q = :, : being the mean velocity of the molecules.
2
Likewise, the total energy is the sum of the kinetic energy and of the rotational and
vibrational energies of the molecules:
_
E dx =
1
2
m
N
j =1
| :
2
|
N
j =1
_
e
j
v
e
j
R
_
where e
j
v
and e
j
R
are positive. For a monatomic gas, such as He, the energy of rotation
is null. The energy of vibration is a quantum phenomenon, of sufciently weak
intensity to be negligible at rst glance. Applying the CauchySchwarz inequality,
we nd that
1
2
m
N
j =1
| :
j
|
2
m
2N
_
_
_
_
N
j =1
:
j
_
_
_
_
2
1
N is a very large number, for example of the order of 10
23
if the volume of is of the order of a unit, but the
product mN is of the order of this volume.
2
This can be suitably modied if there are several kinds of molecules of different masses.
1
2 Some models
which gives
_
E dx
1
2
__
dx
_
1
_
_
_
_
_
q dx
_
_
_
_
2
j =1
_
e
j
v
e
j
R
_
1
2
__
dx
_
1
_
_
_
_
_
: dx
_
_
_
_
2
.
This being true for every sub-domain, we can deduce that the quantity E,
1
2
| :|
2
is positive. It is called the specic internal energy (that is per unit mass) and we
denote it by e; we thus have
E =
1
2
| :|
2
e.
where the rst term is (quite improperly) called the kinetic energy of the uid. For
the sequel it should be remembered that the internal energy can be decomposed
into two terms e
k
e
f
where e
k
is kinetic in origin and e
f
is due to other degrees of
freedom of the molecules.
The law of a perfect gas
A perfect gas obeys three hypotheses:
the vibration energy is null,
the velocities at a point (x. t ) satisfy a gaussian distribution law
a exp(b| :|
2
)
where a, b and : are functions of (x. t ) (of course, : is the mean velocity
introduced above),
the specic internal energy is made up among its different components pro rata
with the degrees of freedom.
Comments (1) The gaussian distribution comes from the theorem of Laplace that
considers the molecular velocities as identically distributed randomvariables when
N tends to innity. It is also the equilibriumdistribution (when it is called maxwell-
ian) in the Boltzmann equation, when it takes into account the perfectly elastic
binary collisions.
(2) Several reasons characterise the gaussian as being the appropriate law. On the
one hand, its set is stable by composition with a similitude O of R
d
( . O)
and by multiplication by a scalar ( . ). On the other, the components of the
velocity are independent identically distributed random variables.
(3) The hypothesis of the equi-partition of energy is pretty well veried when
there are a few degrees of freedom, for example for monatomic molecules (He),
diatomic molecules (H
2
, O
2
, N
2
) or rigid molecules (H
2
O, CO
2
, C
2
H
2
, C
2
H
4
). The
more complex molecules are less rigid; they thus have more degrees of freedom,
which are not equivalent from the energetic point of view.
(4) The equi-partition takes place also among the translational degrees of free-
dom. If the choice is made of an orthonormal frame of reference, each component
:
j
of the relative velocity is responsible for the same fraction e

k
= e
k
,d in
the energy of kinetic origin.
Let be the number of non-translational degrees of freedom. The hypothesis of
equi-partition gives the following formula for each type of internal energy:
e
k1
= = e
kd
=
1
d
e
k
. e
R
=

d
e
k
and thus e = (d )e
k1
.
The pressure p is the force exerted per unit area on a surface, by the gas situated
on one side of it.
3
Take as surface the hyperplane x
1
= 0, the uid being at rest
( : 0. a and b constants). Let A be a domain of unit area of this hyperplane. The
force exerted on A by the gas situated to the left is proportional to the number M of
particles hitting A per unit time, multiplied by the rst component I
1
of the mean
impulse of these.
4
On the one hand, M is proportional to the number N of particles
multiplied by the mean absolute speed (the mean of [:
1
[) in the direction x
1
. On
the other hand, NI
1
is proportional to n
2
1
. that is to e
1k
. Nothing in this argument
involves explicitly the dimension d and we therefore have p = ke
1k
. where k is
an absolute constant. A direct calculation in the one-dimensional case yields the
result k = 2. Introducing the adiabatic exponent
=
d b 2
d b
there results the law of perfect gases
p = ( 1)e.
The most current adiabatic exponents are 5,3 and 7,5 if d = 3, 2 and 5,3 if
d = 2 and 3 if d = 1. In applications air is considered to be a perfect gas for which
= 7,5.
3
In this argument, the surface in question is not a boundary, since it would introduce a reexion and would
eventually distort the gaussian distribution.
4
This mean is not null as it is calculated solely from the set of molecules for which :
j
1
> 0.
4 Some models
The Euler equations
The conservation laws of mass, of momentum and of energy can be written
t
div
x
( :) = 0.
t
(:
i
) div
x
(:
i
:)
i
p =
d
j =1
j
T
i j
. 1 i d.
t
E div
x
((E p) :) =
d
j =1
j
(:
i
T
i j
) div
x
q
where T pI
d
is the stress tensor and q the heat ux. In the last equation, two
terms represent the power of the forces of stress. The conservation of the kinetic
moment : x implies that T is symmetric. We have seen that T is null for a uid
at rest and also when it is in uniform motion of translation. The simplest case is
that in which T is a linear expression of the rst derivatives
x
:, the coefcients
being possibly functions of (. e). The principle of frame indifference implies the
existence of two functions and such that
T
i j
= (. e)
_
:
i
x
j
:
j
x
i
_
(. e)(div
x
:)
j
i
(1.1)
which clearly introduces second derivatives into the above equations. The tensor T
represents the effects of viscosity and the linear correspondence is Newtons law. If
and are null the conservation laws are called Eulers equations. In the contrary
case they are called the NavierStokes equations.
Likewise, the heat ux is null if the temperature (dened later as a thermo-
dynamic potential) is constant. The simplest law is that of Fourier, which can be
written
q = k(. e)
x
.
with k 0.
For a regular ow, a linear combination of the equations yields the reduced system
t
div( :) = 0.
t
:
i
:
x
:
i

1
i
p =
1
div(T
i
.).
t
e :
x
e
1
p div : =
1
_
i. j
T
i j
j
:
i
div q
_
.
Let us linearise this system in a constant solution, in a reference frame in which the
velocity is null:
t
R div

V = 0.
t
V
i

1
( p
i
R p
e
i
) =
1
(LV
i
( )
i
div

V).
t

1
p div

V =
1
kL(
R
e
).
The last equation can be transformed to
t
(
R
e
) div

V =
k
e
L(
R
e
).
A necessary condition for the Cauchy problem for this linear system to be well-
posed is the (weak) ellipticity of the operator
(R.

V. ) .(0. L
V ( ) div

V. k
e
L)
which results in the inequalities
k
e
0. 0. 2 0. (1.2)
The entropy
In the absence of second order terms, the ow satises
p(
t
: ) =
2
(
t
e : e)
which suggests the introduction of a function S(. e). without critical point, such
that
p
S
e

2
S
= 0.
Such a function is dened up to composition on the left by a numerical function:
if h: R R and if S works, then h S does too, provided that h
/
does not vanish.
Such a function satises the equation
(
t
: )S = 0.
as long as the ow is regular, this signies that S is constant along the trajectories
5
of the particles. On taking account of the viscosity and of the thermal conductivity,
it becomes
(
t
: )S = S
e
i. j
(T
i j
j
:
i
) div(k).
that is to say
t
(S) div(S :) = S
e
_
1
2
i. j
(
i
:
j

j
:
i
)
2
(div :)
2
_
S
e
div(k).
Free to change S to S, we can suppose that S
e
is strictly positive. The name
specic entropy is given to S. The effect of the viscosity is to increase the integral
5
We refer to the mean trajectory.
6 Some models
of S. The second law of thermodynamics states that the thermal diffusion behaves
in the same sense, that is that
_
S
e
div(k) dx 0
if there is no exchange of heat across (Neumann condition , = 0).
Otherwise, this integral is compensated by these exchanges. In other terms, after
integration by parts, we must have
_
k S
e
dx 0.
without restriction on . Thus S
e
must be negative at every point and naturally
for every conguration. It is then deducted that is a decreasing function of S
e
. Free
to compose on the left with an increasing function,
6
there is no loss of generality
if we assume that = 1,S
e
, which gives the thermodynamic relation
dS = de pd
_
1
_
. 0.
in which 1, appears as an integrating factor of the differential form de pd(1,).
For a perfect gas are chosen as usual = e and S = log e ( 1)log .
Barotropic models
A model is barotropic if the pressure is, because of an approximation, a function
of the density only. There are three possible reasons: the ow is isentropic or it is
isothermal, or again it is the shallow water approximation.
For a regular ow without either viscosity or conduction of heat (that makes up
many of the less realistic hypotheses), we have (
t
: )S = 0: S is constant
along the trajectories. If, in addition, it is constant at the initial instant, we have
S =const. As S
e
> 0, we can invert the function S( . ): we have e = E (S. ),
with the result that also p is a function of (S. ). In the present context, p must be
a function of alone and similarly this is true of all the coefcients of the system,
for example and . The conservation of mass and that of momentum thus form
a closed system of partial differential equations (here again we have taken account
of the newtonian viscosity
7
):
t
div( :) = 0.
t
(:
i
) div(:
i
:)
i
p() = div((:
i

i
:))
i
( div :)
6
This does not affect Fouriers law, as k is changed with the result that the product k is not.
7
One more odd choice!
The equation of the conservation of energy becomes a redundant equation.
8
We
shall use it as the entropy conservation law of the inviscid model. We call this the
isentropic model:
t
div( :) = 0.
t
(:
i
) div(:
i
:)
i
p() = 0.
Its mathematical entropy is the mechanical energy
1
2
(| :|
2
e()), associated
with the entropy ux (
1
2
| :|
2
e()) : p() :. For a perfect gas, the hypothesis
S = const., states that e
1
= c and furnishes the state law p =
. This, then,
is called a polytropic gas.
The isothermal model is reasonable when the coefcient of thermal diffusion is
large relative to the scales of the time and space variables. For favourable boundary
conditions, the entropic balance gives
d
dt
_
O
S dx
_
O
k S
e
dx =
_
O
k
||
2
2
dx.
According to the conservation laws, we can add to S an afne function of the
variables (. :. E) in the preceding inequality. Meanwhile, experience shows that
the mapping (. :. E) .S is concave.
9
We can thus choose an afne function
0
with the result that := S
0
is negative. If the domain Ois the whole space
R
d
, the uid being at rest at innity, we can also take to be null at innity. Finally
_
O
k
||
2
2
dx
_
O
t =0
dx
The right-hand side is a datum of the problem, supposed nite. If k is large, we see
that it is all right to approach by a constant; that it is a constant and not a function
of time is not clear but is currently assumed. Again, the pressure and the viscosity
become functions of only, and the conservation of mass and that of momentum
form a closed system: the mechanical energy is taken as the mathematical entropy
of the system. For a perfect gas, e = is constant, with the result that the state law
is linear: p = .
The isothermal approximation is reasonable enough in certain r egimes, because,
for a gas, for instance, the thermal effects are always more signicant than the
viscous effects. A general criterion regarding these approximations is however that
the shocks of the barotropic models are not the same as those of the Euler equations:
the RankineHugoniot condition is different.
8
Or rather incompatible, if we have included the newtonian viscosity.
9
In fact, this concavity is the condition for the Cauchy problemof the linearised Euler equations to be well-posed.
It no longer holds if we model a uid with several phases.
8 Some models
The third barotropic model describes the ow in a shallow basin, that is, in one
whose horizontal dimensions are great with respect to its depth. The domain O is
the horizontal projection of the basin: we thus have d = 1 or d = 2. The uid
is incompressible with density
0
. We do not take the vertical displacements into
account. The variables treated are the horizontal velocity (averaged over the height)
:(x. t ) and the height of the uid h(x. t ). The pressure is considered to be the integral
of the hydrostatic pressure
0
gz where z is the vertical coordinate. We therefore have
p =
o
gh
2
,2. The conservation of mass and that of momentum give the system
t
(
0
h) div(
0
h :) = 0.
t
(
0
h:
i
) div(
0
:
i
:)
1
2
g
i
(
0
h
2
) = 0. 1 i d.
Comments Dividing by
0
, we recover the isentropic model of a perfect gas for
which = 2.
We have not taken into account the effects of viscosity and this is an error: they are
responsible for a boundary layer on the base of the basin which implies a resistance
to the motion. That resistance makes itself manifest in the model by a source term
in the second equation of the form f (h. [ :[):
i
, with f > 0.
One way of obtaining these equations fromthe Euler equations is to integrate the
latter with respect to z (but not x). We then make the hypothesis that certain means
of products are the products of means, that is that the vertical variations in and :
are weak.
The relativistic models of a gas, though much more complicated than those which
have preceded, are also those of systems of conservation laws. We shall not give a
detailed presentation here. By way of an example, we shall consider the simplest
among those systems: a barotropic uid, isentropic, one-dimensional and in special
relativity; the conversation of mass and that of momentum give
t
_
p c
2
c
2
:
2
c
2
:
2

_
x
_
( p c
2
)
:
c
2
:
2
_
= 0.
t
_
( p c
2
)
:
c
2
:
2
_
x
_
( p c
2
)
:
2
c
2
:
2
p
_
= 0.
For more general models the reader should consult Taub [102].
1.2 Gas dynamics in lagrangian variables
Writingthe equations of gas dynamics inlagrangiancoordinates is verycomplicated
if d 2; in addition it furnishes a system which does not come into the spirit of
this book. This is why we limit ourselves to the one-dimensional case (d = 1). We
1.2 Gas dynamics in lagrangian variables 9
shall make a change of variables (x. t ) . (y. t ) which depends on the solution.
The conservation law of mass
t
(:)
x
= 0
is the only one which makes no appeal to any approximation. It expresses that
the differential form := dx : dt is closed and therefore exact.
10
We thus
introduce a function (x. t ) . y, dened to within a constant by = dy. We have
dx = : dt dy, where we have denoted by =
1
the specic volume (which
is rather a specic length here).
Being given another conservation law
t
u
i

x
q
i
= 0, which can be written
d (q
i
dt u
i
dx) = 0, we have that
d((q
i
u
i
:) dt u
i
dy) = 0.
that is
t
(u
i
)
y
(q
i
u
i
:) = 0.
The system, written in the variables (y. t ), is thus formed of conservation laws. Let
us look at for example the momentum u
2
= :. In the absence of viscosity, we
have q
2
= :
2
p(. e). From this comes
t
:
y
P(. e) = 0.
where P(. e) := p(
1
. e). Similarly, for the energy, u
3
=
1
2
:
2
e and q
3
=
(u
3
p): :
t
_
1
2
:
2
e
_
y
(P(. e):) = 0.
The conservation of mass gives nothing new since it was already used to construct
the change of variables. With u
1
= and q
1
=:, we only obtain the trivial equation
1
t
0
y
=0. To complete the system of equations for the unknowns (. :. e) we
have to involve a trivial conservation law. For example with u
4
1 and q
4
0,
we obtain
t
=
y
:.
We note that in lagrangian variables the perfect gas law is written P = ( 1)e,.
If we take into account the thermal and viscous effects, then q
2
= :
2
p(. e)
(. e):
x
. As :
x
= :
y
we obtain
t
:
y
P(. e) =
y
_
y
:
_
.
10
These assertions are correct even (. :) are no better than locally integrable.
10 Some models
Similarly, q
3
= (u
3
p): ::
x
k
x
gives
t
_
1
2
:
2
e
_
y
(P:) =
y
_
(:
y
:)
_
y
_
k
_
.
Criticism of the change of variables
Although this change of variable is perfectly justied, even if (e. :) is bounded
without more regularity as well as :
1
(see D. Wagner [110]), it raises a major
difculty if the vacuum is somewhere part of the space. In this case, the jacobian
of (x. t ) .(y. t ) vanishes and it is no longer a change of variable. The specic
volume then reduces to a Dirac mass, with norm equal to the length of the interval
of the vacuum. It becomes critical to give sense to the equations (it is nothing other
than the conservation law of a mathematical difculty). The equations in eulerian
coordinates are also ill-posed in the vacuum: the velocity cannot be dened and the
uxes q
2
and q
3
are singular. Indeed, returning to the variables u = (. :. E), we
have q
2
= u
2
2
,u
1
p, which makes no sense for = 0.
1.3 The equation of road trafc
Let us consider a highway (a unique sense of circulation will be sufcient for our
purpose), in which we take no account of entries or exits. We represent the vehicle
trafc as the motion of a one-dimensional continuous medium, which is reasonable
if the physical domain which we consider is very great in length in comparison
with the length of the cars. In normal conditions, we have a conservation law of
mass
t

x
q = 0.
where q = : is the ux, or ow, and : is the mean velocity. Unlike the case of a
uid there is no conservation law of momentum or of energy. The drivers choose
their velocities according to the trafc conditions. It results in a relation : = V()
where V is the speed limit if is small. The function . V is decreasing and
vanishes for a saturation value
m
, for which neighbouring vehicles are bumper-to-
bumper. The space of the states is therefore U = [0. q
m
].
This model is a typical example of a scalar conservation law. The state law
q() =V() has the formindicated in Fig. 1.1. We notice that each possible value
of the ow corresponds to two possible densities, of different velocities, with the
exception of the maximal ow.
Fig. 1.1: Road trafc: ux vs density (in France).
Amore precise model is obtained by taking the drivers anticipation into account.
If they observe an upstream increase in the density (respectively a diminution),
they show a tendency to brake (respectively to accelerate) slightly. In other terms,
: V() is of the opposite sign to that of
x
. The simplest state law which takes
account of this phenomenon is : = V()
x
, with 0 - _1, which leads to the
weakly parabolic equation
t
q()
x
= (
x
)
x
.
1.4 Electromagnetism
Electromagnetism is a typically three-dimensional phenomenon (d =3), which
brings vector elds into play: the electric intensity E, the electric induction D, the
magnetic intensity H, the magnetic induction B, the electric current j and the heat
ux q. Denoting by e the internal energy per unit volume, the conservation laws
are
Faradays law
t
B curl E = 0.
with which is associated the compatibility condition div B = 0 (absence of
magnetic charge),
Amp` eres law
t
D curl H j = 0.
conservation of energy
t
E div(E H q) = 0.
12 Some models
Maxwells equations
In the rst instance let us neglect the current and the heat ux (which is correct for
example in the vacuum). Combining the three laws, we obtain
t
e = H
t
B E
t
D.
If the system formed by the laws of Faraday and Amp` ere is closed by the state laws
H = H(B. D). E = E (B. D).
from the conservation of energy it is then deduced that
H(B. D) dB E (B. D) dD
is an exact differential. Following Coleman and Dill [9], we can then postulate the
existence of a function W: R
3
R
3
R such that
H
j
=
W
B
j
. E
j
=
W
D
j
. j = 1. 2. 3.
We have e = W(B. D); the conservation laws are called Maxwells equations:
t
B curl
W
D
= 0.
t
D curl
W
B
= 0.
These lead to Poyntings formula
t
W(B. D) div(E H) = 0.
which shows that W is an entropy of the system, generally convex. Some other
entropies of the system, not convex, are the components of B D.
Now, taking into account the charge and the heat, the complete model is the
following:
t
B curl
W
D
= 0.
t
D curl
W
B
= j.
t
(W(B. D)
0
) div(E H q) = 0.
where
0
is the purely caloric part of the internal energy.
11
For a regular solution
we have
0
div q = E j.
where the right-hand side represents the work done by the electromagnetic force
11
We have made the hypothesis that the underlying material is xed in the reference frame. For a material in
accelerated motion, see for example the following section.
(the Joule effect). We notice that transfer between the two forms of energy is
possible. In the vacuum, the current is zero and there is neither temperature, nor
heat ux; next, following Feynman [21] (Chapter 12.7 of the rst part of vol. II),
the Maxwell equations are linear in a large range of the variables. The energy W is
thus a quadratic form:
W(B. D) =
1
2
_
1
j
0
|B|
2
0
|D|
2
_
.
The constants of electric and magnetic permittivity have the values (in S.I. units)
0
= (36 10
9
)
1
and j
0
= 4 10
7
. Their product is c
2
, the inverse of the
square of the velocity of light.
In material medium, conducting and isotropic, the state law has the same form
but with constants >0 and j>0 of greater value. The number (j)
1,2
is again
equal to the velocity of propagation of plane waves in the medium. In media which
are poor conductors (dielectrics) the state law is no longer linear. The isotropy
manifests itself by the condition
W(RB. RD) = W(B.D). R O
3
(R).
This implies the existence of a function n of three variables, such that
W(B. D) = n(|B|. |D|. B D).
Finally, paramagnetic bodies present phenomena of memory (with hysteresis),
which do not come into the body of systems with conservation laws.
Plane waves
Henceforth, let us neglect the thermodynamic effects as well as the electric current.
For a plane wave which is propagating in the x
1
-direction we have
2
=
3
= 0,
with the result that
t
B
1
=
t
D
1
= 0. There remain four equations, in which we
write x = x
1
, the unique space variable:
t
B
2
x
W
D
3
= 0.
t
B
3
x
W
D
2
= 0.
t
D
2
x
W
B
3
= 0.
t
D
3
x
W
B
2
= 0.
Let us look at the simple case in which W is a function of := (|B|
2
|D|
2
)
1,2
only. Introducing the functions y := B
2
D
3
i(B
3
D
2
), z := B
2
D
3

i(B
3
D
2
), we have y
t
(()y)
x
= 0. z
t
(()z)
x
= 0. The polar coordinates
(r. s. . ), dened by y = r exp i and z = s exp i, enable us to simplify the
14 Some models
system into
t
()
x
= 0. r
t
(()r)
x
= 0.
t
()
x
= 0. s
t
(()s)
x
= 0.
with the connection 2
2
= r
2
s
2
.
1.5 Magneto-hydrodynamics
Magneto-hydrodynamics (abbreviated as M.H.D.) studies the motion of a uid in
the presence of an electromagnetic eld. As it is a moving medium, the eld acts
on the acceleration of the particles, while the motion of the charges contributes to
the evolution of the eld. This coupling is negligible in a great number of situations
but comes into action in a Tokamak, a furnace with induction, or in the interior of
a star.
The uid is described by its density, its specic internal energy, its pressure,
and its velocity. If no account is taken of the diffusion processes, we write the
conservation laws of mass, of momentum, of energy and Faradays law as
follows:
t
div(:) = 0.
(:
i
)
t
div(:
i
:)

x
i
_
p
1
2
|B|
2
_
div(B
i
B) = 0. 1 i 3.
_
_
1
2
|:|
2
1
2
|B|
2
_
t
div
_
_
1
2
|:|
2
_
p: E B
_
= 0.
B
t
curl E = 0.
We see from these equations that the magnetic eld exerts a force on the uid
particles and contributes to the internal energy of the system. The fact that the
electric eld does not is the result of an approximation, the same as we made in
disregarding Amp` eres law.
There are two state laws: on the one hand p = p(. e), which always has the form
P = ( 1)e for a perfect gas; on the other hand, E = B :. This expresses a
local equilibrium: the acceleration of the particles taken individually is of the form
f (E : B),m where m is the mass of a particle of unit charge and f is the
force due to the binary interactions. As m _ 1 and since the velocity of the uid
remains moderate,
12
E : B is very small.
12
Under this hypothesis, the uid is seen as a dielectric.
1.5 Magneto-hydrodynamics 15
For a sharper description, we take account of the processes of diffusion: the
viscosity, Fouriers law certainly, even Ohms law:
13
E = B : j ( j B).
Finally we take Amp` eres law into account, but we neglect in it the derivative
t
E
considering that E varies slowly in time:
j = curl B.
Each of the phenomena which we come to take into account is studied by adding
one or several of the second order terms in the laws of conservation. Whether the
factors such as , , k, and can be considered as small or not depends on the
scale of the problems studied.
Plane waves in M.H.D.
Again, we consider the solutions for which
2
=
3
= 0 and := B
1
is constant.
This behaviour is established when the initial condition satises it. In the sequel
we write
z := :
1
. n := (:
2
. :
3
). b := (B
2
. B
3
). x := x
1
.
In Faradays law B
t
curl E = 0, the component in the direction of x
1
and the
compatibility condition div B = 0 are trivial. There remain seven equations in place
of eight, which is correct since B
1
is no longer an unknown:
t

x
(z) = 0.
t
(z)
x
_
z
2
p(. e)
1
2
|b|
2
_
= 0.
t
(n)
x
(zn b) = 0.
t
_
_
1
2
z
2
1
2
|n|
2
e
_
1
2
|b|
2
_
x
_
z
_
1
2
z
2
1
2
|n|
2
e
_
( p |b|
2
)z b n
_
= 0.
t
b
x
(zb n) = 0.
The system is simpler in lagrangian coordinates (y. t ), dened by dy =(dx
z dt ) see 1.2. Denoting by = 1, the specic volume, these equations are
13
Which replaces the hypothesis E = B :.
16 Some models
transformed to
t
= z
y
.
z
t

_
p(1,. e)
1
2
|b|
2
_
y
= 0.
n
t
b
y
= 0.
_
1
2
z
2
1
2
|n|
2
e
1
2
|b|
2
_
t
_
( p
1
2
|b|
2
)z b n
_
y
= 0.
(b)
t
n
y
= 0.
A combination of these equations gives, for a regular solution, e
t
pz
y
= 0 or
again e
t
p
t
= 0, that is to say
S(. e)
t
= 0.
S being the thermodynamic entropy ( dS = dep d). The analogous calculation
in eulerian variables yields the transport equation
(
t
z
x
)S = 0.
which shows that S is an entropy, in the mathematical sense, of the model.
A simplied model of waves
Let us consider the system of plane waves of M.H.D. in eulerian variables to x
the ideas, with ,= 0. It admits in general seven distinct velocities of propagation
1
-
2
- -
7
among which
4
= z,
2
= z
1,2
, and
6
= z
1,2
(
2
and
6
are the speeds of the Alfven waves). The four remaining speeds are the
roots of the quartic equation
(( z)
2
c
2
)(( z)
2
2
,) = ( z)
2
|b|
2
,.
c =c(. e) being the speed of sound in the absence of an electromagnetic eld.
However, when b vanishes, we have
3
=
2
and
5
=
6
. This coincidence of
two speeds and the non-linearity of the equations induce a resonance. For waves of
small amplitude, this phenomenon can be described by an asymptotic development.
First of all, a choice of a galilean frame of reference allows the assumption
that the base state u
0
, constant, satises n
0
= 0 (we already have b
0
= 0) and
z
0
0
=
0
. We thus have
2
(u
0
) =
3
(u
0
) =0: the resonance occurs along curves
(in the physical plane) with small velocities. If u u
0
is of the size _ 1 this
velocity is also of the order of , which leads to the change of the time variable
1.6 Hyperelastic materials 17
s := t , so
t
=
s
. The other hypotheses are
on the one hand =
0
1
, z = z
0
z
1
, e = e
0
e
1
,
on the other hand n=
(n
1
(s. x) n
2
(s. t. x) ), b =
(b
1
(s. x)
b
2
(s. t. x) ). We note that, although
is great compared with , these

hypotheses ensure that
2
and
3
are of the order of .
The examination of the terms of order in the conservation laws shows that
1
, z
1
,
e
1
and n
1
are explicit functions of b
1
. Finally, the terms of order
3,2
in Faradays
law, averaged with respect to the slow variable t to eliminate b
2
, furnish a system
which governs the evolution of U := b
1
:
t
U
x
(|U|
2
U) = 0. (1.3)
where is a constant which depends only on (
0
. e
0
). In this book, we shall copi-
ously use the system (1.3) to illustrate the various theories, but we shall also make
appeal to a slightly more general one:
t
U
x
((|U|)U) = 0
where : R
R is a given smooth function.

1.6 Hyperelastic materials
We shall consider a deformable solid body, which occupies, at rest, a reference
conguration which is an open set O R
d
. We describe its motion by a mapping
(x. t ) . (y. t ). O R
d
, where y is the position at the instant t of the particle
which was situated at rest at x in the reference conguration. We dene the velocity
:: O R
d
and the deformation tensor u: O M
d
(R) by
: =
y
t
. u
j
=
y
x
j
.
In the rst instance we write the compatibility conditions
t
u
j
=
j
:
.
k
u
j
=
j
u
k
. 1 . j. k d.
Amaterial is said to be hyperelastic if it admits an internal energy density of the form
W(u) and if the forces due to the deformation derive from this energy (principle of
virtual work):
f = ( f
1
. . . . . f
d
). f
=
E
y
.
Here ,y denotes the variational derivative of E [y] :=
_
W(y) dx:
f
j =1
j
W
u
j
.
18 Some models
The fundamental law of dynamics is written
t
:
= f
.
where g represents the other forces, due to gravity or to an electromagnetic eld
(but here we do not consider any coupling). Finally, U := (u. :) obeys a system of
conservation laws of rst order (for which n = d(d 1))
t
u
j
=
j
:
. 1 . j d.
t
:
=
d
k=1
k
W
u
k
g
. 1 d.
These equations can be linear, when W is a quadratic polynomial, but this type of
behaviour is not realistic. In fact, the energy is dened only for u GL
d
(R) with
det(u) >0 (the material does not change orientation), and must tend to innity when
the material is compressed to a single point:
lim
u0
n
W(u) = .
The models of elasticity are thus fundamentally non-linear. Other restrictions on
the form of W are due to the principle of frame indifference:
W(u) = W(Ru). R SO
d
(R). (1.4)
and, if the material is isotropic,
W(u) = W(uR). R SO
d
(R). (1.5)
From (1.4), there exists a function n: S
R, on the cone S
of positive denite
symmetric matrices such that
W(u) = n(u
T
u).
If, in addition, (1.5) holds, then the function S .n(S) depends only on the eigen-
values of S.
We nd an entropy of the system in writing the conservation of energy:
t
_
1
2
|:|
2
W(u)
_
=
d
. j =1
j
_
:
W
u
j
_
.
The total mechanical energy (:. u) .
1
2
|:|
2
W(u) is not always convex.
14
How-
ever, it is in the directions compatible with the constraint
k
u
j
=
j
u
k
. In other
14
There are obstructions due to the invariances mentioned above and to the fact that W tends to innity at 0 and
at innity. See [8] Theorem 4.8-1 for a discussion.
1.7 Singular limits of dispersive equations 19
words, W is convex on each straight line u Rz where z is of rank one (the
LegendreHadamard condition). This reduced concept of convexity is appropri-
ate for problems with constraints. In particular, the mechanical energy furnishes
an a priori estimate. A constitutive law currently used is that of St Venant and
Kirchhoff:
n(S) =
1
2
(Tr E)
2
jTr(E
2
). E :=
1
2
(S I
n
).
On the other hand, other entropies do not have this convexity property; for all
k d
t
(: u
k
) =
k
_
1
2
|:|
2
W(u)
_
j =1
j
_
u
k
W
u
j
_
.
Strings and membranes
More generally, we can consider a material for which x O(with O R
d
) but with
(y. t ) R
p
with p d. The case p =d is that described above. When p = 3 and
d = 2 it is a mater of a membrane or a shell, while p 2 and d = 1 corresponds to
a string. For a membrane or a string, the equations are the same as in the preceding
paragraph, but the Greek sufxes go from 1 to p instead of from 1 to d. There are
then n = p(d 1) unknowns and just as many equations of evolution.
Let us look at the case of string: u is a vector and W(u) = (|u|), because of
frame indifference, being a state law. We have
W
u
=
1
r
/
(r)u
. r := |u|.
with the result that dW is the product of
/
(called the tension of the string) by the
unit tangent vector to it: r
1
u. There are four or six equations:
u
t
= :
x
. :
t
= (r
1
/
(r)u)
x
g.
1.7 Singular limits of dispersive equations
The systems of conservation laws which are presented here proceed from com-
pletely integrable dispersive partial differential equations. We take as an example
the Kortewegde Vries (KdV) equation
u
t
6uu
x
= u
xxx
. (1.6)
but there are others, of which the best known is the cubic non-linear Schr odinger
equation.
20 Some models
Certain solutions of (1.6) are progressive periodic waves: they have the form
u = u(x ct ) with u
///
= 6uu
/
cu
/
, with the result that
1
2
u
/2
= u
3
1
2
cu
2
au b.
where a and b are constants of integration. The triplet (a. b. c) denes a unique
periodic solution (to within a translation) when the polynomial equation P(X) :=
X
3
1
2
cX
2
aX b = 0 has real roots: u
1
- u
2
- u
3
. We then have min u(x) =
u
1
and max u(x) = u
2
.
What are of interest here are such periodic solutions of the KdV equation, which
are, in rst approximation, modulated by the slow variables (s. y) := (t. x) with
0 - _1.
u
(x. t ) = u
0
(a(s. y). b(s. y). c(s. y); x c(s. y)t ) u
1
(s. y. x. t ) O(
2
).
We require that u
1
and u
0
be smooth functions and that u
1
be almost periodic with
respect to (x. t ).
The choice of the parameters (a. b. c) is not the most practical from the point
of view of calculations. We proceed to construct another set, with the aid of the
expressions
i
1
:= u. i
2
:=
1
2
u
2
. i
3
:=
1
2
u
2
x
u
3
.
These are invariants of the KdV equation in the sense that sufciently smooth
solutions
15
satisfy
t
i
k

x
j
k
= 0. 1 k 3.
with
j
1
= 3u
2
u
xx
. j
2
= 2u
3
1
2
u
2
x
uu
xx
.
j
3
=
1
2
u
2
xx
6uu
2
x
u
x
u
xxx
3u
2
u
xx

9
2
u
4
.
Let (a
1
. a
2
. a
3
) R
3
be a triplet such that there exists a function n H
1
(S
1
),
S
1
= R,Z, with
_
1
0
nd = a
1
.
_
1
0
1
2
n
2
d = a
2
.
_
1
0
n
3
d - a
3
.
Then the set X(a
1
. a
2
. a
3
) of the couples (:. Y) H
1
(S
1
) (0. ) such that
_
1
0
: d = a
1
.
_
1
0
1
2
:
2
d = a
2
.
_
1
0
_
:
3
1
2Y
2
:
/2
_
d = a
3
15
There is no interest in the question of smoothness here; let us say that it is does not cause trouble.
1.7 Singular limits of dispersive equations 21
is not empty. It corresponds (via (:. Y) . u(,Y)) to the periodic functions of
H
1
(R), the period not being xed a priori, with the prescribed means
u) = a
1
.
1
2
u
2
) = a
2
.
_
u
3
1
2
u
/2
_
= a
3
.
It can be shown without difculty that the mapping
X(a
1
. a
2
. a
3
) R. (:. Y) .Y.
attains its lower bound (strictly positive), which is denoted by S(a
1
. a
2
. a
3
). An
optimal pair (:. S) denes, via u(x) := :(x,S), a progressive periodic wave of the
KdV equation. In general, (:. S) is unique to within a translation, with the result
that if a differential polynomial P is given, then the mean P(u. u
x
. . . . .
m
x
u)) is
perfectly determined and depends only on (a
1
. a
2
. a
3
). Those which we shall need
are the functions
J
k
( a) = j
k
(u)).
For example,
J
1
( a) = 3u
2
u
xx
) = 3u
2
) = 6a
2
.
The two other functions have much less explicit expressions, which involve elliptic
functions.
Let us denote by U( a. x. t ) the periodic solution such that i
k
) = a
k
, U being of
class C
with respect to each of its ve variables. The modulated solutions which

we consider are written
u
(x. t ) = U( a(x. t ); x. t ) u
1
(x. t ; x. t ) O(
2
).
Our purpose is to determine the evolution of a as a function of (y. s). We write for
that the conservation laws
t
i
k
[u
]
x
j
k
[u
] = 0. 1 k 3.
In these, the terms of order
0
are absent because (x. t ) . U is an exact solution
of the KdV equation. There remain
s
i
k
[U]
y
j
k
[U]
t

x
= O().
where the imprecise expressions are smooth and almost periodic in (x. t ). We
eliminate their derivatives in x or t by taking the mean in Bohrs sense (with
respect to (x. t )) of this equality:
s
i
k
[U])
y
j
k
[U]) = O().
22 Some models
As the left-hand side does not depend on , there only remains
s
a
k

y
J
k
( a) = 0. 1 k 3. (1.7)
which makes up a closed system of three conservation laws.
Remarks We do not have to use the solutions of (1.7) before the formation of shocks.
In fact, if a is discontinuous along a curve, the asymptotics cannot be justied and
the periodic solutions have to be replaced by more complicated, almost periodic
solutions. The equations of modulation are then made up of 2p 1 conservation
laws in place of three (see [61]).
The validity of the asymptotics is closely linked to the hyperbolicity of (1.7),
which allows it to have local smooth solutions. This property has been studied by
Levermore [63].
The invariants i
1
, i
2
, i
3
are only the rst of a denumerable list (i
k
)
k1
, where i
k
is
a polynomial in (u. u
x
. . . . .
k2
x
u). The expressions I
k
( a) := i
k
(U. . . . . U
(k1)
))
are thus entropies of the system (1.7):
s
I
k

y
J
k
= 0. Other entropies exist, in
particular
s
S(a)
y
(cS) = 0.
where c = c( a) is the speed of the progressive wave U (see the book by Whitham
[112]).
1.8 Electrophoresis
Electrophoresis is a procedure of separating ions in an aqueous solution, by means
of an electromagnetic eld. We refer the reader to the article by Fife and Geng [22]
for more general models than that presented here.
The mediumis one-dimensional (d = 1). The ions represent a negligible fraction
of the total mass, with the result that we can suppose the solution to be at rest. Each
kind of ion (there are n 1) has density u
i
(x. t ) 0 for 0 i n. The unknown
of the problem is U := (u
0
. . . . . u
n
). The ux of mass of the ion of the ith kind is
f
i
:= j
i
z
i
Eu
i
d
i
x
u
i
where j
i
> 0 is the mobility, z
i
the charge and d
i
0 the diffusivity (these numbers
are constants). The electric current is thus
J = z f =
n
i =1
z
i
f
i
.
The electric eld is given by Amp` eres law
x
E = z u. When 0 - _1, we
1.8 Electrophoresis 23
are led to make the hypothesis of electric neutrality:
z u =
_
n
i =1
z
i
u
i
_
0. (1.8)
The conservation law of the i th type of ion is
t
u
i

x
f
i
= 0.
We therefore deduce from (1.8) that
x
(z f ) = 0, or
x
J = 0. In this context the
current J is imposed by the experimentalist; it will, in general, be constant. It is a
datum of the problem, which allows the expression of E as a function of U via
E
n
j =1
j
j
z
2
j
u
j
=
n
j =1
z
j
d
j
x
u
j
J.
Finally the vector (u
0
. . . . . u
n
) obeys the system of conservation laws
t
u
i

x
j
i
z
i
Ju
i
n
j =0
j
j
z
2
j
u
j
=
x
_
n
j =0
b
i j
x
u
j
_
. 1 i n. (1.9)
where
b
i j
= d
i
j
i

j
i
z
i
z
j
d
j
u
i
n
k=0
j
k
z
2
k
u
k
.
We notice that the above system is not completely parabolic since z
T
B = 0; this
comes from the electric neutrality, which renders the unknowns dependent on each
other. We obtain a system conforming more with the general body of this book
in eliminating one of the unknowns, for example u
0
, and writing the conservation
laws for u := (u
1
. . . . . u
n
).
Let us look at the example where z
0
= 1 and z
i
= 1 otherwise. Then u
0
=
n
i 1
u
i
. If we neglect the diffusion of the ions (d
i
= 0), the system becomes
t
:
i

x
i
:
i
n
k=1
:
k
= 0. 1 k n.
where
i
=j
i
J >0 and :
k
:= (j
k
j
0
)u
k
. This system has very strong proper-
ties, which render the study of the Cauchy problem easy (see Chapter 13). When
diffusion is taken into account, the right-hand side has to be replaced by
x
_
n
j =1
i j
x
u
j
_
.
with
i j
=b
i j
b
i 0
. In the equi-diffusive case in which d
i
= Dj
i
, with D a
24 Some models
constant, we have
i j
= Dj
i
_
j
i

j
0
j
j
S
u
i
_
. S :=
n
k=1
(j
0
j
k
)u
k
.
It is easily shown (this is a variant of Gerschg orins theorem) that the eigenvalues
of all lie in the right half-plane R z > 0, since D > 0 and u
i
> 0 for all i . The
system is then parabolic. It is one of the rare natural examples where the diffusion
matrix is invertible.
Let us mention another procedure for the separation of the constituents of a
mixture, which makes use of gravity and a temperature gradient in a column, which
furnishes equations very close to those we have established here. This procedure,
called chromatography, separates the solvents according to their molar masses.
2
Scalar equations in dimension d = 1
In this chapter we consider a scalar unknown function u(x. t ). The equation gov-
erning it is a conservation law, completed by an initial condition:
u
t
f (u)
x
= 0. x R. t > 0.
u(x. 0) = u
0
(x). x R.
_
_
_
(2.1)
2.1 Classical solutions of the Cauchy problem
Aclassical solution of the Cauchy problemis a solution of class C
1
for t >0, conti-
nuous for t 0, which satises (2.1) pointwise. When u
0
is also of class C
1
, a
classical solution is of class C
1
for t 0. To avoid the related phenomena of
propagation with innite speed, we suppose in addition that u
0
is bounded on R.
The linear case
First of all let us examine the case in which f is given by the formula f (u) = cu,
c being a constant. Then
d
dt
(u(x ct. t )) = (u
t
cu
x
)(x ct. t ) = 0.
Thus, t . u(x ct. t ) is a constant, with value u
0
(x). Replacing x by x ct we
obtain
u(x. t ) = u
0
(x ct )
for the unique solution of (2.1). For all initial data, there therefore exists one and
only one solution which has the same regularity.
25
26 Scalar equations in dimension d = 1
Non-linear case. The method of characteristics
We now abandon the linear hypothesis. The ux f is a given function of class C
.
We write c(u) = f
/
(u).
Let u C
1
be a solution of the Cauchy problem. We dene the characteristic
curves, or simply the characteristics, in the band R[0. T] as the integral curves
t .(X(t ). t ) of the differential equation
dX
dt
= c(u(X. t )).
In the linear case, c is constant with the result that the characteristics are a priori
known straight lines. This is no longer true in the general case, where they depend
on the solution itself. Let us calculate
d
dt
u(X(t ). t ) =
dX
dt
u
x
(X. t ) u
t
(X. t ) = (u
t
c(u)u
x
)(X. t ).
the last equality being the conservation law. Thus, u is constant along each charac-
teristic, taking the value u
0
(y) where (y. 0) is the base of the latter. It follows that
the slope of this curve has the constant value c(u
0
(y)). This is thus a straight line:
X(t ) = y t c(u
0
(y)).
The method of characteristics, which considers the solution of (2.1) by leading to
an algebraic equation, is therefore the following.
Being given (x. t ) R [0. T], nd y, a solution of the equation
y t c u
0
(y) = x.
Then put u(x. t ) = u
0
(y).
Let F
t
: RR be the function dened by F
t
(y) = y t c u
0
(y). If u
0
is
continuous, so also is F
t
(y). Since F
t
() = , the mean value theorem
ensures the existence of a value y such that F
t
(y) = x. But this non-linear equation
can have several solutions, thus preventing the construction of a classical solution.
We make that precise in the statement of the proposition below.
Proposition 2.1.1 Let u
0
C
1
(R) be, together with its derivative, bounded. We
dene T
= if c u
0
is increasing,
T
=
_
inf
d
dx
c u
0
_
1
otherwise. Then (2.1) possesses one and only one solution of class C
1
in the band
R [0. T
) and does not possess one in any greater band R [0. T].
Proof Let p = c u
0
. We have F
t
= 1t p
/
1t ,T
> 0, for t [0. T
). The
solution of F
t
(y) = x is then unique since F
t
is strictly increasing. In addition,
the implicit function theorem ensures that (x. t ) . y(x. t ) is of class C
1
. Let us
then verify that u(x. t ) dened by u = u
0
(y(x. t )) is a solution of (1.1). First of all
we have y(x. 0) = x so that u(x. 0) = u
0
(x). Then, in differentiating the equation
F
t
(y) = x, we obtain F
t
/
(y)y
t
= p(y) and F
t
/
(y)y
x
= 1. Hence
F
t
/
(y(x. t ))(u
t
c(u)u
x
) = u
/
0
(y)F
t
/
(y)(y
t
c(u)y
x
)
= u
/
0
(y)(p(y) c(u
0
(y))) = 0.
Blow-up in nite time
When classical solutions are provided by the method of characteristics there is no
other that can be constructed, at least for 0 t - T
. Let us now show that that

solution cannot be prolonged beyond that.
Let T >0 be such that there exists a regular solution on R [0. T] . We differ-
entiate the quantity : = c
/
(u)u
x
along the characteristics. The following formula
is obtained by differentiating the conservation law with respect to x.
d
dt
:(X. t ) = c
/
(u)
2
u
2
x
= :
2
.
This is an equation of Ricatti type. If T
- , there exist values of y for which

p
/
(y) = c
/
(u
0
(y))u
/
0
(y) - 0. For these, the function :(X(t ). t ) blows up at the time
1,p
/
(y) because its initial value is p
/
(y). More precisely, for t - max(T. T
)
inf
xR
:(x. t ) = (t (inf p
/
)
1
)
1
.
Thus, we have T (inf p
/
)
1
which proves the proposition.
Remark The phenomenon of blow-up which we have just described is of non-linear
origin since it does not occur in the linear case. Notice that the hypothesis T
-
supposes that c is not constant. The exercises 2.1 and 2.2 also describe the effects
of the non-linearity.
2.2 Weak solutions, non-uniqueness
Classical solutions are not sufcient to resolve (1.1), so we turn to weak solutions,
that is say solutions in the sense of distributions. This choice is consistent with
the underlying physics of this type of problem. In particular, the most interesting
solutions being piecewise continuous, we nd indirectly from distributions the
transmission conditions which are introduced, for example, into uid mechanics.
To give a meaning to the conservation law, it is enough that u and f (u) be distri-
butions. Since f , in general, is not linear, we must suppose that u is a measurable
function so that f (u) is dened pointwise. We then shall say that u is a weak so-
lution of the equation u
t
f (u)
x
= 0 in an open set of R
2
if u L
1
loc
(),
f (u) L
1
loc
() and if for every test function D(), we have
__
_
u
t
f (u)
x
_
dx dt = 0.
We shall say that u is a weak solution of the Cauchy problem (2.1) in the band
Q = R [0. T] if u L
1
loc
(Q), f (u) L
1
loc
(Q). and if for all test functions
D(Q).
__
Q
_
u
t
f (u)
x
_
dx dt
_
R
u
0
(x)(x. 0) dx = 0.
In the account given below, we consider the simple case in which u L
(Q),
which ensures that u L
1
loc
(Q), f (u) L
1
loc
(Q), and which is consistent with
the maximum principle which we shall establish. This choice is nevertheless not
a natural one once we consider systems of conservation laws since the max-
imum principle is then an exception. In addition, the quantities which have a
physical meaning are those that are involved in Greens formula, that is
_
u dx
(mass in a domain at a given instant) and
_
f (u) dt (ux of mass across a bound-
ary during a given time). We thus see that a natural space for u is C ((0. T);
L
1
loc
(R)).
The reader should be able easily to verify that the notion of a weak solution
extends that of a classical solution: every classical solution of (1.1) is also a weak
solution.
The RankineHugoniot condition
Let us consider a pair (u. q) of functions, piecewise continuous in the domain ,
whose line of discontinuity lies along a regular curve I, which separates into two
connected components
. We assume that (u. q) is of class C

1
in
and in
.
Finally, we denote by u
(x. t ) the limit of u(y. s) when (y. s) tends to (x. t ) I

and stays in
. In the same way we dene q
(x. t ) then u
(x. t ) and q
(x. t )
along I, and we write [h](x. t ) = h
(x. t ) h
(x. t ), the jump across I of each

piecewise continuous function h.
We now wish to translate into simple terms the equation u
t
q
x
= 0.
Fig. 2.1: Curves of discontinuity, unit normals.
Lemma 2.2.1 Under the above hypothese, the pair (u. q) satisfy the equation in
the distributional sense in if and only if
(1) On the one hand, u and q satisfy the equation pointwise in
and
,
(2) On the other hand, the jump condition [u]n
t
[q]n
x
= 0 is satised along I,
where n is a unit normal vector to I in (x. t ).
Proof Let us begin with the necessary condition. Let (u. q) be a solution of the
equation in . We have
__
_
u
t
q
x
_
dx dt = 0.
First of all choosing test functions whose support is in
, we see that (u. q) is a

weak solution in
. In the same way we have the result for
. With a general
test function, we calculate the integral with the aid of Greens formula:
0 =
___
__
__
u
t
q
x
_
dx dt
=
_
_
u
t
q
x
_
ds
_
(u
t
q
x
) dx dt
_
u
t
q
x
_
ds
_
(u
t
q
x
) dx dt.
In the above formula,
denote the boundaries of the domains
, and n
are
their unit normal vectors, pointing outwards (see Fig. 2.1). The preceding argument
shows that the integrals over
are null. On the other hand, the border of
is
made up of part of the boundary of on which is zero and also of I. The
remaining part is therefore
_
I
_
u
t
q
x
_
ds
_
I
_
u
t
q
x
_
ds = 0.
However, n
= n
along I, with the result that

_
I
([u]n
t
[q]n
x
) ds = 0.
This equality being true for every smooth function (say, of class C
1
) in it is true
when we replace by any smooth function, dened and with compact support on
I. From this we deduce the jump condition (2).
Conversely, the same calculation, taken in the reverse sense, shows that these
conditions are sufcient.
When q = f (u), the jump condition is called the RankineHugoniot condi-
tion. Let M be a Lipschitz constant of f in the larger interval [a. b] in which u
takes its values. We have [[ f (u)][ M[[u][ with the result that [n
t
[ M[n
x
[.
The curve of discontinuity can thus be parametrised by the variable t in the
form
I = {(X(t ). t ): t ]t
1
. t
2
[].
The RankineHugoniot condition can then be written in the denitive form
[ f (u)] =
dX
dt
[u].
We see again that the speed c plays a r ole like that in the method of character-
istics, since provided that [u] is not null, the mean value theorem is given by
dX
dt
= c( u(t ))
where u(t ) is a number between u
(X(t ). t ) and u
(X(t ). t ). In particular, when

the amplitude [u] of the discontinuity is weak, its speed approaches that of the
neighbouring characteristics.
Examples (1) The simplest discontinuous solutions are of the form
u =
_
u
. x - t.
u
. x > t.
where = ( f (u
) f (u
)),(u
). Indeed, u satises the equation trivially

outside of the straight line x = t .
(2) For Burgers equation f (u) =
1
2
u
2
, the speed of propagation of the disconti-
nuities is dX,dt =
1
2
(u
).
(3) For the model of road trafc, this speed is a new concept, distinct from the
speed of the vehicles. The discontinuities arise from the sudden variations in the
density of the trafc, for example between trafc moving belowa point and blocked
Fig. 2.2: Non-trival solution of a trivial Cauchy problem.
above. This point actually moves since it is nothing but X(t ) except if the ow of
vehicles is the same below as above, the growth of the speed compensating exactly
the diminution in the density.
Non-uniqueness for the Cauchy problem
To construct a Cauchy problem which admits more than one weak solution, we
clearly must choose a non-linear ux. We choose the simplest example, the Burgers
equation. If u 0, we have a trivial classical solution u 0. Here is another
solution, using the example treated above (see Fig. 2.2):
u(x. t ) =
_
_
0.
2p.
2p.
0.
x - pt.
pt -x - 0.
0 -x - pt.
pt -x.
This example gives, in fact, an innity of solutions of the same Cauchy problem,
parametrised by the positive real number p. We can, for the moment, conclude that
between the framework of the classical solution for which the existence is missing,
and that of weak solutions whose uniqueness is not guaranteed, it is necessary to
nd an intermediate theory for which the Cauchy problemis well-posed in the sense
of Hadamard, that is to say satises the following three conditions.
(1) For each given initial datum in a function space Y, the Cauchy problem admits
a solution in a function space Z which is contained in L
loc
(R; Y).
(2) That solution is unique.
(3) The mapping Y Z which with a given initial datum associates a solution is
continuous.
2.3 Entropy solutions, the Kru zkov existence theorem
Approximate solutions; entropy inequalities
The examination of various models has suggested that the conservation laws are
only a simplication of a more complex reality and, for example, should better be
written
u
t
f (u)
x
= u
xx
. (2.2)
Here the positive number is a diffusion coefcient, --1. The Cauchy problem
for (2.2) can be shown to have one and only one classical solution u
which satises
the maximumprinciple. Let us assume also that the sequence {u
] converges almost
everywhere to a function u when 0 (this is proved under sufciently general
hypotheses [86], see also Theorem 5.4.1).
Lemma 2.3.1 Suppose that u
0
C
b
(R). If u
(x. t ) u(x. t ) almost everywhere

in Q = R (0. T] then u is a weak solution of (2.1).
Proof As has been noted, u
is a classical solution, with the result that all the

integrations by parts are admissible. In fact, u
(Q) C (

Q) and for every
test function with support in R (. T)
0 =
__
Q
_
u
xx
u
t
f (u
)
x
_
dx dt
=
__
Q
(u
(
xx

t
) f (u
)
x
) dx dt
_
R
u
0
(x)(x. 0) dx.
From the maximum principle, and since u
0
C
b
(R), the family {u
] is bounded
by a constant. The theorem of dominated convergence thus ensures that, when
0,
__
Q
u
(
xx

t
) dx dt
__
Q
u
t
dx dt
and
__
Q
f (u
)
x
dx dt
__
Q
f (u)
x
dx dt.
Finally, we obtain the desired result
__
Q
(u
t
f (u)
x
) dx dt
_
R
u
0
(x)(x. 0) dx = 0.
The following calculus leads to a radically newprocedure whose importance is such
that it dominates the whole theory of hyperbolic systems of conservation laws: the
entropy inequality, which is one of the means of recognising, fromamong the weak
solutions, the solutions of physical origin. For a scalar equation, this criterion has the
advantage, beyond taking account of a residual diffusion, of resolving an essential
mathematical problem, the uniqueness of the Cauchy problem, while preserving
the existence.
The concept of entropy, or rather the notion of the entropyentropy-ux pair,
refers to the pair of regular functions (E. F) dened on the space of the states u, for
which every classical solution of u
t
f (u)
x
= 0 also satises E(u)
t
F(u)
x
= 0.
For the moment, let us say that in the scalar case, every regular function E is an
entropy of which the corresponding ux is given to within a constant by F
/
= f
/
E
/
.
If E is convex, then u
satises
E(u
)
t
F(u
)
x
= E
/
(u
)
_
u
t
f (u
)
x
_
= E
/
(u
)u
xx
= E(u
)
xx
E
//
(u
)
_
u
x
_
2
E(u
)
xx
.
Integrating this inequality, multiplied by a test function with positive values,
over Q :
0
__
Q
(E(u
)
xx
E(u
)
t
F(u
)
x
) dx dt
=
__
Q
(E(u
)(
xx

t
) F(u
)
x
) dx dt
_
R
E(u
0
(x))(x. 0) dx
__
Q
(E(u)
t
F(u)
x
) dx dt
_
R
E(u
0
(x))(x. 0) dx.
with the preceding hypotheses.
Proposition 2.3.2 Under the hypotheses of Lemma 2.3.1, the solution u of (2.1)
also satises the following inequalities, for all pairs (entropies = E, ux = F)
with E continuous and convex:
__
Q
(E(u)
t
F(u)
x
) dx dt
_
R
E(u
0
(x))(x. 0) dx 0.
for all D(R (. T)), and 0.
Proof It only remains to pass from convex entropies of class C
2
to continuous
convex entropies, and then dening what an entropy ux is in this context.
Let E be a convex function. Then E is locally a uniformlimit of convex functions
of class C
, for example functions E

n
= E
n
, convolution products by
n
(s) =
n(ns) where D(R). The convexity is assured by 0. Let F
n
be the
associated ux, xed by
F
n
(s) =
_
s
0
f
/
(y)E
/
n
(y) dy.
we have
F
n
(s) = f
/
(s)E
n
(s) f
/
(0)E
n
(0)
_
s
0
f
//
(y)E
n
(y) dy.
which shows that F
n
converges locally uniformly to the continuous function
F(s) = f
/
(s)E(s) f
/
(0)E(0)
_
s
0
f
//
(y)E(y) dy.
The entropy inequality, stated in the proposition, is already true for the pairs
(E
n
. F
n
). A new passage to the limit when n shows that it is still true for
(E. F).
Denition 2.3.3 We say that a weak solution of (2.1) is an entropy (or admissible)
solution if it satises the entropy inequalities for every convex continuous entropy
E of ux F:
__
Q
(E(u)
t
F(u)
x
) dx dt
_
R
E(u
0
(x))(x. 0) dx 0 (2.3)
for all D
(R (. T)).
We note that taking into account that test functions may not take the value zero on
R {0] is essential in the entropy inequalities. If, as in certain existing articles or
books, we suppress the initial integral in (2.3) in restricting the entropy inequalities
to test functions D
(R (0. T)), we lose the property of uniqueness (see

Theorem 2.3.5) in letting abnormal solutions continue to exist. A signicant exam-
ple is Exercise 2.12. As in the denition of a weak solution of the Cauchy problem,
(2.3) expresses at the same time an initial condition, in the form of an inequality,
and a partial differential relation in the open set R (0. T). In using the formal-
ism of distributions and that of the traces of certain functional spaces, these two
conditions can be written
tr
t =0
E(u) E(u
0
) = E(tr
t =0
u). (2.4)
E(u)
t
F(u)
x
0. (2.5)
Let k R, the function u . [u k[ is convex and continuous, its ux being
equal (to within a constant) to ( f (u) f (k)) sgn(u k), where
sgn(s) =
_
_
1. s > 0.
0. s = 0.
1. s - 0.
An entropic solution thus satises the inequalities
__
Q
(
t
[u k[
x
( f (u) f (k)) sgn(u k)) dx dt (2.6)
_
R
[u
0
(x) k[(x. 0) dx 0.
Conversely, let us suppose that u L
satises (2.6). Let belong to D
(R
(. T)). The function u
0
and the solution u are assumed to take values in a
bounded interval (a. b). For k = a, we have [u k[ = u a and [u
0
k[ = u
0
a,
with the result that
__
Q
(
t
u
x
f (u)) dx dt
_
R
u
0
(x)(x. 0) dx
a
___
Q
t
dx dt
_
R
(x. 0) dx
_
f (a)
__
Q
x
dx dt = 0
on integrating the second term by parts. Similarly, taking k = b, [u k[ = b u
and [u
0
k[ = bu
0
, we obtain the inequality opposite to the preceding one. Thus
for D
(R (. T))
__
Q
(
t
u
x
f (u)) dx dt
_
R
u
0
(x)(x. 0) dx = 0.
By linearity, this is again true without sign condition on : u is a weak solution of
(2.1).
Let us now show that u is indeed an entropic solution. Being given a convex
continuous entropy E, of ux F, there exists for all > 0 an entropy E
of ux
F
which satises
E(s) E
(s) E(s) for s [a. b],

E
is convex, piecewise afne: E
(s) = b
0
b
1
s Y
j
a
j
[s k
j
[. with a
j
>0.
For that it is enough to interpolate E linearly on a sufciently ne grid. Certainly,
F
(s) = b
1
f (s) Y
j
a
j
( f (s) f (k
j
)) sgn(s k
j
). In making use of (2.6) and
(2.1), we see that (2.3) is valid for E
. As E
and F
converge uniformly to E and

F on [a. b] we can pass to the limit in the integrals, with the result that (2.3) is valid
for E. Finally, we have
Proposition 2.3.4 A bounded measurable function u on R (0. T) is an entropy
solution of (2.1) if and only if it satises (2.6) for all k R and all D
(R
[0. T)).
Irreversibility
The denition 2.3.3 introduces the concept of irreversibility in the solution of (2.1).
Previously, a weak solution u was reversible in the sense that the function : dened
by :(x. t ) = u(x. s t ) was also a weak solution in the band R (0. s) for the
given initial function :
0
(x) =: u(x. s).
Exercise Prove this result rigorously, that is to say with test functions.
On the other hand, the entropy inequalities change when we pass fromu to : (verify
this likewise), with the result that an entropy solution of (2.1) is not reversible, that
is to say that : is an entropy solution only if the entropy inequalities are indeed
equalities
__
Q
(E(u)
t
F(u)
x
) dx dt
_
R
E(u
0
(x))(x. 0) dx = 0.
D
(R (. T)).
We presume that the reversible solutions are in fact a little more regular than the
others at least if the ux f is sufciently non-linear, say if f
//
is not identically
zero. A weak form of this statement is found in 2.4.
However, in the linear case, we can show that there is an equivalence between
the notions of weak solution and of entropy solution. Agood method is to make use
of the theorem of existence and uniqueness, 2.3.5 below. This states that if u
0
is a
bounded, measurable function, then the entropy solution exists (it is in fact unique,
but that does not play a part in this argument). This is a weak solution, but we show
easily by duality (this is nothing but an application of the HahnBanach theorem)
that the weak solution of (2.1) is unique in the linear case. Thus every weak solution
is an entropy solution. In particular, since it is reversible, it satises entirely the
entropy equalities. By linearity, these equalities hold without a convexity condition
on the entropy and with no sign condition on the test function.
Existence and uniqueness for the Cauchy problem
The Cauchy problem is well-posed in the class of entropy solutions for the scalar
conservation laws. Although Kru zkovs result is valid for an equation with variable
coefcients and in several space dimensions, we begin by enunciating a version
which corresponds to the framework which we have adopted until now.
Theorem 2.3.5 (Kruzkov [79]) For every bounded measurable function u
0
on
R, there exists one and only one entropy solution of (2.1) in L
(Q) C ([0. T);

L
1
loc
(R)). It satises the maximum principle
|u|
L
(Q)
= |u
0
|
L
(R)
. (2.7)
The theorem is, in fact, more complete than that, but so as not to overload the
statement of the theorem, we have preferred to summarise below the principal
properties of the solution.
0
and :
0
be two bounded measurable functions and u and :
the entropy solutions associated with them. Let M = sup{[ f
/
(s)[; s [inf(u
0
. :
0
).
sup(u
0
. :
0
)]]. Then:
(P1) For all t > 0 and every interval [a. b], we have
_
b
a
[:(x. t ) u(x. t )[ dx
_
bMt
aMt
[:
0
(x) u
0
(x. t )[ dx.
(P2) In particular, if u
0
and :
0
coincide on {x: [x x
0
[ - d], then u and : coincide
on the triangle {(x. t ): [x x
0
[ Mt - d].
(P3) If u
0
:
0
L
1
(R), then u(t ) :(t ) L
1
(R) (writing u(t ) := u(. t )) and
|:(t ) u(t )|
L
1
(R)
|:
0
u
0
|
L
1
(R)
.
_
R
(:(x. t ) u(x. t )) dx =
_
R
(:
0
(x) u
0
(x)) dx.
(P4) If u
0
L
1
(R), then u(t ) L
1
(R), for all t > 0, and
|u(t )|
L
1
(R)
|u
0
|
L
1
(R)
.
_
R
u(x. t ) dx =
_
R
u
0
(x) dx.
(P5) If u
0
(x) :
0
(x) for almost all x R, then also u(x. t ) :(x. t ).
(P6) If u
0
BV(R), the space of functions of total bounded variation, then u(t )
BV(R) and
T V(u(t )) T V(u
0
).
Comments (1) Theorem 2.3.5 allows us to construct an operator S(t ) which with a
given initial value u
0
associates at the instant t >0 the entropy solution u(t ). The
family (S(t ))
t 0
is a semi-group because
the conservation law does not involve the time explicitly (if u is a solution, then
u
s
:= u(. s) is also a solution, for the given initial value u(s)).
we verify easily that if : is the entropy solution for the initial value u(s), then
the function u dened by
u(x. t ) =
_
u(x. t ). t - s.
:(x. t s). t > s
is alsoanentropysolutionof (2.1), withthe result that S(t s)u
0
= S(t )S(s)u
0
,
thanks to uniqueness.
(2) The property (P3) expresses the fact that t . S(t ) is a contraction semi-
group in L
1
(R) L
(R), with respect to the L

1
-norm. However, the above results
are much more general since S(t ) is dened on L
(R). We do not know of a

non-decoupled system of at least two conservation laws which possess such a con-
traction property, even for a metric structure. It is suspected that it does not exist,
which renders difcult the question of uniqueness for systems (cf. [104]).
(3) The property (P1) obviously contains the uniqueness property of the entropy
solution, but it contains a more precise fact, plain from (P2): the value of the en-
tropy solution u at a point (x. t ) depends only on the restriction of u
0
to an interval
[x Mt. x Mt ]. Aperturbation (sufciently small) with compact support disjoint
from this interval does not modify the value u(x. t ). We call the domain of depen-
dence of (x. t ) the smallest compact set K such that, for every bounded function
a with compact support disjoint from K, the solution of the Cauchy problem with
initial condition :
0
=: u
0
a coincides with u at (x. t ) for sufciently small.
The domain of dependence of (x. t ) is thus included in [x Mt. x Mt ], but
this is not necessarily an interval once shocks are developed, for the latter create
shadow zones. More generally we can dene the domain of dependence of (x. t ) at
the instant t
0
-t by considering the Cauchy problem with a given initial condition
at the time t
0
. A symmetrical notion is that of the domain of inuence of a point
(x
0
. t
0
), made up of points (x. t ) with t >t
0
of which (x
0
. t
0
) belongs to the domain
of dependence.
(4) The property (P4) is a trivial consequence of (P3), which leads also to (P5)
by the following calculation:
|:(t ) u(t )|
L
1
(R)
|:
0
(t ) u
0
(t )|
L
1
(R)
=
_
R
(:
0
(x) u
0
(x)) dx
=
_
R
(:(x. t ) u(x. t )) dx.
that is to say : u 0.
(5) Similarly, (P3) implies (P6). If u
0
BV(R), then u
0
( h) u
0
is integrable
for all h R and
TV(u
0
) = lim
h0
h
1
_
R
[u
0
(x h) u
0
(x)[ dx.
Thus, u( h. t ) u(. t ), is integrable, and
TV(u(t )) = lim
h0
h
1
_
R
[u(x h. t ) u(x. t )[ dx
lim
h0
h
1
_
R
[u
0
(x h) u
0
(x)[ dx
= TV(u
0
).
(6) The monotonic property (P5) implies that to a monotonic given initial function
there corresponds a solution having the same monotonic property with respect
to x.
(7) Kru zkovs theorem is in reality of much more general power. It applies to
scalar equations with d 2 space variables when the uxes depend explicitly on
the space and time variables and in the presence of a source term:
t
u
1d
f

(x. t. u) = g(x. t. u). x R
d
(2.8)
The sole hypothesis, except the regularity of f and g is that g div
x
f is uniformly
bounded with respect to x R
d
. There exists one and only one entropy solution
u L
(Q) C ([0. T); L

1
(R
d
)) of the Cauchy problem for (2.8), that is to say
satisfying for every positive test function
0
__
(0.T)R
d
([u k[
t

x
( f (x. t. u) f (x. t. k)) sgn(u k)) dx dt
_
R
d
[u
0
k[(x. 0) dx
__
(0.T)R
d
(g(x. t. u) (div
x
f )(x. t. k)) sgn(u k) dx dt.
The properties (P1) to (P6) remain true in this context provided that g 0 and that
f depends only on u, with the following adaptation for (P1). If is a bounded open
set of R
d
_
[:(x. t ) u(x. t )[ dx
_
B(0;Mt )
[:
0
(x) u
0
(x)[ dx.
In addition, f being vector-valued, [ f
/
[ denotes the norm of f
/
in the denition
of M. The statements remain valid whatever the norm chosen.
Application: admissible discontinuities
Piecewise smooth entropy solutions
Since the entropy inequalities are trivial for classical solutions, it is important
to understand them for less smooth solutions. The simplest, best understood and
most useful case is that of piecewise smooth solutions. This case is placed in the
same class of solutions as 2.2. We have seen that the curve of discontinuity is
parametrised by the time: t . X(t ). We x naturally
and
by x - X(t ) and
x > X(t ) respectively. If D
() and if E is a convex entropy of class C

1
of
ux F,
0
__
(
t
E(u)
x
F(u)) dx dt
=
___
__
_
(
t
E(u)
x
F(u)) dx dt
=
___
__
_
(E(u)
t
F(u)
x
) dx dt
_
I
_
[E(u)]n
t
[F(u)]n
x
_
ds
=
_
I
_
[E(u)]n
t
[F(u)]n
x
_
ds.
As is an arbitrary positive function, we deduce that along I
[E(u)]n
t
[F(u)]n
x
0.
that is
[F(u)]
dX
dt
[E(u)]. (2.9)
By continuity, we deduce also the following inequality:
[( f (u) f (k)) sgn(u k)]
dX
dt
[[u k[]. k R. (2.10)
It is easy to make the reverse argument. First of all, (2.10) and the Rankine
Hugoniot condition imply (2.9) (indeed, we see that (2.10) leads to the Rankine
Hugoniot condition). Then we show that a piecewise smooth function, which is
a classical solution outside of I and which satises (2.9) along I, is an entropy
solution. Finally we obtain the following result.
Proposition 2.3.7 Let u be a piecewise C
1
function in Q, whose discontinuities are
carried by the union I of Lipschitz curves, pairwise disjoint. Then u is an entropy
solution of (2.1) if and only if u is a classical solution outside of I and satises
(2.10) on I.
Oleniks condition
Nowlet us analyse the condition (2.10) in detail. We can x a point of I and suppose
that u
,= u
. Let I be the interval with extremities u
and u
. In choosing k
outside of I , we obtain successively two inequalities which, together, express the
RankineHugoniot condition. We thus have
dX
dt
=
[ f (u)]
[u]
.
Finally we take k I , that is to say k = au
(1 a)u
, a [0. 1]. Then

_
f (u
) f (u
) 2 f (k)
[ f (u)]
[u]
(u
2k)
_
sgn(u
) 0.
But u
2k = (2a 1)(u
), with the result that

(af (u
) (1 a) f (u
) f (au
(1 a)u
))
sgn(u
) 0. a [0. 1]. (2.11)

There are therefore two cases, according to the sign of u
.
Case u
-u
then a discontinuity is admissible if and only if the graph of f ,

restricted to the interval [u
. u
], is situated above its chord.

Case u
>u
then a discontinuity is admissible if and only if the graph of f ,

restricted to the interval [u
. u
], is situated below its chord.

Examples 2.3.8 If f is convex, its graph is always below its chord; a discontinuity
is thus admissible if and only if u
- u
.
If f is concave, its graph is always above its chord; a discontinuity is thus
admissible if and only if u
- u
.
In the general case, an admissible discontinuity is reversible if and only if f is
afne between u
and u
.
Shocks
An important consequence of (2.11) is Laxs inequality (also called Laxs shock
condition). On dividing (2.11) by a[u
[ (respectively (1a)[u
[), then
on making a tend to 0 (respectively to 1), we obtain
f
/
(u
)
dX
dt
f
/
(u
). (2.12)
Fig. 2.3: Admissible discontinuities.
Fig. 2.4: Inadmissible discontinuities.
These inequalities express that the characteristics, which are straight lines in
or
, dened, if need be, up to I , usually cannot emerge fromI. Aborderline case

is the one of a tangentially emerging characteristic. In most cases, these inequalities
are strict, for example if f is strictly convex or concave. In this favourable case,
the characteristics can only penetrate into I coming from the past and not leaving
towards the future. More precisely, from a point of I two characteristics and only
two can be drawn, both directed towards the past. In addition, not being able to
encounter another discontinuity by going back in time, they end up at a point (x
0
. 0).
This reasoning is still correct if f
//
is of constant sign, a characteristic then being
able to coincide with I. Finally:
Proposition 2.3.9 If f is concave or convex, the entropy solution of (2.1) can be
calculated by the method of characteristics.
We shall see below that in this case, there exists an explicit formula, due to Lax
([59]), giving the unique entropy solution of (2.1). For a more general ux, there
2.4 The Riemann problem 43
does not always exist such a formula, in particular the method of characteristics
does not work because these do not necessarily return to the initial point. In fact,
there exist admissible discontinuities for which for example f
/
(u
) =dX,dt while
f
//
(u
) ,= 0. We can then construct a Cauchy problem and its entropy solution of

which a characteristic emerges from I towards the future (see Exercise 2.9).
Denition 2.3.10 We shall say that a discontinuity (u
. u
. = dX,dt ) is a shock
if the inequalities of (2.12) are strict. We shall say that it is a semi-characteristic
shock (to the left or to the right according to the side on which the characteristics
are tangents) if one is strict and the other is an equality. Finally we shall say it is
a characteristic shock if the two are equalities without f being afne from u
to
u
. If f is afne between u
and u
, we shall speak of a contact discontinuity.

One of the principal properties of shocks is to induce a little more smoothness,
because it propagates along the characteristics. For example if u is of class C
1
to
the left of I, with a continuous limit u
on this side, if I is of class C

1
and if
f
/
(u
) ,= dX,dt , then this continuous extension is of class C

1
up to I. We shall
see in an exercise that this cannot be true in a semi-characteristic shock to the left.
2.4 The Riemann problem
Self-similar solutions. Rarefactions
The Riemann problemis the Cauchy problemin the particular case of a given initial
condition of the form
u
0
(x) =
_
u
L
. x - 0.
u
R
. x > 0.
The r ole of the Riemann problem is to furnish all the solutions of the Cauchy
problem which are invariant under the group of homotheties (x. t ) . (ax. at ),
a group which leaves invariant all the conservation laws of the rst order. More
precisely, let a >0. If u
0
is as above, and if u is the corresponding entropy solution,
then u
a
:= u(ax. at ) is the entropic solution for the given u
0
(ax), here u
0
(x). From
Theorem 2.3.5, this solution is unique: u
a
u. Choosing a = t
1
, we obtain
u(x. t ) = u(x,t. 1). We must therefore seek the solution of the Riemann problem
among the self-similar solutions of the form u(x. t ) = :(x,t ) with : L
. The
system (2.1) then reduces, in the sense of distributions, to
f (:)
= :
.
:() = u
L
.
:() = u
R
.
_
_
(2.13)
Since we seek the entropic solution, we have also
[( f (:) f (k))sgn(: k)]
[: k[
.
The sense to give to the conditions at innity for : is trivial, for because of property
(P1) of propagation with nite speed, we see that u u
L
for x - Mt . Here, M =
sup{[ f
/
(s)[: s I (u
L
. u
R
)] where I (u
L
. u
R
) is the interval with ends u
L
and u
R
. In
fact we therefore have :() = u
L
for - M; similarly :() = u
R
for > M.
As to the general Cauchy problem, we must rst of all consider the smooth
solutions of (2.13). But we must take care that these lead to solutions of (2.1) that
are singular at the origin.
If : C (R) is piecewise of class C
1
, we develop (2.13): (c(:)) (d:,d) = 0.
This equality is trivial in certain zones, for example for [x[ > M since : is constant
there. Where :
/
,= 0, we have c(:()) = , which leads to the following denition.
Denition 2.4.1 A rarefaction wave is a self-similar solution u(x. t ) = :(x,t ) of
class C
1
in a wedge at - x - bt , which thus satises c(u(x. t )) = x,t .
In a rarefaction wave, : is injective, thus monotonic, and takes its values in an
interval in which c is monotonic, that is to say where f is either convex or concave.
For example, if f is convex on R, the rarefaction waves are increasing.
Another type of self-similar wave has already been encountered in the preceding,
it consists of shocks. These are dened by :() =:
for -, :() =:
for >,
:
. :
, and being linked by the RankineHugoniot condition and satisfying

Oleniks condition.
Thus we have three kinds of self-similar solutions: the rarefaction waves, the
shocks and the constants. The solution of the Riemann problem does not make use
of any other.
The solution of the Riemann problem
In the Riemann problem, the initial datum is monotonic, with the result that the
solution u is also monotonic with respect to the space variable. The same is true for
.:() =u(. 1), which thus has, at the most, a denumerable number of disconti-
nuities. These will be the shocks. The construction of the solution is the following.
For u
L
=u
R
, the solution is constant. If not, we denote by the characteristic
function of the interval I (u
L
. u
R
) with values 0 and .
Case u
L
-u
R
Let g =sup{h convex: h f ]. Then d := g
/
, dened on
[u
L
. u
R
], is increasing and we put
d(:()) = . [d(u
L
). d(u
R
)].
2.5 The case of f convex. The Lax formula 45
This formula denes : in a unique manner except on the set of critical values of d
which is denumerable. For -d(u
L
), we put : =u
L
, while for >d(u
R
) we put
: =u
R
.
Case u
L
>u
R
Here, g is the smallest of the concave functions which bound f
above. Its derivative d, dened on [u
R
. u
L
] is decreasing and therefore allows us to
dene : on [d(u
L
). d(u
R
)] by d(:()) = .
Let us show that this construction solves (2.13) as well as satisfying the entropy
inequalities. By symmetry it is enough to consider the case u
L
- u
R
. For = x,t
[d(u
L
). d(u
R
)], we have f (:) = g(:) almost everywhere since f and g coincide
except on the critical values of d. For every s [u
L
. u
R
], we thus have
f (s) g(s) g(:) (s :) = f (:) (s :). (2.14)
the second inequality being due to the convexity of g.
Choosing s = :( a), a ,= 0 in (2.14), then dividing by [a[ and letting a tend
to zero through positive and negative values respectively, we obtain (2.13). The
entropy inequality is thus satised for k u
L
, and for k u
R
u
L
: u
R
.
If u
L
- k - u
R
, the monotonicity of : ensures the existence of a real number
0
such that :() k for -
0
and :() k for >
0
. Let us dene n :=
( f (:) f (k))sgn(: k) [: k[. Owing to (2.13), we have n
= [: k[ on
the open set R {
0
]. To deduce the entropy inequality n
[: k[ 0, it is
enough to establish Oleniks inequality [n] 0 at
0
, which comes from (2.14)
when we choose =
0
a, s = k with a > 0 and we make a tend to zero.
2.5 The case of f convex. The Lax formula
If the uxis strictlyconvex, Laxs inequalityfor the discontinuities is strict ( f
/
(u
)-
- f
/
(u
)) and it reduces to u
> u
. As they cannot be tangent to a shock curve,

the characteristics are not able to emerge. For a piecewise smooth solution, we see
that the characteristic passing through a point (x
0
. t
0
) is a straight line which ex-
ists at least in the past on the time interval [0. t
0
]. In fact, it is limited only by its
encounter with a shock, which can only be produced in the future, owing to Laxs
inequality. If (x
0
. t
0
) is on a shock curve, there are two such characteristics, one
to each side of the shock; at one such point, the calculation of the characteristics
furnishes two results, which correspond to the two degrees of freedom, the value
of u and the shock speed. Otherwise, there is only a single characteristics.
The HamiltonJacobi equation
Let u be the entropy solution of (2.1). This conservation law is the compatibility
conditionwhichensures the existence of a function: satisfying:
x
=u, :
t
= f (u).
Since u is measurable and bounded, : is Lipschitz and satises the above equations
almost everywhere. We thus have :
t
f (:
x
) = 0 almost everywhere; this is a
particular case of the HamiltonJacobi equation.
Since f is convex, we have for all s R.
:
t
f
/
(s)(s :
x
) f (s).
which has rst integral
:(y f
/
(s)t. t ) :
0
(y) t (s f
/
(s) f (s)). s. y R. t > 0. (2.15)
As s f
/
(s) is strictly increasing, we can make the change of variables (y. s. t ) .
(y. x. t ) with x = y t f
/
(s). We derive s =b((x y),t ) where b is the deriva-
tive of the convex conjugate function g = f
of f for g
/
f
/
=id. We then have
s f
/
(s) f (s) =g((x y),t ). On minimising the right-hand side of (2.15) with
respect to y keeping (x. t ) xed we therefore obtain the inequality
:(x. t ) V(x. t ) =: inf
yR
(:
0
(y) tg((x y),t )). (2.16)
Let (x. t ) RR
and let us choose a characteristic . X() which ends on

(x. t ). We have seen that it is dened on [0. t ]; we write z = X(0). The calculation
below, made along the characteristic, shows that the inequality (2.16) is optimal.
A rigorous justication of this calculation for every entropy solution will be found
in [60].
d
d
:(X. ) = :
t
c(u):
x
= c(u)u f (u) = g(c(u)).
We have also dX,d = c(u), which is constant. Finally,
:(x. t ) = :
0
(z) tg(c(u)) = :
0
(z) tg((x z),t ).
Theorem 2.5.1 (Lax [59]) If f is strictly convex and u
0
L
(R), then the

entropy solution of (2.1) is given by u = :
x
where
:(x. t ) = sup
yR
_
:
0
(y) t f
_
x y
t
__
.
:
0
being a primitive of u
0
.
A dual formula to Laxs
Laxs formula is rendered possible because in the case in which f is convex, we have
seen that the characteristics all issue from the axis t = 0. For a general ux f , this
is no longer possible because characteristics can originate in a semi-characteristic
shock. However, it will be seen in Exercise 2.9 that this cannot happen if the initial
datum is monotonic. We thus have in this case an explicit formula, which is the
dual of that of Lax in the sense that one is of the form :(x. t ) = inf
yR
sup
sR
(. . .)
while the other is written :(x. t ) = sup
sR
inf
yR
(. . .).
Proposition 2.5.2 (Kunik [57]) Let u
0
be an increasing given initial function, the
ux f being an arbitrary smooth function. Then u = :
x
where : is given by the
formula
:(x. t ) = sup
sR
(sx t f (s) :
0
(s)).
Here, :
0
is a primitive (convex by hypothesis) of u
0
and :
0
is its convex conjugate
function.
For a discussion of this formula, the reader should see [92].
2.6 Proof of Theorem 2.3.5: existence
The approach by semi-groups
An original proof of Kru zkovs theorem, due to Crandall [14], is based on the
particular properties of the scalar case, notably the fact that the solution of the
Cauchy problem furnishes a semi-group of contractions in L
1
L
(R), which is
described by the properties (P3) and (2.7). In the one-dimensional case, which is
ours, we can again take advantage of the order structure on R to have the shortest
of the proofs of existence of an entropy solution of (2.1).
We begin by considering a simplied case, that in which, as well as u
0
being
merely integrable on R, the ux f is uniformly monotonic (inf{ f
/
(s): s R] > 0)
and satises f
//
= 0 outside a compact set. We dene an unbounded operator A in
the following manner.
Domain of A: D(A) = W
1.1
(R) = {: L
1
(R). :
x
L
1
(R)].
Graph of A: A: = f (:)
x
. : D(A).
As f is Lipschitz, : . f (:) is a continuous operator of L
1
(R) into itself,
with the result that the graph of A is closed (we say that A is closed). The con-
struction of an entropy solution of (2.1) is made by approaching the conserva-
tion law by a difference equation. We seek a solution u
C (R
; L
1
(R)) of the
following equation:
u
(t ) u
(t )
Au
(t ) = 0. t 0.
u
(t ) = u
0
. t - 0.
_
_
_
(2.17)
We then make use of an abstract theorem from the theory of semi-groups [13].
Theorem 2.6.1 Let X be a Banach space and A a closed operator with domain
D(A) dense in X, accretive and such that (id
X
A)(D(A)) = X for all > 0.
Then, for all and every u
0
X, the problem (2.17) possesses a unique solution
u
C (R
; X). In addition, u
(t ) converges in X, uniformly on every compact

set of R
to a function t . S(t )u
0
. The family (S(t ))
t 0
is a contraction semi-
group in X, that is to say,
(1) S(t )S(s) = S(t s). t. s 0,
(2) |S(t ): S(t )n| |: n|. t 0. :. n X,
(3) S(0) = id
X
,
(4) (t. :) . S(t ): is continuous on R
X.
The accretivity of which mention is made in the hypotheses of the theorem is the
following property.
Denition 2.6.2 The operator A is said to be accretive if for all :. n D(A) and
every 0, we have
|: n| |: A: n An|.
We shall make use of the Banach space X = L
1
(R).
Accretivity of A
The following lemma is classical, but we give a proof for the convenience of the
reader. In all that follows sgn s vanishes if s = 0 .
Lemma 2.6.3 Let z W
1.1
(R). Then z
x
sgn z = [z[
x
.
Proof Let j be a Lipschitz function and ( j
n
)
n0
a sequence of Lipschitz functions
of class C
1
, such that j
n
converge uniformly to j and j
/
n
converge pointwise to j
/
while staying uniformly bounded. For the lemma, we choose j = sgn and j
n
(s) =
_
(s
2
n
1
). As W
1.1
C (R), we have j
n
(z) W
1.1
(R) and j
n
(z)
x
= j
/
n
(z)z
x
.
Let us pass to the limit in this equality. On the one hand j
n
(z) j (z) uniformly,
so j
n
(z)
x
j (z)
x
in D
/
(R). On the other hand, j
/
n
(z)z
x
j
/
(z)z
x
pointwise,
staying bounded in L
1
(R). We can therefore apply the theorem of dominated con-
vergence. The convergence is valid in L
1
(R), so in the sense of distributions.
Now let :. n D(A). The lemma and the growth of f give [ f (:) f (n)[
x
=
( f (:) f (n))
x
sgn(: n). Hence
|: A: n An|
_
R
(: f (:)
x
n f (n)
x
) sgn(: n) dx
=
_
R
([: n[ [ f (:) f (n)[
x
) dx
=
_
R
[: n[ dx.
since
_
R
z
x
dx = 0 for all z W
1.1
(R). Finally, A is accretive.
The range of id
X
A
Let > 0. The equation (id
X
A): = h, for h X = L
1
(R) and : D(A),
leads to the ordinary differential equation
d:
dx
= g(x. :) =:
h(x) :
f
/
(:)
. (2.18)
The function g being uniformly Lipschitz with respect to : and uniformly in-
tegrable with respect to x, the Cauchy problem for (2.18) possesses one and only
one solution dened on R. We denote by :
n
the solution of (2.18) on (n. )
which satises the initial condition :
n
(n) =0. Every solution of (2.18) satises
d[:[,dx O[h[ [:[ where 0 - - 1,(f
/
(z)) - O for all z. We deduce that,
for x > 0,
[:(x)[ e
x
[:(0)[ O
_
x
0
e
(yx)
[h(y)[ dy
and hence that lim
x
:(x) = 0 (by applying the theorem of dominated conver-
gence to the integral). Making use of the same differential inequality, we derive now
_

n
[:
n
(x)[ dx O|h|
1
which shows that the sequence (:
n
)
nN
, continued by 0 for x - n, is bounded in
L
1
(R).
Similarly, we have d[:[,dx [h[ O[:[ which on integrating and taking
account of the preceding estimate gives [:
n
(x)[ (O
2
,)|h|
1
. This sequence
is thus also bounded in L
(R). Making use of the differential equation, we see

that the sequence is uniformly equi-continuous on every compact set. It thus admits
a cluster point when n , for the topology of uniform convergence on every
compact set. Denote this limit by :, which is continuous. We can pass to the
limit in the integrated form of the differential equation, which shows that : is
a solution of (2.18). In addition, by Fatous lemma, : is integrable on R with
_
R
[:(x)[ dx O|h|
1
. We thus have : X. Since in addition :
x
= g(. :) X,
indeed we have : D(A) and : A: = h. Thus, id
X
A is surjective. As A
is accretive, id
X
A is equally injective.
Passage to the limit
We can thus apply Theorem 2.6.1. The limiting solution u
therefore exists, is
unique and converges uniformly on every compact set [0. T] to a function t .u(t )
with values in L
1
(R): u C (R
; L
1
(R)). Let k R; then applying Lemma 2.6.3
to z = f (u
(t )) f (k), we have
[u
(t ) k[ [ f (u
(t )) f (k)[
x
= (u
(t ) k) sgn(u
(t ) k)
[u
(t ) k[.
For D
(R
2
), we therefore have
0
__
RR
(t )
_
[u
(t ) k[ [u
(t ) k[
[ f (u
(t )) f (k)[
x
_
dx dt
=
__
RR
_
[u
(t ) k[
(t ) (t )
[ f (u
(t )) f (k)[
x
_
dx dt
_

0
dt
_
R
(x. t )[u
0
(x) k[ dx
0
__
RR
([u k[
t
[ f (u) f (k)[
x
) dx dt
_
R
(x. 0)[u
0
(x) k[ dx.
because of the uniformconvergence of (t )(t ), to
t
andof
1
_
0
(x. t ) dt
to (x. 0). Finally, the existence of at least an entropy solution is demonstrated in
the case u
0
L
1
(R) when f
//
is null outside a compact set and inf f
/
>0.
Let us notice immediately an essential property of this solution the maximum
principle.
0
L
1
L
(R). The solution, limit of u
, of (2.1) satises
|u|
|u
0
|
.
Proof As a result of Theorem 2.6.1 it is enough to show that if h L
1
L
then the solution of : A: = h satises |:|
|h|
. But : W
1.1
(R) is
continuous and tends to zero at innity, so attains its bounds. There, :
x
is null
and : = h.
The general case
If u
0
L
1
(R) and if f
//
is null outside a compact set, then inf f
/
> and we are
led to the preceding case by choosing r > inf f
/
. The function f
r
(s) =: f (s)rs
satises the hypotheses of the precedingparagraphs. The Cauchyproblemfor f
r
and
u
0
therefore possesses an entropy solution u
r
, which furnishes an entropy solution
of (2.1) by u(x. t ) =: u
r
(x rt. t ). (Exercise: prove in detail this assertion.)
If u
0
L
1
L
(R) and f is an arbitrary function of class C

2
, let us put
M = |u
0
|
. We choose a function g of class C

2
such that g(s) = f (s) for [s[ - M
and g
//
(s) = 0 for [s[ > M 1. The solution already constructed of the Cauchy
problem for u
0
and g is valid since |u
0
| M, with the result that f (u) g(u).
To be precise, that shows that u is a weak solution of (2.1) and also that u satises
the entropy inequalities for [k[ M. But for [k[ > M, these inequalities are trivial
since |u
0
| M and u is a weak solution.
It remains for us to prove the existence of a solution under the hypotheses of
Theorem 2.3.5, that is when, u
0
L
(R). For that, we make use of the properties

of uniqueness and of propagation with nite speed which will be proved in the
following section.
Let M be as dened above. For T >0 and y R, we denote by u
y.T
the solution
given by the method of semi-groups when we choose the prescribed initial condition
to be u
0
[y MT. y MT] L
1
(R) (here takes values 0 and 1). Its restriction
to the triangle L
y.T
=: {(x. t ):[x y[ Mt - MT] is denoted by :
y.T
. From
(P2) :
y.T
and :
z.S
and coincide on the intersection of L
y.T
and L
z.S
. We therefore
construct a function on R R
by putting u(x. t ) = u
y.T
(x. t ) if (x. t ) L
y.T
,
which is an entropy solution of (2.1). In fact, the localization by a test function
makes the variational formulation for u equivalent to that for u
y.T
by choosing
(y. T) such that supp (R R
) is contained in L
y.T
.
2.7 Proof of Theorem 2.3.5: uniqueness
The essential idea of the proof of uniqueness is the inequality
[u :[
t
(( f (u) f (:)) sgn(u :))
x
0.
which is satised by two entropic solutions of (2.1). The entropy inequalities are
deduced in the following sub-section. On integrating over a domain of the form
[x x
0
[ Mt - b, where M bounds the speed of propagation of the waves above,
we deduce the property (P1) of Proposition 2.3.6.
An inequality for two entropy solutions
Proposition 2.7.1 Let u and : be two entropy solutions of (2.1) of which the initial
values are respectively u
0
and :
0
. For all D
(Q), where Q = R [0. T), we

have
__
Q
([u :[
t
( f (u) f (:)) sgn(u :)
x
) dx dt (2.19)
_
R
[u
0
(x) :
0
(x)[ (x. 0) dx 0.
Proof Let + D
(Q Q). We apply (2.6) with the solution u, with the constant

k = :(y. s) and with the test function +(. . y. s), then we integrate the inequality
obtained with respect to (y. s) over Q. We make the same calculation replacing u by
: and conversely, with the test function +(x. t. . ). The sumof the two inequalities
obtained is:
0
____
QQ
[u(x. t ) :(y. s)[(+
t
+
s
)(x. t. y. s) dt ds dx dy
____
QQ
sgn(u(x. t ) :(y. s))( f (u(x. t ))
f (:(y. s)))(+
x
+
y
) dt ds dx dy
__
RQ
[u
0
(x) :(y. s)[+(x. 0. y. s) dx dy ds
__
QR
[u(x. t ) :
0
(y)[+(x. t. y. 0) dx dt dy. (2.20)
Let D
(Q). We apply (2.20) to the function

+
= (x. t )
(x y. t s) (2.21)
where
(x. t ) =
2
(x,. t ,) is a positive approximation to the Dirac mass at
the origin: D
(R
2
),
_
R
2 dx dt = 1. In fact we shall choose to be of the
form (x)(t ), the support of being in [2. 1] .
We now apply a technical lemma.
Lemma 2.7.2 Let F be a locally Lipschitz function on R
2
. Then for +
of the
form (2.21):
(1) When 0, the integral
____
QQ
F(u(x. t ). :(y. s))+
(x. t. y. s) dx dt dy ds (2.22)
converges to the integral
__
Q
F(u(x. t ). :(x. t ))(x. t ) dx dt. (2.23)
(2) When 0, the integral
___
RQ
F(u
0
(x). :(y. s))+
(x. 0. y. s) dx dy ds (2.24)
tends to the integral
_
R
F(u
0
(x). :
0
(x))+(x. 0) dx. (2.25)
In fact if +is of the form(2.21), then (+
t
+
s
)(x. t. y. s) =
t
(x. t )
(x y. t s)
and (+
x
+
y
)(x. t. y. s) =
x
(x. t )
(x y. t s) are again of form(2.21). As the

functions coming into play with u and : in the integrals are locally Lipschitz on R
2
we can pass to the limit in the rst three terms of (2.20) making use of the lemma.
Also, the last integral is zero because of the factor (t ,) = 0. The proposition is
clearly proved.
Let us pass to the proof of the lemma which is only a result from measure theory.
Proof (1) First of all,
_
Q
(x y. t s) dy ds = 1 because of the condition on

the support of . Thus (2.23) has the value
____
QQ
F(u(x. t ). :(x. t ))+
(x. t. y. s) dx dt dy ds.
The functions u and : are bounded and F is locally Lipschitz with the result that
[F(u(x. t ). :(x. t )) F(u(x. t ). :(y. s))[ C[:(x. t ) :(y. s)[.
It is enough therefore to show that
I
(:) =:
____
QQ
[:(x. t ) :(y. s)[+
(x. t. y. s) dx dt dy ds
=
____
QR
2
[:(x. t ) :(x y. t s)[(x. t )(y. s) dx dt dy ds
converges to zero when 0, the second equality occurring for small enough.
Let U Q be a compact neighbourhood of the support of . For sufciently small,
the integral I
is borne only by U and we have the upper bound

I
(:) 2||
|:|
L
1
(U)
.
Similarly, the theorem of dominated convergence shows that if : is continuous
I
0 as 0. To conclude the proof in the general case we thus choose >0

arbitrarily small and n continuous and bounded such that |: n| . Since
I
(:) I
(: n) I
(n), we have that limsup

0
I
(:) , which implies the

stated result.
(2) Similarly
_
Q

(x y. s) dy ds = 1 and we are led back to the convergence

to 0 of the integral
___
RQ
[:
0
(x) :(y. s)[(x. 0)
(x y. s) dx dy ds.
The same method as above shows that
___
RQ
[:(x. s) :(y. s)[(x. 0)
(x y. s) dx dy ds.
tends to zero with . It therefore remains to show the convergence to zero of
J
(:) =:
__
RQ
[:
0
(x) :(x. s)[(x. 0)
(x y. s) dx dy ds.
From the choice (2.21), the integral with respect to y is harmless:
J
(:) =:
__
Q
[:
0
(x) :(x. s)[(x. 0)
1
(s,) dx ds.
Next, since : is continuous on (0. T) with values in L
1
loc
(R), we may replace :
0
by
:(. 0) and we conclude by noting that
J
(:) ||
_
2
1
|:(0) :(s)|
L
1
(V)
(s,) ds,
= ||
_

0
|:(0) :(s)|
L
1
(V)
(s) ds
where V is an interval containing the support of (. 0).
Integration of the inequality (2.19)
Let (a. b) be an open interval of R and s >0 a real number. We begin by constr-
ucting a trapezium B of Q whose horizontal sections B
t
are such that
(1) B
s
= (a. b),
(2) if t - , then B
t
contains the domain of dependence of B
(see Fig. 2.5).

For that, we denote by I the smallest interval containing the essential values of
u and :. Since these solutions are supposed bounded, the same is true of I . Next
we choose the number M which bounds above the absolute value of the velocity
Fig. 2.5: The domain of integration.
of wave propagation: M =: sup
rI
[ f
/
(r)[. Finally we dene B ={(x. t ) Q:
a M(s t ) -x -b M(s t )].
Now we turn to the proof of the property (P1). By a simple translation we can
always suppose that a = b. Let d >b and choose an even function D
(R)
decreasing on R
and such that (y) = 1 for [y[ - b and (y) = 0 for [y[ > d.
We also choose a function D
((. T)) such that (0) = 1 and (t ) = 0 for

t >s
/
, where s -s
/
-s b,M. We apply (2.19) with the test function (x. t ) =:
(t )([x[ Mt ). Writing F(u. :) = ( f (u) f (:)) sgn(u :), we have
[u :[
t
F(u. :)
x
=
/
(t )([x[ Mt )[u :[
(t )
/
([x[ Mt )(M[u :[ F(u. :) sgn x).
Now [F(u. :)[ M[u :[, so the last bracket is positive. As 0 and
/
0,
we have
[u :[
t
F(u. :)
x

/
(t )([x[ Mt )[u :[.
Substituting this result in (2.19), we obtain
__
Q
([u :[
/
(t )([x[ Mt )) dx dt
_
R
[u
0
:
0
[([x[) dx 0. (2.26)
Now, let us make d tend to b. The theorem of dominated convergence allows
us to pass to the limit in the two integrals which renders the formula correct when
([x[ Mt ) is simply the characteristic function of the set B. Let us write then
h(t ) =: |u(t ) :(t )|
L
1
(B
t
)
. Since t .u(t ) is continuous with values in L
1
loc
(R), h
is continuous and we deduce from (2.26) the inequality
_
s
0
h(t )
/
(t ) dt h(0) 0. (2.27)
for every function D
((. s
/
)) such that (0) = 1. This property implies
classically that h is decreasing on [0. s
/
]. We thus have
_
b
b
[u(x. s) :(x. s)[ dx = h(s) h(0) =
_
bMs
bMs
[u
0
(x) :
0
(x)[ dx.
which is exactly the inequality sought.
End of the proof of Proposition 2.3.6
It remains only to showthat the property (P3) is valid. We thus assume that u
0
:
0

L
1
(R) . Then the property (P1) implies that for every bounded interval I ,
_
I
[u(x. t ) :(x. t )[ dx |u
0
:
0
|
L
1
(R)
.
By means of Fatous lemma we then deduce that u(t ) :(t ) L
1
(R) and that
|u(t ) :(t )|
1
|u
0
:
0
|
1
.
Next, we express that u and : are weak solutions of (2.1). Choosing a test function
of the form
(x. t ) = (t )(x) where D((. T)) and (x) D(R) with

1 in a neighbourhood of the origin, we have
__
Q
((u :)
t
( f (u) f (:))
x
) dx dt (2.28)
_
R
(u
0
:
0
)(x)
(x. 0) dx = 0.
that is to say,
__
Q
(u :)
/
(t )(x) dx dt
__
Q
( f (u) f (:))(t )
/
(x) dx dt (2.29)
(0)
_
R
(u
0
:
0
)(x) dx = 0. (2.30)
Each factor u(t ):(t ), u
0
:
0
and f (u(t )) f (:(t )) is integrable on Runiformly
with respect to t , the last because we have [ f (u) f (:)[ M[u :[. When 0,
the theorem of dominated convergence allows us to pass to the limit in each of the
three integrals, the second tending to zero. There remains
__
Q
(u :)
/
(t ) dx dt (0)
_
R
(u
0
:
0
) dx = 0. (2.31)
2.8 Comments 57
which can be written in the form
_
T
0
h
/
dt (0)h(0) = 0 with this time h(t ) =:
_
R
(u(t ) :(t )) dx which is a continuous function. We deduce that h is a constant
function, that is to say
_
R
(u(x. t ) :(x. t )) dx =
_
R
(u
0
(x) :
0
(x)) dx.
2.8 Comments
Oleniks inequality
We have seen in an exercise that if f is uniformly convex, that is to say, if there exists
a number > 0 such that f
//
, then the entropy solution satises Oleniks
inequality
u
x

1
t
. (2.32)
The positive distribution 1,t u
x
is thus a bounded measure for every com-
pact interval and for t >0 and the same is true of u
x
. Thus, u(t ) BV(I ) for every
t >0 and every compact interval I , even if u
0
is only in L
(R). There is there-

fore a smoothing phenomenon which we did not observe in the linear case. In
particular, the resolvent operator S(t ) is compact as a mapping of L
loc
(R) into
itself, and we nd again the irreversible character of the entropy formulation
of (2.1).
Since f is Lipschitz, f u(t ) is also of bounded variation on I ; we have in fact
TV( f u(t ); I ) M TV(u(t )).
Thus f (u)
x
L
loc
((0. T); M
b
(I )) and, because of (2.1), the same is true of u
t
. We
deduce that t . u(t )[
I
is not only continuous, but even Lipschitz on (0. T), with
values in L
1
:
|u(t ) u(s)|
L
1
(I )
M
_
t
s
TV(u()) d.
We can rewrite this result by decomposing u
x
into its positive and negative parts:
u
x
= u
x
u
x
. With I = (a. b) we have
_
I
u
x
dx = u(a) u(b)
_
I
u
x
dx 2|u(t )| [I [,t.
From this, on using the maximum principle, we have
|u(t ) u(s)|
L
1
(I )
M
_
2[t s[|u
0
|
[I [
log
t
s
_
. (2.33)
Initial datum with bounded total variation
For a general ux, the property (P6) ensures that an initial datum in BV(R) leads
to a solution u whose total variation with respect to x at each instant is bounded by
TV(u
0
). The preceding calculation remains valid in part but we nd
_
R
[u(t ) u(s)[ dx M[t s[TV(u
0
).
Uniqueness: the duality method
In the method of Kru zkov, the uniqueness is the consequence of a monotonic prop-
erty. When we consider systems rather than scalar equations, such a property is
no longer available and the uniqueness question no longer has a general answer.
An alternative argument is needed in approaching the problem. That which was
rst presented in this spirit is the duality method of Holmgren. Although its gen-
eralization to the case of systems is delicate and of limited range it has given
several interesting results. Let us look at its application to a scalar question due to
Olenik [81].
Being given two entropy solutions u and : of the adjoint equation u
t
f (u)
x
= 0,
their difference z = u : satises the linear equation with variable coefcients
z
t
(hz)
x
= 0 with
h(x. t ) = H(u. :) :=
f (:) f (u)
: u
.
The following calculation uses the general solution of the adjoint equation p
t

hp
x
=0 with a given nal condition P at a positive time T. In principle p(. t )
is obtained by forming the composite function P U where U(t ; T) is the ow
of the differential equation x = h(x. t ). However, the discontinuities of h prevent
the denition of U and deprive us of the solution of the adjoint equation. We get
round this obstacle by smoothing h by h
= h
, where denotes the convolution

product with respect to the variable x alone while
= (x,),, with the classical

hypotheses on. Beinggivena smoothfunction P, we thus denote by p
the solution
of the Cauchy problem
p
t
h
x
= 0. p
(x. T) = P(x).
We assume that the initial values u
0
and :
0
are bounded functions; we denote by
J a bounded interval of R which contains their values. The solutions considered
satisfy the following properties:
u and : have values in J,
u(t ) u
0
and :(t ) :
0
are integrable,
2.8 Comments 59
as .0, |u(t ) u
0
|
L
1
(R)
and |:(t ) :
0
|
L
1
(R)
tend to zero,
if f
//
> on J, then u
x
1,(t ) and :
x
1,(t ).
In particular, the calculations which follow apply to the solutions obtained as limit-
ing values of the approximate solutions furnished by the parabolic equation u
t

f (u)
x
= u
xx
as tends to zero.
From now on, we assume that f is uniformly convex on J we denote by (>0)
and the lower and upper bounds of f
//
on J. On J J, H is bounded and
increasing with respect to each argument. In particular h is bounded: [h(x. t )[ M
and hence [h
[ M. As h
is Lipschitz with respect to x (uniformly with respect

to t but not with respect to ), we have at our disposal a ow for the differential
equation x = h
(x. t ), which enables us to solve the approximate adjoint equation

p
t
h
x
= 0 in the class of functions Lip(R).
If :
0
u
0
is integrable so also is z(t ) by hypothesis. Let us write Greens formula
on R (. T), with 0 - - T:
0 =
_
T
_
R
_
p
(z
t
(hz)
x
) z
_
p
t
h
x
__
dx dt
=
_
R
P(x)z(x. T) dx
_
R
p
(x. )z(x. ) dx
_
T
_
R
z(h
h) p
x
dx dt.
As p
is constant along the integral curves of h
this becomes
_
R
P(x)z(x. T) dx
|P|
|z()|
1
_
T
_
R
[z[ [h
h[ [ p
x
[ dx dt.
To exploit this inequality, we establish an estimate for p
x
which does not depend
on ; this is possible only with the hypothesis of genuine non-linearity made above.
By Taylors formula
h
x
= H
u
( u. :)u
x
H
:
( u. :):
x
=
1
2
f
//
(u
1
)u
x

1
2
f
//
(u
2
):
x
,t.
which implies that h
x
= h
x

,(t ). Let us write q
:= p
x
, which satises
(
t
h
x
) log[q
[ = h
x
,t.
The function [q
[t
,
increases along the characteristics of the modied adjoint
problem. Therefore,
[ p
x
(x. t )[
_
T
t
_
,
|P
x
|
.
Finally,
_
R
P(x)z(x. T) dx
|P|
|z()|
1
_
T
|P
x
|
_
T
t
_
,
dt
_
R
[z[ [h
h[ dx.
The function (T,t )
,
[z[ [h
h[ is bounded above by the integrable function

2M(T,)
,
[z[ and converges almost everywhere to zero when tends to zero. Its
integral also converges to zero as a result of the theoremof dominated convergence.
There remains
_
R
P(x)z(x. T) dx
|P|
|z()|
1
.
Making tend to zero we obtain
_
R
P(x)z(x. T) dx
|P|
|:
0
u
0
|
1
.
for every bounded Lipschitz function P, which is equivalent to saying that |:(T)
u(T)|
1
|:
0
u
0
|
1
. This implies uniqueness.
Remark For a system, deriving an estimate for p
x
is the delicate point. In addition,
the adjoint problem not being a transport equation, the constant which we obtain
in the eventual upper bound
_
R
p
(x. t )z(x. ) dx
C|P| |z|
is, in general, strictly greater than 1, with the result that |:(T) u(T)|
1
C|:
0
u
0
|
1
: the semi-group of a system is not contracting in L
1
(R). This point is made
precise by Temple [104].
2.9 Exercises
2.1 We suppose that f is uniformly convex, that is that f
//
(s) , where is a
strictly positive constant. Showthat the classical solution satises u
x
- 1,t .
2.2 In the case of the road trafc model, what comparison can we make between
the speed of the waves c() and that of vehicles V()?
2.3 We consider a scalar conservation law in several space dimensions:
u
t

d
i =1
A
i
(u)
x
i
= 0.
We note that u
t
div
x
A(u) = 0, and we suppose that the vector eld u .
A(u) is smooth. We write a = A
/
.
(1) Let u be a classical solution of this conservation law in a domain R
d
[0. T) and u
0
its initial value. Show that u is constant along the charac-
teristics dened by dx,dt =a(u(X(t ). t )) and these are straight lines.
2.9 Exercises 61
Fig. 2.6: Generic blow-up by a cusp.
(2) Let q =div
x
(a(u)). Show that along the characteristics q satises the dif-
ferential equation dq,dt q
2
= 0. Deduce that if there exists a point
y R
d
such that div
x
(a(u
0
))(y) -0, then T is nite, more precisely
T T
=: (inf
x
div
x
(a(u
0
)))
1
.
(3) Conversely, show that, if 1 T inf
x
div
x
(a(u
0
)) 0, then there exists a
classical solution of the Cauchy problem on the domain R
d
[0. T).
2.4 We consider the Burgers equation ( f (u) =
1
2
u
2
) with given initial condition
u
0
of class C
1
and with non-empty compact support. In the formula T=
(inf
R
u
0
)
1
, the lower bound is thus attained and T -. We suppose that it
is attained at a single point y
0
and that u
0
///
(y
0
) > 0 (we have u
0
//
(y
0
) = 0 and
u
0
///
(y
0
) 0 a priori). We write x
0
=: y
0
Tu
0
(y
0
).
(1) Show that u(T) is continuous on R, and of class C
1
outside of x
0
. Prove
that lim
xx
0
u
x
(x. T) = .
(2) Show that (u(T) u(x
0
. T))
3
is of class C
1
on R and that its derivative
at x
0
has the value 6(T
4
u
0
///
(y
0
))
1
. Hint: (y. 0) being the base of a
characteristic which ends in (x. T), nd an equivalent of x x
0
as a
function y y
0
. Figure 2.6 illustrates this generic behaviour.
2.5 Let f be a function which is not afne. To x the ideas, there are given three
numbers : - n - z, n = a:(1a)z, such that f (n) -af (:)(1a) f (z).
Using either one elementary discontinuity or two, construct two piecewise
constant solutions for the Cauchy problemin which the given initial condition
is u
0
(x) = : if x -0, and u
0
(x) = z if x >0. Adapt the question and the
solution if f (n) - is replaced by f (n) >.
2.6 We assume that f is convex. Show that a discontinuity is admissible if and
only if it satises one entropy inequality
[F(u)]
dx
dt
[E(u)]
for at least one strictly convex entropy.
Fig. 2.7: Semi-characteristic shock.
2.7 Weak shocks. When [u] 0, the speed = [ f (u)],[u] of a shock is of the
form = c(u
) O([u]) from Taylors formula.

(1) Show that in fact,
= c
_
1
2
(u
)
_
O([u]
2
).
(2) Find an equivalent of the rate of dissipation of entropy [F E] when
[u] 0 (F
/
= cE
/
) by supposing that E
//
>0 and f
//
>0.
Solution: [F E] [u]
3
where is calculable.
(3) Construct an example in which this equivalence is an equality.
2.8 Let a -b -c be three real numbers. We assume that (a. b) and (b. c) are
entropic discontinuities of the equation u
t
f (u)
x
=0, with speeds
1
and
2
. Using Laxs inequality showthat
2

1
. Deduce that (a. c) is an entropic
discontinuity.
2.9 Let u be an entropic solution of (2.1) which is smooth except along a curve
I: t .(X(t ). t ) of class C
1
, along which there is a semi-characteristic shock
to the right: f
/
(u
) = dx,dt . To x ideas, we assume that the shock is

decreasing: u
-u
. We also impose the generic condition f

//
(u
) ,= 0.
(1) Show that I is the envelope of a family of straight line characteristics and
that its concavity is turned towards the left. Deduce that the continuous
extension of u to the left side of I is not C
1
(see Fig. 2.7).
(2) Show that f
//
(u
) - 0 and that there exists a local diffeomorphism G

which depends only on f such that along I, u
= G(u
) .
(3) On the other hand, deduce that t .u
(t ) is of class C
1
.
2.9 Exercises 63
(4) We can then differentiate the RankineHugoniot condition. Show that
( f
/
(u
) f
/
(u
))
2
x
u
=
d
2
X
dt
2
(u
) 0.
(5) Show that if u
0
is monotonic, then the entropy solution, if it is piecewise
smooth, does not behave as a semi-characteristic shock (verify that we
can reduce this case to the one treated above).
2.10 Converse case. We consider an initial condition u(x. 0) = b(x) where b
C
1
(R
), and b and b
/
are bounded, having limits to the left at zero. We
assume that b 0 for x >0 and that b
= b(0) > 0, b
/
(0) >0. Finally,
we suppose that (b
. 0.
0
) is a semi-characteristic shock with
0
= f
/
(0)
and f
//
(0) -0. Show that there exists T >0 such that the entropy solution is
smooth off a curve I: t . (X(t ). t ) issuing from the origin, along which a
semi-characteristic shock takes place. Using the method of characteristics to
the left side of I, derive an ordinary differential equation for X(t ).
2.11 N-wave. We consider the Burgers equation u
t
(
1
2
u
2
)
x
= 0.
(1) Let
u(x. t ) =
_
x,t. [x[ -
t .
0. [x[ >
t .
Show that u is a weak solution of (2.1) for the given initial condition
u
0
0.
(2) Show that u satises Oleniks condition along the two curves of discon-
tinuity.
(3) Explain why u is not the entropy solution of a Cauchy problem.
2.12 Show that in the solution of the Riemann problem, we are necessarily in one
of the following cases.
There is no discontinuity, the solution is a rarefaction between the constant
states u
L
and u
R
.
The solution is a shock, possibly a (semi-)characteristic shock.
The solution is a contact discontinuity.
The solution involves one or several rarefactions and one or several discon-
tinuities. If there is a discontinuity at =d(u
L
), it is semi-characteristic
on the right, or characteristic, or is a contact discontinuity. If there is
a discontinuity at = d(u
R
), it is semi-characteristic on the left, or
characteristic, or is a contact discontinuity. The other discontinuities are
characteristics or are contact discontinuities.
2.13 We consider the equation u
t
f (u)
x
=0 with f (u) =(u
2
1)
2
. Solve the
Cauchy problem for the following initial condition:
u
0
(x) =
_
_
1. x -1.
a. 1 -x -1.
1. x >1.
where a (
1
3
. 1).
2.14 (See [41]) Let E be a strictly convex entropy of ux F. We introduce the
convex conjugate function to E by
E
() = sup
sR
(s E(s)).
Let u = :(x,t ) be an entropic solution of a Riemann problem.
(1) Show that F(:)
E(:)
.
(2) Deduce that, for all real , the function . F(:) f (:) (E(:)
E
() :) is decreasing.
(3) Using the property, show anew that : satises Oleniks inequality.
(4) We assume that lim
s
[s[
1
E(s) = . We know then that E
=
E [19]. Deduce the inequality
E
_
f (:()) f (:()) :() :()

_
F(:()) F(:()) E(:()) E(:())

.
for all - .
(5) Deduce that, if : is differentiable,
E(: :
f (:)
) E(:) E(:)
F(:)
.
Show that this inequality also implies that :
= f (:)
.
2.15 Let f and g be two regular functions. We denote the resolvent semi-group of
(2.1) by S
f
(t ), that is, the mapping u
0
. u(. t ) which is dened from L
into itself. By replacing f by g, we also consider S

g
.
(1) If f and g are convex, and if u
0
is an initial condition in a Riemann
problem, show that S
f
(t ) S
g
(s)u
0
= S
g
(s) S
f
(t )u
0
, for all s. t > 0.
(2) If f is strictly convex and g strictly concave, show that to the contrary
S
f
(t ) S
g
(s)u
0
,= S
g
(s) S
f
(t )u
0
.
2.9 Exercises 65
(3) More generally, show that if S
f
(t ) and S
g
(s) commute, then:
(i) At each point f
//
and g
//
are of the same sign.
(ii) The semi-characteristic shocks are the same for the two equations
u
t
f (u)
x
= 0 and u
t
g(u)
x
= 0.
(4) If f
//
> 0 on (0. ) and f
//
- 0 on (. 0), show that the uxes g for
which S
f
(t ) and S
g
(s) commute obey a second order linear differential
equation.
(5) Solve this equation when f (u) = u
3
.
2.16 Let f and g be two convex uxes. Again taking the notation of the preceding
exercise, show by using Laxs formula that
S
f
(s) S
g
(t ) = S
g
(t ) S
f
(s).
2.17 We assume that f is strictly convex and that lim
s
( f (s),[s[) = . We
are given that u
0
L
(R).
(1) Show that, for all t > 0 and all x > 0, the lower bound of :
0
(y)
tg((x y),t ) is attained at least one point y R.
(2) Let t > 0 and x
1
. x
2
R with x
1
- x
2
. We denote by y
i
a point at which
:
0
(y) tg((x
i
y),t ) attains its minimum. Using the convexity of g,
show that y
1
- y
2
.
(3) Deduce that, t being xed, y is unique except for a set of values of x, at
most denumerable. To what do these exceptional values correspond?
2.18 StartingfromLaxs formula establishagainOleniks condition, if f is convex,
or from the dual formula if u
0
is increasing.
2.19 We consider a conservation lawu
t
f (u)
x
= 0 where f
//
does not vanish. Let
u
0
L
1
(R) L
(R) and u be the entropy solution of the Cauchy problem.

As a way of simplifying the calculations, we assume that u is of class C
1
off
the shock curves which are assumed to form a nite family of smooth curves.
(1) Let T > 0 and let x
1
- x
2
be two real numbers. Let (y
j
. 0) be the base of
a characteristic passing through (x
j
. T). By integrating the conservation
law over a suitable domain, show that
T(F u(x
2
. T) F u(x
1
. T)) =
_
y
2
y
1
u
0
(x) dx
_
x
2
x
1
u(x. T) dx.
where F(s) := f (s) s f
/
(s).
(2) Deduce that
TV(F u(. T))
2
T
|u
0
|
1
.
(3) Assuming that f (0) = 0, show that
|F u(. T)|

2
T
|u
0
|
1
.
2.20 Application: The Burgers equation. We assume that u
0
is bounded and with
compact support: supp u
0
[a. b].
(1) Show that |u(t )|
2(t
1
|u
0
|
1
)
1,2
. Deduce that
supp u(t ) [a 2(t |u
0
|
1
)
1,2
. b 2(t |u
0
|
1
)
1,2
].
(2) Using Oleniks inequality (x - y implies u(y. t ) u(x. t ) (y x),t ,
(2.32)), deduce that
TV(u(t )) 2
b a
t
8
_
|u
0
|
1
t
_
1,2
.
2.21 Let f be an increasing function (with f
/
>0) of class C
2
. Dene a concept
of an entropy solution of the mixed problem
u
t
f (u)
x
= 0. (x. t ) R
.
u(x. 0) = u
0
(x). x R
.
u(0. t ) = 0. t R
.
Show that this entropy solution exists for all u
0
L
(R
).
2.22 We suppose that f is convex and that, more precisely, f
//
, where
is a strictly positive constant. Show that each approximate solution u
in
the semi-group method satises (u
)
x
1,t . Deduce that the same is
true for the entropy solution in a distributional sense which should be made
precise.
2.23 We are given u
0
L
(R) periodic, of period L.

(1) Show that the entropy solution of the Cauchy problem is equally periodic
with respect to x, with the same period (use uniqueness).
(2) Show that the average of u(t ) over a period is constant:
L
1
_
L
0
u(x. t ) dx = L
1
_
L
0
u
0
(x) dx.
(3) Suppose that, in addition, =: inf
xR
f
//
> 0. With the help of Oleniks
inequality, show that
sup
xR
u(x. t ) inf
xR
u(x. t ) L,t .
Deduce that u(t ) converges uniformly to the mean value of u
0
.
2.9 Exercises 67
(4) Example: Solve explicitly the Cauchy problem for the Burgers equation
with u
0
(x) = x E[x], where E[x] denotes the integral part of x.
2.24 We consider a scalar conservation law in spatial dimension d = 2, but whose
ux has only a single component:
u
t

x
1
f (u) = 0.
u(x
1
. x
2
. 0) = a(x
1
. x
2
).
We refer to the comment on Kru zkovs theorem which concerns the scalar
conservation laws in more than one space dimension. The initial function a
is bounded and integrable, and u is the entropy solution.
(1) As u C (R
t
; L
1
(R
2
)), we can speak of the integrable function u(t ) for
each value of t . Show that, for all t > 0 and almost all x
2
R, we have
_
R
u(x
1
. x
2
. t ) dx
1
=
_
R
a(x
1
. x
2
) dx
1
.
Denote that value by m(x
2
) .
(2) We recall that, for every measurable function F fromR
p
into R, the total
variation of F is
TV
p
(F) = sup
S
p1
lim
h0
1
[h[
_
R
p
[F(y h) F(y)[ dy.
show that, for all t > 0,
TV
2
(u(. t )) TV
1
(m).
(3) Compare with Exercise 2.19.
(4) Generalise to the spatial dimension d 2.
(5) Construct an example, with d = 2, f (s) =
1
2
s
2
and a(. x
2
) an odd func-
tion for every x
2
and such that m 0 (because of oddness); nevertheless
u(t ) should satisfy
lim
t
inf
TV
2
(u(t )) > 0.
Use could be made of N-waves.
3
Linear and quasi-linear systems
The object of this chapter is to derive the algebraic and geometrical properties
which ensure that the Cauchy problem for a rst order system of conservation
laws is well-posed. In fact, we consider two classes. First of all we consider the
quasi-linear systems of the rst order, which are of the form
t
u
d
=1
A
(u)
x
u = b(u). (3.1)
The vector eld b is dened and smooth on an open domain U R
n
. Similarly
the mappings u . A
(u) are dened and smooth on U, with values in the space

of matrices M
n
(R).
The second class, contained in the preceding, will be that of systems of conser-
vation laws
t
u
d
=1
f

(u) = b(u). (3.2)
A system of the form (3.2) is clearly quasi-linear, with A
(u) = d
u
f

(u), where
d
u
denotes differentiation with respect to u.
Let us consider the Cauchy problem for one or other of these systems:
u(x. 0) = u
0
(x. 0). (3.3)
If u
0
is a constant, the obvious solution is a function of t alone, which satises the
ordinary differential equation u
/
= b(u). Let us look at the case of a given initial
condition of the form u
0
= u
0
:
0
(x). As we wish that the solution depends
continuously on the given initial conditions, we pay attention to a solution of the
form u
(x. t ) = u(t ) :(x. t ) O(

2
) on a bounded time interval. The corrector
68
: is a solution of the linear problem
t
:
d
=1
A
(u(t ))
x
: = db(u(t )) :. (3.4)
:(x. 0) = u
0
(x). (3.5)
A necessary condition for the asymptotic expansion u
to be correct is certainly
that : exists! In fact, as the remainder of order
2
has to be determined among
other things with the help of :, it is important that : has sufcient smoothness, at
least that of :
0
(x). We begin, therefore, by considering the Cauchy problem for a
linear system of the rst order whose general coefcients depend on the time. The
right-hand side is the least important since we can make it as small as we please by
changing the time variable t .t . Thus we suppose that b 0.
3.1 Linear hyperbolic systems
We now therefore consider the following general system:
t
u
d
=1
A
(t )
x
u = 0. (3.6)
u(x. 0) = u
0
(x). (3.7)
where the matrices A
depend on t in a smooth manner.

Although it is possible to study the Cauchy problemfor (3.6) in a space of smooth
functions, for which the partial derivatives have the usual sense, it is simpler and
more general to consider the weak solutions. Aweak solution of (3.6) is a tempered
distribution u, that is to say an element of the dual of the Schwartz class (see below)
which satises the conditions
_
u.
t

d
=1
A
T
_
S
/
.S
_
R
d
u
0
(x)(x. 0) dx = 0.
S (R R). (3.8)
Since the Fourier transformF with respect to x of (3.6) leads to a linear ordinary
differential equation, the natural body of a study of the Cauchy problemis the space
(L
2
(R
d
))
n
or every other space which simply enables the denition of F and its
inverse, for example a Sobolev space H
s
(R
d
) =W
s.2
. We notice that the spaces
W
s. p
(R
d
) are in general inappropriate for F as F sends L
p
(R
d
) into L
q
(R
d
) if and
only if p
1
q
1
= 1, and p 2, with the result that an isomorphism from L
p
to its own dual is possible if and only if p =2. In the case of constant coefcients,
70 Linear and quasi-linear systems
we know in fact [4] that the Cauchy problem is not well-posed in L
p
for p ,= 2,
when the matrices A
do not commute with each other. Obviously in one space

dimension that obstruction does not take place.
Fourier analysis
The Fourier transformF is an isometry of L
2
(R) which is dened on the subspace
L
1
L
2
by the formula
F u() := (2)
n,2
_
R
d
e
ix
u(x) dx.
Its inverse is the conjugate transformation
F u() = (2)
n,2
_
R
d
e
ix
u(x) dx.
We shall use only one of the properties of differentiation (F
x
u)() = i
F u(),
which also furnishes a formula for

F . It follows that F is an isomorphism of
the Schwartz class S (R
d
), the space of functions dened on R
d
, of class C
and decreasing rapidly, along with all their derivatives (decreasing at innity more
rapidly than every non-zero rational fraction). By duality, the Fourier transfor-
mation extends to an isomorphism of the dual space S
/
(R
d
), via the Plancherel
formula F . u)
S
/
.S
:= .

F u)
S
. If t . u(. t ) is continuous in (0. T)
with values in L
2
(interpreting (3.6) in the sense of distributions) we can ap-
ply the operator F . We then have the equivalent differential system, for : :=
F u(. t ),
t
: = i A(. t ):. (3.9)
:(. 0) = :
0
() := F u
0
(). (3.10)
where A(. t ) :=
1d

(t ).
We thus express : with the help of the resolvent: :(. t ) = R(t. 0. ):
0
() where
R(. s; ) is the matrix solution of the following Cauchy problem:
d
dt
R(. s; ) = i A(. )R(. s; ).
R(s. s; ) = Id
n
.
Since F is an isometry, the Cauchy problem(3.6) is well-posed in L
2
if and only
if there exists a constant C
T
independent of u
0
and such that
sup
t (0.T)
|:(t )|
L
2 C
T
|:
0
|
L
2 .
But since :
0
. :(t ) is just a multiplication operator :
0
() . R(t. 0. ):(),
this is equivalent to saying that
sup
t (0.T)
R
d
|R(t. 0. )| C
T
. (3.11)
In this inequality, the constant C
T
depends on the matrix norm chosen, but the fact
that it is nite is independent of this. Making the change of variables (t. ) .
(t ,a. a), the system is transformed into
d
d
R = i A(. a)R.
whichshows that R(a. 0. ,a) exp(i A(. 0)) when a 0. We deduce there-
fore that a necessary condition for (3.11) is
sup
R
R
d
|exp(i A())| C
T
. (3.12)
where A() stands for the restriction of A to the initial time or, similarly, to any
other instant.
Denition 3.1.1 We say that the linear system with constant coefcients
t
u
1i d
A
u = 0 (3.13)
is hyperbolic if there exists C such that sup
R
|exp(i A())| C.
The rst important result is the following.
Theorem 3.1.2 For a linear system of the rst order with constant coefcients, the
Cauchy problem is well-posed in L
2
if and only if this system is hyperbolic. For a
hyperbolic system, being given u
0
L
2
(R
d
), there exists one and only one solution
of (3.6) in C (R; L
2
(R
d
)).
Proof From the preceding analysis, we see that the hyperbolicity ensures that the
Cauchy problem is well-posed in L
2
and more precisely that |u(t )|
L
2 C|u
0
|
L
2
for all t R, for R(t. 0. ) = exp(i A(t )). Let us show that in fact t .u(t ) is a
continuous map of R into R
d
. Now [:(. t )[ C[:
0
()[, which bounds [:[ above
by a square-integrable function independent of t . As t .:(. t ) is continuous, the
theorem of dominated convergence assures the continuity demanded.
Conversely, suppose that the Cauchyproblemis well-posedon(0. T), the solution
being of class L
2
. Then for t xed and non-zero, u
0
. u(t ) and thus :
0
.
:(t ) are continuous endomorphisms of L
2
. As the second is only a multiplication
operator by exp(it A()), we easily calculate its norm, which takes the value
sup
R
d |exp(it A())|. It must therefore be bounded.
Geometric conditions of hyperbolicity
It is not simple, a priori, to verify the property of hyperbolicity for a given system
since it demands the calculation of exponentials of matrices depending on d pa-
rameters. This calculation can only be carried out by the diagonalisation of each
matrix A(), by reason of the formula exp(PMP
1
) = P(exp M)P
1
. First of all,
hyperbolicity implies
sup
R
d
(exp(i A())) - .
where (M) denotes the spectral radius of a matrix M. But as
exp(i A(m)) = (exp(i A()))
m
for every integer m, it is equivalent to saying that (exp(i A())) =1 for all R
d
,
that is, since the eigenvalues of exp M are the exponentials of those of M, that the
spectrum SpA() of the matrices A() is real. In addition, if one of these matrices
possesses an eigenvalue of which the algebraic and geometrical multiplicities
differ one from the other, then there exist two non-zero vectors n and z such that
An = n and Az = z n. We then deduce that
e
it A()
z = e
it
(z it n).
which contradicts the boundedness condition (3.12). We have therefore
Lemma 3.1.3 If the system (3.13) is hyperbolic, then the matrix A() is diagonal-
isable with real eigenvalues, for all in R
d
.
Although the converse of this lemma turns out to be true (this is the so-called
Kreiss matrix theorem), we shall give two proofs of hyperbolicity under more re-
strictive (but rather natural) conditions. Let us look rst of all at the case d =1.
Writing A := A(1), we have A() = A. If A is diagonalisable with real eigenval-
ues, A =PDP
1
, we have exp(i A()) = P(exp(i D))P
1
. Now exp(i D) is
a diagonal matrix whose diagonal terms are the complex numbers e
i
of modulus
one where Sp(A), it is therefore bounded and the same is true of exp(i A()).
In the case d 2, we proceed in the same way, but the matrices P and D depend
on : exp(i A()) = P() exp(iD())P
1
(). The matrix D is homogeneous of
degree 1 with respect to and we can choose P to be homogeneous of degree 0.
Then
|exp(i A())| K()|exp(iD())|.
where K() := |P()| |P()
1
|. If the matrix A() is diagonalisable with real
eigenvalues, then again |exp(iD())| = 1 and so |exp(i A())| K(). From
this we have the sufcient condition
Proposition 3.1.4 We suppose that the matrices A() are diagonalisable with real
eigenvalues, uniformly with respect to , that is that .K() =|P()||P()
1
|
is bounded on R
d
. Then the system (3.13) is hyperbolic.
An essential application of this proposition is the following.
Denition 3.1.5 The system (3.13) is symmetrisable hyperbolic if there exists a
positive denite symmetric matrix S such that the matrices S
:= SA
are sym-
metric.
Theorem 3.1.6 If the system (3.13) is symmetrisable hyperbolic, then it is hyper-
bolic.
Proof Let S() :=
1d

. We have A() = S
1
S(). Let Y be the positive
symmetric square root of S
1
. As YS()Y is symmetric, it is diagonalisable in an
orthonormal basis, that is to say that there exists a matrix O() O
n
(R) such that
O()
1
YS()YO() is diagonal and real. Then we can choose P() =YO() and
we have K() K
0
:= |Y||Y
1
|.
Another favourable case, independent of the preceding one, is that of strictly hy-
perbolic systems.
Denition 3.1.7 We say that the system (3.6) is strictly hyperbolic if the matrices
A() are diagonalisable with real eigenvalues, with constant multiplicities when
ranges over R
d
{0].
It comes to the same thing to say that the eigenvalues are continuous functions on
R
d
{0], .
j
(), with
1
() -
2
() - -
r
().
Theorem 3.1.8 If the system (3.13) is strictly hyperbolic, then it is hyperbolic.
Proof The key point of the proof is a geometrical lemma, which uses only the
continuity of the mapping . A().
Lemma 3.1.9 If the matrices A() are diagonalisable with eigenvalues of multi-
plicities independent of for ,= 0, then the eigenspaces depend continuously
(and even analytically, but that is indifferent to us) on .
For all
0
,= 0, there thus exist a compact neighbourhood V(
0
) and a continuous
option, hence bounded, of P() on V(
0
). As the sphere S
d1
is compact, it is
covered by a nite number of such neighbourhoods, with the result that we can
choose a bounded option (but not necessarily continuous) of P on S
d1
, that is on
R
d
since P is homogeneous of degree zero with respect to .
It remains to prove the lemma. Let
0
,=0 and
m
be a sequence tending to
0
. The eigenvalues
j
() are continuous functions of the coefcients, thus of
. Let n
j
be the dimension of the sub-eigenspace associated with E
j
(). As the
grassmannian variety of the sub-spaces of dimension n
j
of R
n
is compact, the
sequence E
j
(
m
) takes a limiting value F
j
which is included, by continuity, in
E
j
(
0
). Their dimensions being the same, these two sub-spaces are equal.
Example 3.1.10 Let us consider the example of the model below, for which n =
d = 2:
u
t

_
1 0
0 1
_
u
x

_
0 1
1 0
_
u
y
= 0. (3.14)
We have
A() =
_
1

2
2

1
_
.
The eigenvalues are [[, that is to say that the speeds of propagation (see below)
take the values 1. They are independent of the direction, which is not the general
case but corresponds to an invariance of the system under the group O
2
(R).
Plane waves
The normalised eigenvalues c
j
() :=
j
(),[[ must be seen as the speeds of
propagation of plane waves in the direction for ,=0. There are two ways in
which to see that.
First of all, if u
0
L
2
(R
d
), the solution of the Cauchy problem is given formally
by
u(x. t ) = (2)
1
2
n
_
R
d
P()e
i(x I
2
t D())
n
0
() d.
where n
0
() := P()
1
:
0
(). Thus, u appears as aninnite sumof one-dimensional
solutions
(x. t ) . P()e
i(x I
2
t D())
n
0
().
These can be decomposed in their turn, using the column vectors r
j
() of P(),
which are the eigenvectors of A(), into plane waves of the form
(x. t ) .a
j
()e
i(xt
j
())
r
j
().
The second approach, more elementary, consists of verifying that, for all ,= 0
and every locally integrable function f , the plane wave
u(x. t ) := f (x t
j
())r
j
()
is a weak solution of (3.13). Since here u(x. t ) = u
0
(x c
j
()t ) where = ,[[
is a unit vector, the number c
j
() clearly plays the r ole of a speed of propagation.
Exercises
3.1 Show that every scalar equation (n = 1) is hyperbolic.
3.2 Show that if d = 1, every hyperbolic system is symmetrisable.
3.3 Assume that the matrices A
commute with each other: A
= A
.
(1) Show that (3.6) is hyperbolic if and only if each one-dimensional system
:
t
A
:
x
= 0 is hyperbolic.
(2) By a linear change of variables u . : := Pu, show that the system is
equivalent to n decoupled transport equations:
t
:
i
V
i

x
:
i
= 0.
3.4 Show that the system of Maxwells electromagnetic equations is hyperbolic.
Here n = 6. d = 3 and u is composed of two vector elds B and E. The
equations are
B
t
curl E = 0. (3.15)
E
t
c
2
curl B = 0. (3.16)
Calculate the speeds of propagation and determine which correspond to plane
waves of a physical nature, that is, which satisfy the constraint divB = 0.
3.5 We consider the linear system of isotropic elasticity of small deformations.
The unknown is the displacement y(x. t ) R
d
. The equations of the second
order are
2
y
i
t
2
= Ly
i

i
div y.
The parameters > 0. > 0 are the Youngs moduli of the material.
(1) Put the system into a rst order form with a constraint,
t
u
d
=1
A
u = 0.
d
=1
B
u = 0.
(2) Calculate the plane waves. Deduce that the system is strictly hyperbolic.
Calculate the speeds of propagation. Note: they are traditionally denoted
by c
S
- c
P
and correspond respectively to shear waves, in which the ma-
terial vibrates transversely to the direction of propagation, and to pressure
waves where the vibration is parallel to this propagation.
(3) Show that the system is symmetric hyperbolic in expressing the conser-
vation of mechanical energy. This is the sum of a kinetic term and of an
energy of deformation.
3.6 We suppose that u
0
H
s
(R
d
), that it to say that . (1 [
2
[)
1
2
s
:
0
() is
square-integrable. Show that the weak solution of a hyperbolic problem (3.6)
satises u C (R; H
s
(R
d
)) C
1
(R; H
s1
(R
d
)).
3.7 (1) Let R. Find a matrix M
such that u .u
where
u
(x. y. t ) := M
u(x cos y sin . x sin y cos . t )

preserves the set of solutions of (3.14).
(2) Show that it is not possible to choose the matrix of the change of basis
P() with the result that . P() is continuous on S
1
.
3.8 We assume that u
0
H
s
(R
d
) for s >0 sufciently large (see Exercise 3.6)
and we consider a symmetrisable hyperbolic system.
(1) Show that there exists a number M >0 such that, for all S
d1
and all
n R
n
, we have
[(S()n. n)[ M(Sn. n).
where (. ) denotes the usual scalar product in R
n
.
(2) Verify, for the solution of the Cauchy problem, the equality
t
(Su. u)
1d
(SA
u. u) = 0.
Fig. 3.1: The cone of dependence of a disk D(0. R).
(3) Deduce that, if u
0
is zero for [x[ - R, then u is zero in the interior of the
cone dened by t >0 and [x[ Mt - R (integrate the preceding formula
on the cone: see Fig. 3.1).
(4) Express this result in terms of a propagation phenomenon with nite
speed.
3.9 We consider a hyperbolic system for which n = d = 2.
(1) By a linear change of variable u . : := Pu, reduce to the case where
A
1
is a diagonal matrix.
(2) Show that if A
1
is of the form aI
2
. a R, the system (3.6) may be
reduced to the one-dimensional case, with a given initial value depending
on a parameter.
(3) We suppose now that A
1
is diagonal but is not of the form aI
2
. In calcu-
lating the characteristic polynomial of A
2
x A
1
, show that either A
2
is
diagonal or a
2
12
a
2
21
> 0.
(4) Show then that the system is symmetrisable.
3.10 We consider the system (3.6), where the matrices A
depend on the time t .

We suppose that at each instant, the systemis symmetrisable by a matrix S
0
(t )
which is of class C
1
with respect to t :
S
0
(t ) is symmetric and positive denite,
S(. t ) := S
0
(t )A(. t ) is symmetric.
(1) Show that (R
S
0
R)
t
= R
(dS
0
,dt )R, where R(t. 0. ) is the resolvent
considered above.
(2) Show that there exists a number c
T
> 0 such that, for all t [0. T] and
all R
d
, Tr(R
(dS
0
,dt )R) c
T
Tr(R
S
0
R).
(3) Deduce that there exists a number C
T
>0 such that, for all t [0. T] and
all R
d
. |R(. t )| C
T
.
The Cauchy problem for (3.6) is therefore well-posed in L
2
(R
d
).
3.11 We suppose that (3.6) is symmetrisable hyperbolic. Let B M
n
(R). We wish
to show that the Cauchy problem for the system
t
u
d
=1
A
(t )
x
u = Bu (3.17)
is well-posed in L
2
(R
d
). We denote by S(t ) the solution operator of (3.6),
u
0
. S(t )u
0
= u(t ) (see the preceding exercise for the construction of this
operator, an endomorphism of H
s
(R
d
) (for s 0).
(1) Let u
0
L
2
(R
d
) and f L
1
(R; L
2
(R
d
)). Show that the inhomogeneous
Cauchy problem
t
u
1d
A
(t )
x
u = Bf. (3.18)
u(x. 0) = u
0
(x) (3.19)
possesses a unique solution in C (R; L
2
(R
d
)), given by Duhamels formula
u(t ) = S(t )u
0
_
t
0
S(t s)Bf (s) ds.
We write u = T f .
(2) We construct a sequence (u
m
)
mN
by u
0
(x. t ) u
0
(x), and u
m1
= T u
m
.
Show that T restricted to the space L
1
(0. T; L
2
(R)) is a contraction
mapping provided that T >0 is sufciently small.
(3) Deduce that the sequence (u
m
)
mN
converges in C (0. T; L
2
(R
d
)) and that
its limit is a weak solution of (3.17) in the band R
d
(0. T).
(4) Making use of the fact that the number T does not depend on u
0
show
that (3.17) possesses a weak solution on R
d
R.
(5) Showthat the mappingu
0
.u is continuous in L
2
(R
d
) inC (0. T; L
2
(R
d
)),
u being the solution of (3.17).
(6) Show that there exists a constant C, depending only on S
0
and B, such
that
d
dt
_
R
d
(S
0
u. u) dx |B|
_
R
d
[u[
2
dx C
_
R
d
(S
0
u. u) dx.
(Do it rst of all for u
0
H
s
(R
d
) for s sufciently large, then deduce the
general case with the help of the preceding question).
(7) Deduce that the solution of (3.17) is unique (reduce to the case u
0
0,
then apply Gronwalls lemma).
3.2 Quasi-linear hyperbolic systems 79
3.2 Quasi-linear hyperbolic systems
We return to the case of quasi-linear systems, that is to say to systems of the form
(3.1). We have seen that a formal analysis of the stability of perturbations of small
amplitude, via an asymptotic development with respect to this amplitude, requires
the hyperbolicity of the linearised system. That condition is in fact far from being
sufcient, but as we have not found one which is truly satisfying, mathematicians
have for a long time adopted the following denition. We shall use the notation
A(; u) =
1d
(u)
and more generally P(; u). . . ., for the matrices having been dened in the study
of the linear case but which now depend on the state u of the system.
Denition 3.2.1 The quasi-linear system (3.1) is said to be hyperbolic if for all u,
the linear system
t
u
1d
A
( u)
x
u = 0
is hyperbolic, the matrices P(; u) and their inverses being bounded on every com-
pact set of S
d
U.
This denition does not assure us that the Cauchy problem for (3.1) is well-posed
(one may no longer apply Kreiss matrix theorem; much more, the well-posedness
is no longer a matter of matrices only), even in a space of smooth functions and
locally in time. Its popularity comes fromthe fact that it is invariant under the change
of unknown u .: = (u). If is a diffeomorphism of U into V , this change of
variable transforms a quasi-linear system into another quasi-linear system
t
:
1d
B
(:)
x
: = 0.
where the matrices B
are conjugate to the matrices A
:
B
((u)) = d(u) A
(u) (d(u))
1
.
In fact, if A(; u) = P(. u)D(. u)(P(. u))
1
, we diagonalise B(. u) by the ma-
trix d(u)P(. u) which is bounded on every compact set when P is.
However, other changes of the unknown eld (the dependent variables) can trans-
form a hyperbolic quasi-linear system into a non-hyperbolic quasi-linear system.
The basic example is the following, which is clearly hyperbolic in the sense of the
denition given above. We have n = 2, d = 1:
t
u
_
u
1
0
0 u
1
_
x
u = 0. (3.20)
We transform this system by :
1
= u
1
, :
2
=
x
u
2
and we obtain, on differentiating
the second equation of (3.20) with respect to x,
t
:
_
:
1
0
:
2
:
1
_
x
: = 0. (3.21)
whose matrix is no longer diagonalisable, except for :
2
= 0.
3.3 Conservative systems
The systems originating in physics or mechanics formin fact a much more restricted
class than those of the rst order quasi-linear systems. These are the systems of
conservation laws which can be written in the form
t
u
x
f

(u) = 0. (3.22)
where f

is a smooth vector eld dened on U. We can re-write such a system
under the quasi-linear form. We shall then have A
(u) = d f

(u) and A(. u) =
d( f )(u).
The conservation principle which is essential to dene the weak solutions beyond
the formation of the discontinuities is not preserved by the diffeomorphisms u .
: = (u) in general. And even when a diffeomorphism transforms (3.22) into
another conservative system :
t
div g(:) = 0, the notion of a weak solution will
be in general modied, which is unacceptable because, even in dimension d = 1,
the RankineHugoniot conditions [ f (u)] = [u] and [g((u))] = [(u)] are not
equivalent. There are notable exceptions. For example when f is linear, and more
generally if all the characteristic elds (see below) are linearly degenerate (idem).
For a general system, the only transformations which preserve the notion of a weak
solution are the afne functions u . Au b, because then g(:) = Af (A
1
(: b))
and [g(:)] = A[ f (u)] = A[u] = [:]. From which comes the importance of an
afne theory of the system of laws of conservation. One should consult the thesis
of B. S evennec [93] on this subject. The simplest result in this direction is that of
G. Boillat. For this statement we rst of all need a new concept.
Denition 3.3.1 A characteristic eld of a quasi-linear system of the form (3.1) is
a mapping (. u) .(. E) dened and smooth on an open set O of U, where is
3.3 Conservative systems 81
an eigenvalue of A(. u), of constant multiplicity, and E the associated eigenspace,
whose dimension is the multiplicity of .
We have thus excluded the case where is associated with a non-trivial Jordan form
in the decomposition into characteristic sub-spaces of the matrix A(. u). Clearly
.(. u) is homogeneous of degree 1. When there is a single spatial dimension
we set =1 and a characteristic eld is merely a mapping u . (. E). Another
essential notion is that of differential eigenform, that is to say of a left eigenvector
eld (. u) .l:
l(. u)(A(. u) (. u)I
n
) = 0.
Denition 3.3.2 A characteristic eld is said to be linearly degenerate on O if the
differential of is zero on E = Ker(A I
n
) when u ranges over O :
d
u
r 0. r Ker(A I
n
). u O .
Theorem 3.3.3 (Boillat [3]) Let us consider a system of conservation laws (3.22).
We suppose that A(. u) has an eigenvalue (. u) whose multiplicity m is a constant
greater than or equal to 2. Then the characteristic eld (. Ker (A I
n
)) is linearly
degenerate. In addition, ,= 0 being given, the afne sub-spaces uKer (A(. u)
(. u)I
n
) are the tangent spaces to a family of sub-manifolds of dimension m.
Obviously, the integral sub-manifolds mentioned in the theorem form a foliation
of the open set O called the characteristic foliation associated with . The charac-
teristic foliation depends only on the direction of but on neither its sense nor its
norm. If the multiplicity of has the value 1, then Ker (A I
n
) is generated by
a vector r(. u), with the result that the foliation still exists, formed by the integral
curves of the vector eld u .r.
Proof Let us x ,= 0. Let u .r be a smooth eld of eigenvectors on O . Since
m > 1, we can choose a second eld of eigenvectors u .s, smooth and linearly
independent of the rst at every point. Differentiating the relation (d
u
( f )
(u))r(u) 0 in the direction s we obtain
D
2
( f )(r. s) (d
u
s)r = (d f )d
u
r s.
Interchanging the r oles of r and s, we have also
D
2
( f )(s. r) (d
u
r)s = (d f )d
u
s r.
As D
2
f is a symmetric bilinear form, we can eliminate the term D
2
( f )(r. s)
between these two equalities. This gives
(d f ){r. s] = (d
u
s)r (d
u
r)s. (3.23)
where {r. s] denotes the Poisson bracket of the eld vectors r and s.
The right-hand side of equation (3.23) is a vector of Ker(d f ) with the result
that {r. s] Ker(d f )
2
=Ker(d f ), the second equality being due to the
equality of the algebraic and geometric multiplicities of . The set of eigenvector
elds associated with the eigenvalue is thus a Lie algebra. This property, called
the Frobenius integrability condition, ensures the existence of the foliation whose
afne spaces u Ker(A(. u) (. u)I
n
) are the tangent spaces.
Finally, again using (3.23), we nd the relation of linear dependence (d
u
s)r
(d
u
r)s = 0, which implies the nullity of the coefcients. For example, we have
d
u
r = 0. The characteristic eld is degenerate.
In the light of this theorem, we are led to a ner denition of hyperbolicity in the
case of a quasi-linear system. In addition to imposing that the matrices A(. u) are
diagonalisable on Rwith eigenvalues of constant multiplicities m
j
we shall demand,
when m
j
2, that the corresponding characteristic eld be linearly degenerate and
that the eigenvector elds form a Lie algebra. This now excludes the pathological
example (3.20) of the preceding section.
3.4 Entropies, convexity and hyperbolicity
Physical systems
Most of the systems arising in physics or mechanics are conservative systems and
admit a supplementary conservation law of the form E(u)
t
div
x
F(u) = 0 where
the time component E is a strictly convex function on U. The convexity makes
good sense here since it is an afne notion and the only group of transformations
of dependent variables u which we accept is the afne group. On the other hand,
care must be taken not to apply a non-linear change of variables, even in preserving
the conservative nature of the system, for the function : . E(
1
(:)) need not be
convex if E is.
Denition 3.4.1 We say that a real function u .E is an entropy of the system(3.1)
if there exists a mapping u .F(u) with values in R
d
, called the entropy ux, such
that every classical solution of (3.1) satises the equality E(u)
t
div
x
F(u) = 0.
The entropyentropy-ux pairs are thus the solutions of the linear rst order equa-
tions in U,
F
u
j
=
1i n
a
i j
E
u
i
. 1 j n. 1 d. (3.24)
The entropies and their convexity have an essential r ole in the theory of hyper-
bolic systems of conservation laws. In particular, the mere convexity assures the
hyperbolicity.
Theorem3.4.2 (26, 35) If a conservative system(3.22), whose state u(x. t ) takes its
values in a convex domain U, possesses a strictly convex entropy in the sense that
D
2
u
E is positive denite at every point, then matrices A(. u) are symmetrisable:
there exist positive denite symmetric matrices S(u) (in fact S(u) = D
2
u
E) such
that the matrices SA(. u) are symmetric.
From Theorem 3.1.6, such a system is thus hyperbolic, strictly hyperbolic where
the eigenvalues are of constant multiplicities. We thus shall adopt the following
denition.
Denition 3.4.3 A physical system is a system of conservation laws whose state
u(x. t ) takes its values in a convex domain U of R
n
and which possesses a strongly
convex entropy on U.
Proof of theorem
We introduce the conjugate convex function E
(q) := sup
uU
(quE(u)), dened
on the range of d
u
E, and we make the change of variables q := d
u
E(u) whose
inverse is u = d
q
E
(q). We have E
(q) = q u E(u). The matrix S(u) = D

2
E(u)
is positive denite symmetric and we have Su
t
= q
t
.
We rewrite the equations (3.24):
F
u
j
=
1i n
q
i
f

i
u
j
.
Writing g(q) = f (u(q)), we have also
f

i
u
j
=
1kn
g
i
q
k
q
k
u
j
=
1kn
g
i
q
k
2
E
u
j
u
k
.
and, similarly, with H(q) := F(u(q)),
F
u
j
=
1kn
H
q
k
q
k
u
j
=
1kn
H
q
k
2
E
u
j
u
k
.
The equation which governs the entropies and their uxes can thus be written
Sd
q
H = S
1i n
q
i
d
q
g
i
.
Since S is invertible, this becomes d
q
H =
1i n
q
i
d
q
g
i
= d
q
(
1i n
q
i
g
i
)g.
Finally, we have
g
a
k
=
h
q
k
.
where
h
=
_

1i n
E
u
i
f

i
F
_
u.
The system (3.22) thus has the equivalent form (even when this concerns the weak
solutions)
t
(d
q
E
) div
x
(d
q
h) = 0. (3.25)
Finally, in quasi-linear form, for the classical solutions, it is symmetric:
S
1
t
q
1d
D
2
h
q = 0.
In particular, SA
= S(D
2
h
)S is symmetric.
Exercises
3.12 For a hyperbolic linear systemu
t
Au
x
= 0, nd all the entropies. Determine
those which are convex.
3.13 For a decoupled system of scalar conservation laws
t
u
i

x
f
i
(u
i
) = 0,
1 i n, nd all the entropies and determine those which are convex.
3.14 Let H : U R be a smooth function. Find a non-trivial entropy (i.e., non-
afne) for the system
t
u
i

x
H
u
i
= 0. 1 i n.
3.15 Let U = (0. ) R
n1
and H : U R be a smooth function. Find a
list of entropies of the form E
g
(u) = E
0
(u)g(q
1
. . . . . q
n1
), parametrised by
smooth functions g of n 1 variables, for the Keytz and Kranzer system:
t
u
i

x
(H(u)u
i
) = 0.
3.16 (Converse to Theorem 3.3.3) Let u
t
f (u)
x
= 0 be a strictly hyperbolic
systemwhose one eigenvalue is linearlydegenerate. Let : := (u. z) UR
be new dependent variables. We consider the augmented system:
t
g(:)
x
=
0, dened by
u
t
f (u)
x
= 0.
z
t
((u)z)
x
= 0.
Show that this system is hyperbolic and has the same propagation speeds as
the preceding system, the multiplicity of being augmented by unity.
3.17 This problem occurs in spatial dimension d = 1. We suppose that the eigen-
values of d f (u) are real and strictly positive for all u U and that f is
proper, that is to say that lim
d(u;U)0
[ f (u)[ = .
(1) Show that the mapping u . : := f (u) is invertible from U into R
n
.
We write g = f
1
. (Optional question, alternatively pass directly to the
following question.)
(2) Using this change of dependent variables, we write G(:) := F(u) and
H(:) := E(u). Show that d
:
G(:) = d
u
E(u).
(3) Show that G is an entropy of ux H, of the system:
s
(g(:))
y
= 0, and
that G is strictly convex if and only if E is strictly convex. Hint: Verify
that D
2
:
G = D
2
u
E d
:
g and deduce that the list of signs of eigenvalues of
dg is equal to the signature of D
2
:
G if D
2
u
E > 0.
(4) Deduce that the systemis hyperbolic in the spatial direction x, that the no-
tions of weak and entropy solutions are the same, that they respectively oc-
cur inRR
witht for time variable, or inR
Rwith x for time variable.

3.18 We consider gas dynamics in dimension 1 in its lagrangian representation
:
t
= u
x
.
u
t
( p(:. e))
x
= 0.
_
e
1
2
u
2
_
t
(up)
x
= 0.
We denote by S(:. e) a smooth function such that S
:
= pS
e
and S
e
> 0. We
put T = S
1
e
.
(1) Show that the system is hyperbolic if and only if pp
e
p
:
> 0. We shall
then write c(:. e) =
( pp
e
p
:
).
(2) Show that for every numerical function g, E = g S is an entropy.
(3) We dene the differential form = p d: de = TdS. Show that
T
2
D
2
E = (g
//
T
e
g
/
)
2
Tg
/
(c
2
d:
2
2p
e
d: du
2
).
where D
2
E is the hessian form of E in the variables (:. u. := e
1
2
u
2
).
(4) Deduce that E is a convex entropy (with respect to (:. u. e
1
2
u
2
)) if and
only if
i. g
/
0,
ii. c
2
g
//
T
2
( p
:
S
ee
p
e
S
:e
)g
/
.
(5) For a perfect gas (P(:. e) = ( 1)e,: where > 1 is a constant), we
can choose T = e and S = ( 1) log : log e. Show that E is convex
if and only if g
/
0 and g
//
g
/
0. In particular, S is itself a convex
entropy.
3.19 We keep the notation of the preceding exercise. The aim of the present one
is to determine all the entropies of gas dynamics in lagrangian coordinates in
dimension 1. Let E be a general entropy and F its ux.
(1) Showthat p and S are independent functions. Henceforth, we shall express
E and F as functions of (u. p. S).
(2) Write down the equations satised by the pair (E. F). Show that E de-
composes in the form E = ( p. S) a( p. u).
(3) We suppose that c and p are two independent functions, that is to say
that c
S
,= 0. Show that
p
c
pS
,(2c
S
) = a
p
and deduce that we can
choose to decompose E into the sum E = ( p. S) a(u) and that then
F is of the form pa
/
(u) h( p).
(4) Show that a
//
is a constant. Deduce that E is a linear combination of two
entropies, one which we knewalready and an entropy which depends only
on ( p. S).
(5) We are therefore led to set up the list of entropies of the form E( p. S).
Showthat then F depends only on u and is afne. Again, using an entropy
already known, this leads to the case F 0.
(6) Show that then E is of the form g S.
(7) In the (non-realistic) case where c is a function of p alone, show that
the system decouples, at least for smooth solutions, into two independent
systems, one governing S, the other governing the pair (u. p). This latter,
consisting of two equations only, possesses many entropies as we shall
see in Chapter 9, those evidently not being of the form g S.
3.5 Weak solutions and entropy solutions
The hyperbolic quasi-linear systems having a complexity at least as large (it is in
fact greater) as that of scalar equations, classical solutions only exist in general
during a nite time, after which they give place to less smooth solutions, typically
bounded measurable ones. Those satisfy partial differential equations in the sense
of distributions, which can only be written properly for systems of conservation
laws (in fact a product A
u does not have a sense for u L
(
x.t
)).
Without repeating the analysis made in the preceding chapter, we dene a notion
of weak solution which translates well that which a conservation law wants to
communicate to a physical level when u is piecewise continuous.
Denition 3.5.1 Let be an open set of R
d1
and u L
()
n
. We say that u is a
weak solution of (3.2) in , if for all + D()
n
, we have
_ _

_
u
t
+
1d
f

(u)
x
+b(u) +
_
dx dt = 0.
We note that we have takenvector-valuedtest functions. Bychoosing+ = (0. . . . . 0.
j
. 0. . . . . 0)
T
where
j
ranges over D() and j over {1. . . . . n], this reduces to
writing that (u
j
. f
1
j
(u). . . . . f
d
j
(u)) satises the j th conservation law in the sense
of distributions. For the Cauchy problem, we have
Denition 3.5.2 Let T be a positive real number, u
0
L
(R
d
)
n
and u L
(R
d
(0. T))
n
. We say that u is a weak solution of the Cauchy problem
t
u
1d
f

(u) = b(u). (x. t ) R
d
(0. T).
u
0
(x. 0) = u
0
(x). x R
d
.
_
_
_
(3.26)
if, for all + D(R
d
(.T))
n
, we have
_ _
R
d
(0.T)
_
u
t
+
1d
f

(u)
x
+b(u) +
_
dx dt
_
R
d
u
0
(x) +(x. 0) dx = 0.
However, as in the scalar case, the class of weak solutions is not appropriate because
the solution of the Cauchy problem is not in general unique, whereas the models
considered are conceived in a deterministic setting. We thus must introduce a new
admissibilitycriteriontoselect, fromall weaksolutions, that whichis stable fromthe
physical or mathematical point of view, hoping that there exists only one. The only
criterion of general power, whose application is not restricted to piecewise smooth
solutions, is Laxs entropy condition, which, for physical systems, can be written:
Denition 3.5.3 We consider a physical systemwhose strongly convex entropy and
its ux are denoted by E and F. Being given u and u
0
as above, u being a weak
solution of the Cauchy problem, we say that u satises Laxs entropy condition if,
for all D
(R
d
(. T)), we have
_ _
R
d
(0.T)
(E(u)
t
F(u)
x
dE(u) b(u)) dx dt
_
R
d
E(u
0
(x))(x. 0)dx 0.
The entropy condition implies, when we take only test functions with compact
support in R
d
(0. T), the inequality (in the sense of distributions)
t
E(u) div
x
F(u) 0.
As we have seen in the scalar case (see the exercise on the N-wave), the entropy
condition is, in general, strictly more precise than this single inequality.
The above denitions are written in the most general framework, but the hypoth-
esis u L
can often be weaker. For example, in the linear case, we know that for
the majority of systems, the Cauchy problem is not well-posed in L
, but that it is
in L
2
loc
. Natural conditions are to suppose that u and E(u) are in C ((0. T); L
1
loc
(R
d
))
and f (u) L
1
loc
(R
d
(0. T)). However, without the growth of u at innity being
controlled, there is a risk of an unavoidable blow-up in nite time of the entropy
solution if, because of the non-linearity, a propagation speed is unbounded. It is
thus prudent to restrict the study of the Cauchy problem to solutions satisfying
u C ((0. T); L
1
loc
(R
d
)) L
(R
d1
).
The RankineHugoniot condition
We are now going to interpret the weak formulation for a discontinuous but piece-
wise smooth solution. To be precise, we consider an open set of R
d1
which a
regular hypersurface Y separates into two connected components
and
. The
eld of unit vectors normal to Y and directed towards
is denoted by . The eld

of unit vectors normal to
and pointing outwards is denoted by
. Along Y,
we have
= =
(see Fig. 3.2). We assume that u is a function dened on

with values in U whose restrictions to
and
are of class C
1
and can be
extended by continuity to Y. Their traces on Y are denoted by u
and u
; u is
genuinely discontinuous as long as u
,= u
.
Fig. 3.2: Surface of discontinuity and unit normal.
Let us suppose that u is a weak solution of (3.2) in . Then for every test function
+ D()
n
, using Greens formula we have that
0 =
_ _
_
u
t
+
1d
f

(u)
x
+b(u) +
_
dx dt
=
_
_ _
_ _
_
+
_
b(u) u
t

1d
f

(u)
_
dx dt
0
u
1d
f

(u)
_
+ds(x. t )
0
u
1d
f

(u)
_
+ds(x. t ).
When + ranges over D
), we deduce from
0 =
_ _
+
_
b(u) u
1d
f

(u)
_
dx dt.
that the conservation law holds at each point of
, because b(u) u
t
1d

x
f

(u) is continuous on
. Similarly in
. Finally the integrals on
and on
are zero for every test function in the above formula. It only remains
to show that the boundary integrals on
and
are zero. These simplify for

two reasons. First of all because +is zero on , with the result that these integrals
reduce to the domain Y. Then, because on Y,
. Finally, with the usual

notation [u] = u
,
0 =
_
Y
_
0
[u]
1d
[ f

(u)]
_
+ds(x. t ).
When +ranges over D()
n
, the traces of +on Y run through a sub-space dense
in C
1
(Y). Since
0
u
1d

f

(u) is continuous on Y, we therefore obtain
at each point the RankineHugoniot condition:
0
[u]
1d
[ f

(u)] = 0. (3.27)
Conversely, if u is a classical solution of (3.2) in
and
and if u satises
the RankineHugoniot condition along Y, the same calculation, carried out in the
reverse order, shows that u is a weak solution of (3.2) in .
Let M
be the Lipschitz constant of f

on the interval with extremities u
and
u
. We deduce from (3.27) the inequality

[
0
[ |[u]|
1d
[M
[ |[u]|.
This shows that, if u is genuinely discontinuous, then [
0
[

1d
[M
[. As
is a unit vector, it follows that (
1
. . . . .
d
) does not vanish: the hypersurface Y
is never tangent to the horizontal space {0] R
d
, it is a space-like hypersurface.
As in the one-dimensional case, we introduce a unit vector
n =
(
1
. . . . .
d
)
[[
. [[ =
_
_
2
1

2
d
_
.
and a number
V =

0
[[
.
The eld n is a eld of unit vectors normal to the section Y
t
= Y ({t ] R
d
) and
V is the normal speed of the displacement of Y
t
with respect to the time.
Rewriting the RankineHugoniot condition with the help of V and of n, we have
n [ f (u)] = V[u]. (3.28)
The above formula is vectorial. There is no ambiguity in the scalar product
between the vector n and the tensor [ f (u)] as the dimensions of these, d and
p, are in general distinct. Since n is a unit vector, we observe that the speed of
propagation of a discontinuity is dominated by the Lipschitz constant of f on the
interval [u
. u
], which conrms the general idea that the hyperbolic systems are
associated with phenomena of propagation with nite speeds.
In what concerns Laxs entropy condition, the same calculation as above, carried
out with positive test functions, shows that a weak solution u of (3.2) is an entropy
solution if and only if
n [F(u)] V[E(u)]. (3.29)
Note that the signicance of this inequality does not depend on the direction of
n. In fact, if we replace n by n this results in interchanging
and
, hence
replacing [E(u)] by [E(u)] and [F(u)] by [F(u)].
Reversibility
If u is a weak solution of (3.2), then :(x. t ) := u(x. t ) is also a weak solution of
the system :
t

1d

x
f

(:) = 0. On the other hand, in conserving the same
eld of unit vectors n, the speed V and the ux F change sign. It follows that u
and : cannot satisfy their entropy conditions simultaneously unless the inequality
(3.29) is an equality. Thus as long as (3.29) is strict, the solution u is irreversible.
3.6 Local existence of smooth solutions
The method of characteristics allowed us to showthe existence of a smooth solution
in a band (0. T) R for a scalar equation when the given initial condition is itself
smooth. This result remains true for sufciently general systems, but as the method
of characteristics is not transposable to this case,
1
we must turn back to the energy
estimates inthe Sobolevspaces H
s
. Bythis method, we cantreat onlysymmetrisable
systems. The regularity demanded for the given initial condition grows with the
dimension. Typically, we need to show that if u H
s
(R
d
), then the non-linear
terms of the form g(u)
x
u are bounded. From the Sobolev injection theorems and
the GagliardoNirenberg inequality, this reduces to requiring that s >1
1
2
d. The
following theorem expresses that the Cauchy problem for a symmetrisable system
is locally well-posed for s >1
1
2
d [28].
Theorem 3.6.1 (L. G arding, J. Leray) Let s be a real number, s > 1
1
2
d.
Let U
1
be an open set relatively compact in U and u
0
H
s
(R
d
) with values
in U
1
.
Then there exists a time T > 0 such that the symmetric hyperbolic system
S
0
(u)
t
u
1d
S
(u)
x
u = b(u)
has a classical solution u C
1
([0. T] R
d
) satisfying the initial condition
u(x. 0) = u
0
(x).
In addition, u C ([0. T]; H
s
(R
d
)) C
1
([0. T]; H
s1
(R
d
)) and this solution is
unique.
Remark The time T obtained in the proof of the theorem depends a priori on
|u
0
|
s
, on U
1
and on the smooth functions S
0
, S
and b dened on U. When s is

an integer, the norm on H
s
(R
d
) is dened classically by
|:|
s
:=
_

[ [s
_
R
d
[D
:[
2
dx
_1
2
.
1
In fact, it remains effective in dimension d = 1, even for systems. See a proof in Courant and Hilbert [12],
pp. 4768.
where = (
1
. . . . .
d
) denotes a positive multi-integer of length [ [ =
1

d
and D
is the differential operator

_

x
1
_
1

_

x
d
_
d
.
Indications about the proof
The proof of Theorem3.6.1 makes use of an iterative scheme in which each iteration
consists of solving a linear system with variable coefcients but of class C
.
We choose for this a sequence (u
k
0
)
k0
of functions of class C
such that the

series

k
|u
k1
0
u
k
0
|
s
converges, the limit of the sequence being u
0
. Since, by
hypothesis, H
s
(R
d
) is included in C
1
(R
d
), we may suppose that each element of
this sequence has values in U
2
, a neighbourhood of U
1
relatively compact in U.
If u
k
C
([0. T
k
] R
d
) takes its values in U, the linear system
S
0
(u
k
)
t
u
k1
1d
S
(u
k
)
x
u
k1
= b(u
k
).
u
k1
(x. 0) = u
k
0
(x)
_
_
(3.30)
makes sense and possesses a solution of class C
in the band [0. T

k
]R
d
. This is a
consequence of the linear theory (which we shall not develop in this work because
of space constraints). We call T
k1
T
k
, the maximal time in which u
k1
takes its
values in U.
The aim of these estimates is two-fold: on the one hand to control the distance
of u
k
(x. t ) from the boundary of U, since the coefcients of the system can reach
singular values at the boundary of this domain (leading for example to an innite
propagation speed), on the other hand to control the norm of u
k
in C
1
(which can
only be done by passing through H
s
) so as to be able to pass to the limit in the
products S
0
(u
k
)
t
u
k1
, etc. In both cases, it is obviously essential to show that the
sequence of times of existence T
k
is bounded below by a number T > 0, which is
the number T stated in the theorem.
As frequently happens in the study of non-linear (and also linear) partial differ-
ential equations, the estimates for the scheme are adapted from an a priori estimate
obtained on the equation we seek to solve, when we assume that it possesses a
solution which is sufciently smooth. It is there that the deep idea remains, the rest
is essentially a matter of technique. For simplicity, we shall suppose that U = R
d
,
which reduces the rst estimate to a control of [u
k
[
, the norm of u
k
in L
, which
itself is bounded by |u
k
|
s.T
:= sup
0t T
|u
k
(t )|
s
. Finally, there is only a single im-
portant estimate, that of |u
k
|
s.T
. We shall assume also that s is an integer, so that we
shall avoid having to manipulate with fractional derivatives in the energy estimates.
In fact, in the case of the iterative scheme, a supplementary difculty appears, it
must be shown that the whole sequence (u
k
)
k0
converges. For that, we shall rst
establish a bound on |u
k1
u
k
|
0.T
by using that on |u
k
|
s.T
.
A priori estimate of u
s,T
As we have said above, we work directly on a smooth solution u of the problem to
be solved. The calculations carried out below do not constitute a proof of Theorem
3.6.1. In addition, the right-hand side b(u) plays a minor r ole in the theory and we
shall suppose it to be identically zero.
For an integer k 0, let us denote by :
k
the list of derivatives of u of order
k:
:
k
= (D
u)
[ [=k
.
For a monomial
M(:
1
. . . . . :
k
) =
k
j =1
:
j
j
.
we denote its weight by
p(M) =
k
j =1
j [
j
[.
Differentiating the system k times with respect to the spatial variables, we obtain
a system, linear with respect to derivatives of higher order:
A
0
(u)
t
:
k

1d
A
(u)
x
:
k
= P(u; :
1
. . . . . :
k
). (3.31)
where P(u; :
1
. . . . . :
k
) is a polynomial homogeneous in weight, of weight k 1.
In the energy method we use as a matter of fact a norm equivalent to the usual norm
on (L
2
)
n
, which depends on the solution and on the time, namely
[n(t )] :=
_
_
R
d
n
A
0
(u(t ))ndx
_1
2
.
So as not to overburden the notation, we have chosen not to mention the depen-
dence of this norm on u(t ), but we hope that the context will recall it clearly.
The equivalence of [] and the usual norm | |
0
of (L
2
)
n
is not in general uni-
form with respect to u, in any case if A
0
or A
1
0
is not bounded as a func-
tion of u. Precisely, there exists an increasing numerical function C 1, such
that
C([u(t )[
)
1
|n|
0
[n] C([u(t )[
)|n|
0
.
Taking the scalar product of (3.31) with :
k
, we obtain
t
_
1
2
:
k
A
0
(u):
k
_
1d
_
1
2
:
k
A
(u):
k
_
= :
k
P
1
2
:
k
_
t
A
0
(u)
1d
(u)
_
:
k
= Q(u; :
1
. . . . . :
k
) (3.32)
where Q(u; . . .) is a homogeneous polynomial in weight, of weight 2k 1.
Integrating (3.32) over a ball of radius R and admitting that :
k
tends to zero at
innity sufciently fast that the boundary integrals of :
k
A
(u):
k
tend to zero when
R tends to innity,
2
we deduce that
d
dt
_
1
2
[:
k
]
2
_
=
_
R
d
Q(u; :
1
. . . . . :
k
) dx. (3.33)
Let us for the moment accept the following lemma.
Lemma 3.6.2 If Q(u; :
1
. . . . . :
k
) is a polynomial, homogeneous in weight with
respect to :, of weight 2k 1, then there exists a numerical function C
k
such that,
for all u H
k
(R
d
)
n
we have
_
R
d
Q
_
u; d
x
u. . . . . D
k
x
u
_
dx C
k
([u[
. [d
x
u[
)
_
_
D
k
x
u
_
_
2
0
.
Applying the lemma to the formula (3.33), then summing from k = 0 to k = s, we
obtain
d
dt
_
1
2
[u]
2
s
_
=
_
max
0ks
C
k
_
|u|
2
s
. (3.34)
where we have dened
[n]
s
:=
_

0ks
_
D
k
x
n
_
2
_1
2
.
2
Each approximation u
k
0
to the given initial function u
0
is with compact support, with the result that the approx-
imate solution u
k
is with compact support with respect to x. In practice, the functions :
k
are therefore with
compact support.
The expression []
s
is a norm on H
s
(R
d
)
n
, equivalent to the norm | |
s
but this
equivalence depends on u(t ) in the same manner as for []:
C([u(t )[
)
1
|n| [n]
s
C([u(t )[
)|n|.
We can thus simplify the inequality (3.34), to reduce it to
d
dt
[u] c
1
([u[
. [d
x
u[
)|u|
s
. (3.35)
where c
1
is an explicit numerical function.
Integrating (3.35) from 0 to t , we nd that
[u(t )]
s

_
t
0
c
1
([u()[
. [d
x
u()[
)|u()|
s
d [u
0
]
s
.
that is to say,
|u(t )|
s
C([u(t )[
__
t
0
c
1
([u()[
. [d
x
u()[
)|u()|
s
d [u
0
]
s
_
. (3.36)
This inequality is more precise than we need immediately, but it will serve us in
the sequel to establish a characterisation of the maximal time of existence of the
classical solution.
For the moment, we make use of a rough upper bound, which expresses that
H
s
(R
d
) is included in C
1
(R
d
); let [u[
[d
x
u[
c
2
|u|
s
, where c
2
is a constant.
From (3.36) we then derive
|u(t )|
s
C(c
2
|u(t )|
s
)
__
t
0
c
3
(|u()|
s
)|u()|
s
d [u
0
]
s
_
. (3.37)
where c
3
is an explicit numerical function.
Let us introduce the numbers R := C(c
2
|u
0
|
s
)[u
0
]
s
and c
4
, the supremum of
the expression C(c
2
z)c
3
(z)z when z ranges over the interval [0. R 1]. We have
|u
0
|
s
R. The inequality (3.37) then ensures that |u(t )| R 1 provided that
0 t T where T := R,c
4
.
Lemma 3.6.3 There exist a time T > 0 and a real number L > 0 such that every
smooth solution of the Cauchy problem satises
sup
0t T
|u(t )|
s
L.
The numbers L and T depend both on the system considered and on the initial
norm |u
0
|
s
, s > 1
1
2
d.
Corollary 3.6.4 With the notation of the preceding lemma, there exists a number
L
1
such that every regular solution of the Cauchy problem satises
sup
0t T
_
_
_
_
u
t
_
_
_
_
s1
L
1
.
Proof We recall the formula (3.31) for k s 1, which shows that
D
k
x
(u
t
) = A
0
(u)
1
_
P
k

1d
A
:
k
_
.
The same calculationwhichpreviouslyshowedthat A
1
0
P
k
is boundedin L
(0.T;
L
2
(R
d
)) is still valid and even trivial for A
1
0
A
:
k
.
Proof of Lemma 3.6.2
The proof of this lemma is based on the GagliardoNirenberg inequality. If r is a
positive real number, i an integer between 0 and r and if z belongs to L
H
r
,
then D
i
x
z L
2r,i
with
D
i
x
z
2r,i
C
i.r
[z[
1i ,r
|z|
i ,r
r
. (3.38)
where [[
q
denotes the usual normof L
q
. Applying this inequality to :
1
and i = j 1
for j r 1, we have
[:
j
[
2r,( j 1)
C
j 1.r
[:
1
[
1( j 1),r
|u|
( j 1),r
r1
.
Thus, for u W
1.
H
k
. k j , we have :
j
L
p
j
for all p
j
comprised
between 2 and 2(k 1),( j 1). A monomial of the form
Q :=
1j k
:
j
j
.
of weight 2k 1, thus belongs to L
p
for p satisfying a p b, where
1
a
=
1
2
j
[
j
[.
1
b
=
1
2
j
j 1
k 1
[
j
[.
In addition, we have
[:
j
[
p
j
C[:
1
[
12,p
j
|u|
2,p
j
k
.
We thus have [Q[
p
C[:
1
[
|u|
k
, where
:=
j
2
p
j
[
j
[ =
2
p
. :=
j
[
j
[ .
The lemma then comes from the inequalities a 1 b, which we prove now.
We have
1j k
[
j
[
1j k
j
k
[
j
[ = 2
1
k
.
which indicates that
1j k
[
j
[ 3 (because this is an integer). We deduce that
a 2,3, as well as b 1 (which achieves the proof of the lemma) by reason of
the formula
1
b
= 1
1
2(k 1)
_
3
[
j
[
_
.
Convergence of the iterative scheme
Returning to the iterative scheme, we shall accept that the a priori estimates es-
tablished in 3.6 remain valid for the approximate solutions introduced there, even
if it entails that the time T of existence common to all the solutions u
m
is a little
smaller (but, however, strictly positive). There are thus a time T
1
and a number R
1
such that, for all m 1 with s > 1
1
2
d, we have
sup
1t T
1
|u
m
(t )|
s
R
1
. (3.39)
sup
0t T
1
|
t
u
m
(t )|
s1
R
1
. (3.40)
We are going rst to show the convergence of the iterative scheme in L
2
(R
d
) on
a time interval eventually smaller, then we conclude in H
r
(R
d
) for all 0 r - s
by interpolation. For a start, let us dene the difference z
m
:= u
m1
u
m
and form
the difference of two successive equations of the scheme:
A
0
(u
m
)
t
z
m
1d
A
(u
m
)
x
z
m
= F
m
. (3.41)
where
F
m
= (A
0
(u
m1
) A
0
(u
m
))
t
u
m
((A
(u
m1
) A
(u
m
))
x
u
m
)
= R(u
m1
. u
m
. d
t.x
u
m
. z
m1
).
R being linear with respect to its last argument because of Taylors formula (mean
value theorem). Thus
[F
m
[
2
C(R
1
)[z
m1
[
2
.
Multiplying (3.41) by z
m
, it becomes
t
_
1
2
z
m
A
0
(u
m
)z
m
_
_
1
2
z
m
A
(u
m
)z
m
_
= z
m
F
m

1
2
z
m
(
t
A
0
(u
m
)
(u
m
))z
m
.
Integrating again over R
d
and assuming that z
m
tends to zero at innity rapidly
enough for the integrals of
x
(z
m
A
(u)z
m
) to be null (same remark as previously),
it becomes, for 0 t T
1
,
d
dt
_
R
d
z
m
A
0
(u)z
m
dx C(R
1
)[z
m
[
2
[z
m1
[
2
[
t
A
0
(u
m
)
(u
m
)[
[z
m
[
2
2
C
1
(R
1
)[z
m
][z
m1
] C
2
(R
1
)[z
m
]
2
.
which immediately reduces to
2
d
dt
[z
m
] C
1
(R
1
)[z
m1
] C
2
(R
1
)[z
m
].
Integrating from 0 to T
T
1
and writing y
m
:= sup
0t T
[z
m
(t )], we have
y
m
y
m1
m
. (3.42)
where = C
2
(R
1
)T
e
C
1
(R
1
)T
and
m
= e
C
1
T
[z
m
(0)]. We then choose T
to be
such that 0 - - 1; this is possible and we obtain
m
y
m

1
1
m
. (3.43)
Lemma 3.6.5 The sequence (
m
)
m0
has a nite sum.
Proof Since u
0
H
s
with s > 1
1
2
d, we have u
0
C
1
. We choose u
m
0
= u
0
j
m
,
the convolutionproduct of u
0
witha smoothingfunction j
m
(x) := 2
md
j (2
m
x) where
j D(R
d
) and
_
R
d j dx = 1. We have
_
R
d ( j
1
j
0
) dx = 0 with the result that
we can write j
1
j
0
in the form divp, p being of class C
and with compact

support. Let p
m
(x) = 2
(m1)(d1)
p(2
m1
x). We have j
m
j
m1
= div p
m
and
[ p
m
[
1
= 2
m
C. Thus
z
m
(0) = p
m
d
x
u
0
.
[z
m
(0)[
2
[ p
m
[
1
[d
x
u
0
[
2
[ p
m
[
1
|u
0
|
1
2
m
|u
0
|
1
2
m
|u
0
|
s
.
which shows clearly that the sequence has a nite sum.
We deduce from the lemma and (3.43) that the sequence (y
m
)
m0
equally has a
nite sum, that is to say that u
m
converges at least in L
(0. T
; L
2
(R
d
)) since the
norms [] and [ [
2
are equivalent on L
2
(R
d
) uniformly for t varying from 0 to T
.
If u is the limit of this sequence, then u L
(0. T
; L
2
(R
d
)) by Fatous lemma. In
addition by an interpolation lemma between L
2
= H
0
and H
s
(see [1]), we have
for all 0 r s
|u u
m
|
r
[u u
m
[
1r,s
2
|u u
m
|
r,s
.
the right-hand side of which tends to zero fromthe preceding argument and Lemma
3.6.2. Thus, the sequence (u
m
)
m0
tends to u in L
(0. T
; H
r
(R
d
)) for all r - s.
Finally, the convergence of the equations of the iterative scheme takes place, in
a uniform manner, with the result that u is clearly a regular solution of the Cauchy
problem.
Remarks (1) In fact, the approximate solutions are continuous with respect to the
time with values in H
s1
, hence with values in H
r
for all r - s (again the argument
by interpolation). In the above results we can thus replace L
(0. T
; H
r
(R
d
)) by
C (0. T
; H
r
(R
d
)).
(2) As in addition u L
(0. T
; H
s
(R
d
)), we deduce that in fact, u is continuous
withrespect tothe time, withvalues in H
s
equippedwithits weaktopology. Showing
nally, by the same type of estimates as those already used, that t . [u(t )]
s
is
continuous, we deduce the result stated, that is to say that u C (0. T
; H
s
(R
d
))
(use the fact that a weakly convergent sequence in a Hilbert space, of which the
limit of the norms is equal to the norm of the limit, converges strongly).
(3) The smooth solution is in fact unique, as we can convince ourselves by
recalling the inequality (3.42) either for two approximate solutions or for two
smooth solutions of the same Cauchy problem; then we have = 0 and so y y
which gives y = 0, that is to say that the difference between the two solutions is
null in L
(0. T
; L
2
(R
d
)), and therefore null.
More generally, this calculation can be carried out with two solutions u and :
corresponding to two distinct initial conditions. If z := :u, we obtain a Gronwall
inequality
d
dt
_
R
d
z A
0
(u)z dx C(R)[z]
2
.
which produces
sup
0t T
[: u[
2
Ce
Ct
[:
0
u
0
[
2
.
where the constants C and T
> 0 depend only on |u

0
|
s
and |:
0
|
s
.
(4) An important question concerns the manner in which the solution ceases to
be smooth, when that is the case. The answer, necessarily partial, is furnished by
the inequality (3.35). Let T be the maximal time of existence of the solution of
class H
s
with s > 1
1
2
d, and suppose T to be nite. Then the Gronwall inequality
shows us that
_
T
0
c
1
([u[
. [d
x
u[
) dt = .
We deduce easily (again using the estimate of the local time of existence of the
smooth solution) that
lim
t T
max([u(t )[
. [d
x
u(t )[
) = . (3.44)
If there is a blow-up in nite time, it thus is produced in the same manner as in the
scalar case, by the blow-up of the rst derivatives, unless of course u itself becomes
unbounded. Returning to a domain U of admissible states, this should signify that
u(x. t ) approaches the boundary of U at a certain point when t T.
(5) However, and contrary to what occurs in dimension d = 1, it is possible
that the solution remains smooth for all time even for very non-linear systems
provided that the dimension is high enough and that u
0
is sufciently small and
with compact support. The rst observation in this direction seems to be due, for
a non-linear wave equation, to Klainerman [53, 54] and a comprehensive study of
the subject is to be found in the work of Li Ta-Tsien [64]. In this will be found
numerous references to the works of other authors, among them L. H ormander and
F. John.
In the special case of the full gas dynamics with the perfect gas law ( p =
( 1)e), the author and Magali Grassin have recently obtained global exis-
tence theorems for non-small data. These are chosen with a small density, an en-
tropy close to a constant, and an initial velocity eld which makes the particles
spread.
3.7 The wave equation
The wave equation, through second order in the time and in space, comes into the
category studied in 3.1 if we put u = (
t
:.
x
:)
T
. In fact,
2
t
: = L:. :(x. 0) = :
0
(x).
t
:(x. 0) = :
1
(x)
is equivalent to
t
u
_
0 div
0
d
_
u = 0. u(x. 0) = (:
1
(x). :
0
(x)).
It is clearly a linear rst order system with n = d 1 and
A() =
_
0
T
0
d
_
.
This system is symmetric and therefore hyperbolic. Its propagation velocities are
clearly 1 and 0 in each direction but as we are interested only in solutions
satisfying
u
1
=
u
1
, only 1 remain.
The wave equation arises in many physical problems, specially in relativity and
electromagnetism, often coupled with other equations. For that reason, it is impor-
tant to have qualitative results concerning the behavior of solutions. These are based
on an explicit formula, much easier to use than that obtained by Fourier analysis.
It is extracted from three facts:
the invariance of the equation under the action of isometries of R
d
,
the easy solvability in the case d = 1,
the possibility of passing from a dimension d to a dimension d 2.
Huygens principle
We introduce the spherical mean, for x R
d
, t. r > 0:
I (x. t. r) :=
1
d1
r
d1
_
S(x.r)
:(y. t ) ds(y).
where S(x. r) denotes the sphere with centre x and radius r in R
d
,
d1
is the (d1)-
dimensional measure of the unit sphere S
d1
of R
d
and ds(y) is the usual measure
on S(x. r). If x R
d
and if : is a solution, we verify that (z. t ) . I (x. t. |z|) is
also a solution of the wave equation
3
which is written
2
t
I =
2
r
I
d 1
r

r
I. (3.45)
3
As far as here, the method is valid for every linear partial differential equation invariant under the action of
isometries of R
d
; for example the heat equation
t
: = L:.
This is called the EulerPoissonDarboux equation. We easily show I is a solution
if and only if J := r
r
I (d 2)I is a solution of the analogous equation where
d is replaced by
4
d 2 .When d is odd, that allows us to reduce easily to the trivial
case d = 1. For example, if d = 3, K := r I is a solution of
2
t
K =
2
r
K. We thus
have K(x. t. r) = p(x. t r) q(x. r t ). Here p(x. ) is dened on R
, while
q(x. ) is dened on the whole of R.
We determine p and q with the help of the initial conditions and of the limits on
K:
K(x. 0. r) = r I
0
(x. r).
t
K(x. 0. r) = r I
1
(x. r). K(x. t. 0) = 0.
where I
j
(x. r) denotes the mean of :
j
on the sphere S(x. r). We thus have, for
r > 0,
r
p(x. r) =
1
2
(
r
(r I
0
) r I
1
).
r
q(x. r) =
1
2
(
r
(r I
0
) r I
1
).
Finally, for r - 0, we have q(x. r) = p(x. r).
We recover the solution : by the relation
:(x. t ) = I (x. t. 0) = lim
r0
K(x. t. r)
r
= lim
r0
p(x. r t ) p(x. t r)
r
= 2
r
p(x. t ) =
t
(t I
0
(x. t )) t I
1
(x. t ).
Finally, the solution of the Cauchy problem in dimension d =3 is given by the
formula
:(x. t ) =

t
_
1
4t
_
S(x;t )
:
0
(y) ds(y)
_
1
4t
_
S(x.t )
:
1
(y) ds(y).
Of course, the above calculation proceeds by necessary conditions only, but as
we end up with an explicit formula, it is easy to verify that this actually denes
a solution of the Cauchy problem, for example, when :
0
and :
1
are sufciently
smooth.
The case of the dimension d =2, which is likewise interesting, is solved by
associating an extra spatial variable. If the functions :
j
(x
1
. x
2
) are the Cauchy data
and :(x
1
. x
2
. t ) is the solution then V(x
1
. x
2
. x
3
. t ) := :(x
1
. x
2
. t ) is the solution
of the wave equation in dimension 3 for the data V
j
(x
1
. x
2
. x
3
) := :
j
(x
1
. x
2
). We
4
On the other hand, there is no simple way to pass from d to d 1; we shall see that that has important
consequences.
thus have
:(x. t ) =

t
1
4t
__
S
2
(x.0;t )
:
0
(y
1
. y
2
) ds(y)
_
1
4t
_
S
2
(x.0;t )
:
1
(y
1
. y
2
) ds(y).
Parametrising each hemisphere of S
2
(x. t ) by (y
1
. y
2
) we obtain the formula
:(x. t ) =

t
1
2
_
_
D(x;t )
:
0
(y)
_
t
2
|x y|
2
dy
_
1
2
_
D(x;t )
:
1
(y)
_
t
2
|x y|
2
dy.
less elegant than that in dimension 3 (D(x; r) denotes the disk with center x and
radius r).
The two formulae derived above show a very different qualitative behaviour
according to the dimension: if d = 3, the value of : at (x. t ) depends only on
the Cauchy data by the restriction of :
1
, of :
0
and of :
0
on the light cone {y
R
3
; |y x| = t ] (Huygens principle). On the other hand, if d = 2, the value of :
at (x. t ) depends on the restriction of the data :
j
to the whole disk D(x; t ).
Conservation and decay
As the system associated with the wave equation is symmetrical, the energy, which
is the norm of u(t ) in (L
2
(R
d
))
d1
, remains constant in the course of the time. It
is not necessary to show this my making use of the Fourier transformation. It is
enough to integrate the conservation law
1
2
t
([
t
u[
2
[u[
2
) = div(
t
uu)
over the frustum{(x. t ); 0 -t -T. |x|t R]. By Greens formula this becomes
1
2
_
B(x;RT)
([
t
:[
2
[:[
2
)(x. T) dx
=
1
2
_
B(x.R)
([:
1
[
2
[:
0
[
2
) dx
_
I
_
t
:
r
:
1
2
([
t
:[
2
[:[
2
)
_
ds
where I denotes the lateral boundary of the domain, ds a conveniently normalised
measure of area and
r
the radial derivative. The boundary integral is negative by
the CauchySchwarz inequality, with the result that
1
2
_
B(x;RT)
([
t
:[
2
[:[
2
)(x. T) dx E
0
:=
1
2
_
R
d
([:
1
[
2
[:
0
[
2
) dx.
Thus, the energy E(T) :=
_
R
d ([
t
:[
2
[:[
2
)(x. T) dx is bounded above by E
0
.
But reversing the direction of the time, we therefore have E
0
E(T) and nally
E(T) E
0
.
However, this result is mediocre when compared with what can be obtained by
making use of other conservation laws. These are consequences of Emmy Noethers
theorem and the invariance of the wave equation under the action of the Lorentz
group. The most important conservation law is
t
e
3
= div q
3
.
where
5
e
3
(x. t ) := (r
2
t
2
)
_
[
t
:[
2
j =1
2
j
_
4t
t
:
d
j =1
x
j
j
(d1)(d3)
r
2
t
2
r
2
[:[
2
.
with
j
:=
:
x
j
d 1
2
x
j
r
2
:.
The same methodas was usedfor the energyshows that E
3
(T) :=
_
R
d e
3
(x. T) dx
is constant if E
3
(0) is nite, that is if
_
R
d
_
(r
2
t
2
)
_
[:
1
[
2
j =1
A
2
j
_
4t :
1
d
j =1
x
j
A
j
(d 1)(d 3)(1 t
2
,r
2
)[:
0
[
2
_
dx.
is nite, where we have written A
j
:=
j
:
0
(d 1)x
j
:
0
,(2r
2
). We remark that
the integrand Q is a positive semi-denite quadratic form of (:
1
. A. :
0
) provided
that d is different from 2:
Q = (r
2
t
2
)[A
T
[
2
1
2
(r t )
2
(:
1
A
R
)
2
1
2
(r t )
2
(:
1
A
R
)
2
(d 1)(d 3)(1 t
2
,r
2
)[:
0
[
2
.
where we have decomposed A into its radial and tangential components
A
R
:=
x
t
; A =
r
:
0
1
2
(d 1):
0
,r. A
T
:= AA
R
x
r
= (:
0
)
T
.
For t > 0, we have
Q t
2
_
[A
T
[
2
1
2
(:
1
A
R
)
2
_
.
5
Exercise: calculate the expression for q
3
.
We deduce
_
R
d
[
T
:[
2
dx
1
2
_
R
d
_
t
:
r
:
d 1
2r
:
_
2
dx (2,t
2
)E
3
(0).(3.46)
Similarly, if we restrict ourselves to the complement of a conical neighbourhood
of the light cone we have
_
[rt [>t
_
t
:
r
:
d 1
2r
:
_
2
dx 4,(t )
2
E
3
(0). (3.47)
The upper bound (3.46) shows that the solution behaves asymptotically, for t
, as a function V which satises
T
V = 0.
t
V
r
V
d 1
2r
V = 0.
that is to say V =V(t. r) and V =r
1
2
(1d)
W(t r). Finally (3.47) reduces to saying
that
_
[s[>
(W
/
(s))
2
ds
const
2
.
The reader wishingtogofurther onthe dispersionproperties of the wave equation,
for example in the presence of a potential or of an obstacle, should consult the
memoir of Cathleen Morawetz [79].
4
Dimension d = 1, the Riemann problem
4.1 Generalities on the Riemann problem
We work in a space of dimension d = 1. The systems studied have the conservative
form
u
t
f (u)
x
= 0. (4.1)
f being a smooth vector eld, dened on a convex set U of R
n
, with a non-empty
interior. We assume that A(u) = d f (u) is diagonalisable over Rwith eigenvalues of
constant multiplicities, which to x ideas we arrange in increasing order:
1
(u) -
2
(u) - -
p
(u).
As in the scalar case, the study of the Riemann problem is essential, both for
numerical methods and for the understanding of the Cauchy problem for (4.1). It
allows us, for example, to dene numerical schemes which are sufciently pre-
cise. With one among them Glimm has been able to prove [32] the sole global
existence theorem in time of weak solutions which is of some signicance (see
Chapter 5).
The Riemann problem consists of solving the Cauchy problem for (4.1) when
the initial condition takes the form
u
0
(x) =
_
u
L
. x - 0.
u
R
. x > 0.
_
(4.2)
If u is a weak solution (respectively an entropy solution in the case where (4.1)
has a strictly convex entropy) of (4.1), (4.2) and if a > 0, then u
a
(x. t ) := u(ax. at )
denes another solution. We hope that the solution, at least one that makes sense
physically, is unique, without which the system is worthless. If such is the case,
we have u
a
u for all a > 0, which reduces to saying that u depends only on the
variable := x,t . We shall denote by :: R U the function u(. 1), with the
result that u(x. t ) = :(x,t ). The Riemann problem thus reduces to the ordinary
106
differential equation
( f (:))
/
() = :
/
(). R. with g
/
= dg,d. (4.3)
:() = u
L
. (4.4)
:() = u
R
. (4.5)
As in the scalar case the solution of the Riemann problem will be a juxtaposition
of constant states, of rarefaction waves and of discontinuities. These last could be
shock waves or contact discontinuities. The case of the (semi-)characteristic shocks
will be ignored a priori although it presents an interest for applications. We have
preferred to put the stress on the most fundamental questions.
An essential difference from the scalar case occurs as long as f (u) = Au with
A diagonalisable on R (the linear case). In this case, let us decompose the vector
u
R
u
L
into a series of eigenvectors. We have u
R
u
L
=
1j p
:
j
with A:
j
=
j
:
j
. The solution of the Riemann problem is given by
u(x. t ) = u
L
j :x>
j
t
:
j
.
In the non-linear case, the solution will be equally composed of p waves, clearly
differentiated by their physical meanings, separated by p 1 constant states u
0
=
u
L
. u
1
. . . . . u
p
= u
R
.
The great variety of the class of strictly hyperbolic conservative systems hinders
a truly general study of the Riemann problem, with the notable exception of the
case where the initial data satisfy [u
R
u
L
[ _ 1. which is the object of Theorem
4.6.1 below. In particular, we shall be led to make a hypothesis of a geometrical
nature which ensures that each of the p waves mentioned above is simple, that is
to say that it consists of a shock, a contact discontinuity or a rarefaction wave, but
not of several of these waves. In two examples, the p-system and gas dynamics,
we shall give the complete solution of the Riemann problem without a hypothesis
concerning the smallness of u
R
u
L
.
4.2 The Hugoniot locus
Local description of the Hugoniot locus
We begin by describing the possible discontinuities (a. b. ) with respect to the
RankineHugoniot condition, which is written here:
f (b) f (a) = (b a). (4.6)
In the rst instance, we are interested in the possible pairs (a. b), reducing thus
by projection the trival triplets to the single point (a. a). Fixing the left state (or the
108 Dimension d = 1, the Riemann problem
right as for the moment we have perfect symmetry), a U, we dene the Hugoniot
locus of a by
H(a) := {b U: R. f (b) f (a) = (b a)].
The theorem below describes the structure of H(a) in the neighbourhood of a.
Theorem 4.2.1 We suppose that the eigenvalues of d f are simple (and hence
p = n). In the neighbourhood of a, the Hugoniot locus of a is the union of n
smooth curves H
k
(a), 1 k n. The k-th curve is tangent at a to the eigenvector
r
k
(a) of d f(a); it is in fact second order tangent at a to the integral curve of the
eigeneld r
k
.
Exercises
4.1 In the case of eigenvalues
j
with constant multiplicities n
j
, 1 j p, show
that H(a) is locally the union of p sub-manifolds H
j
(a) of respective dimen-
sions n
j
, the j th being tangent to the eigenspace E
j
(a) := ker(A(a)
j
I
n
)
(we still suppose that A is diagonalisable in R). If n
j
2 show that H
j
(a) is in
fact an integral manifold of the associated eigenvector eld, that is that H
j
(a)
is tangent to E
j
(b) at each of its points b (Hint: make use of Theorem 3.3.3.)
4.2 Describe H(a) in the linear case.
4.3 Describe H(a) for a system of two decoupled equations
:
t
g(:)
x
= 0.
n
t
h(n)
x
= 0.
4.4 Describe H(a) for the p-system.
Fig. 4.1: The Hugoniot locus H(a). For simplicity, we have supposed that the eigenvalues
are simple.
4.5 Let s .u(s) be the solution of the differential equation
du
ds
=r
j
(u). u(0) = a.
Let s .:(s) be a parametrisation of H
j
(a) (which is not necessarily the same
as that previously introduced, in the case where H
j
(a) was the integral curve
of r
j
).
(1) Let G(s) := ( f (u(s)) f (a)) (u(s) a) which is an element of A
2
(R
n
)
(an element of degree 2 in the exterior algebra of R
n
). Calculate G
/
. G
//
. G
///
and verify that G(0) = G
/
(0) = G
//
(0) = G
///
(0) = 0.
(2) Show (without calculating G
i :
completely) that
G
i :
(0) = 2(d
j
r
j
)(dr
j
r
j
) r
j
.
(3) Without makinguse of the precedingcalculations, showthat if u(s) :(s) =
O(s
4
), then G(s) = O(s
5
).
(4) We suppose that at every point a U, H
j
(a) is tangent of the third order
to the integral curve of r
j
. Show that either the j th characteristic eld is
linearly degenerate, or the integral curves of r
j
are straight lines in U (see
Temple [103]).
(5) In both cases, showthat H
j
(a) is the integral curve of r
j
passing through a.
Some symmetric functions
Since a and b play symmetric r oles in the RankineHugoniot condition, it is con-
venient to use symmetrical functions in a and b which generalise objects already
dened on U. For example, writing
A(u. :) :=
_
1
0
d f ((1 t )u t :) dt.
we have A(u. :) = A(:. u) and Taylors formula gives f (:) f (u) = A(u. :)(:
u). The RankineHugoniot condition is thus written
(A(a. b) I
n
)(b a) = 0. (4.7)
When : u is small, a symmetric function in u and : possesses a precise equiv-
alent to the second order:
Lemma 4.2.2 Let (u. :) . M(u. :) be a symmetric function of class C
2
dened
in U and let m(u) = M(u. u). Then, when : u, we have
M(u. :) = m
_
u :
2
_
O([: u[
2
).
Proof From Taylors formula,
M(u. :) m
_
u :
2
_
= (d
:
Md
u
M)
_
u :
2
.
u :
2
_
_
: u
2
_
O([: u[
2
).
But the symmetry implies (differentiate the equality M(a. b) = M(b. a) with
respect to one of the vectors, then put a = b = u)
d
:
M(u. u) = d
u
M(u. u) =
1
2
dm(u). (4.8)
Since the eigenvalues of A(u) are real and simple, every real matrix close to A(u)
has its eigenvalues real and simple. This is the case of A(a. b) with b a neighbour
of a since A(a. a) = A(a). We shall denote by j
j
(a. b) these eigenvalues, and
by R
j
(a. b) some associated eigenvector elds, chosen in a smooth manner, that
is of class C
p
as functions of a and b if f is of class C
p1
. These functions are
symmetric and we have j
j
(a. a) =
j
(a).
Proof of Theorem 4.2.1
The formulation (4.7) of the RankineHugoniot condition shows that if b H(a)
is in the neighbourhood of a but is distinct from it, then there exist an integer
j. 1 j n, and a small real number s ,= 0 such that
= j
j
(a. b). b = a s R
j
(a. b).
To the integer j corresponds the sub-set H
j
(a) of the Hugoniot curve of a. The
discontinuities (a. b. ) where = j
j
(a. b) are called the j -discontinuities.
Let us dene, j being xed, a smooth function N from R U into R
n
by
N(s. u) := u a s R
j
(a. u).
As N(0. a) = 0 and d
u
N(0. a) = I
n
is invertible, the implicit function theorem
shows that H
j
(a) is, in the neighbourhood of a, a smooth curve parametrised by
s (s
0
. s
0
), s .
j
(s; a), of which we are going to study a Taylor expansion at
the origin.
To the rst order, since
j
(0; a) = a,
j
(s; a) = a s R
j
(a. a sr
j
(a) O(s
2
))
= a sr
j
(a) s
2
d
:
R
j
(a. a) r
j
(a) O(s
3
)
= a sr(a)
1
2
s
2
(dr
j
r
j
)(a) O(s
3
)
which shows that H
j
(a) is second order tangent to the integral curve of the vector
eld r
j
and the theorem is proved.
4.3 Shock waves 111
We notice that these two curves are not in general third order tangents (see
Exercise 4.5 above).
4.3 Shock waves
Entropy balance
Theorem 4.2.1 does not indicate, among the discontinuities, those which have a
physical sense. Let us suppose that (4.1) is of a physical nature, its entropy, strictly
convex, being denoted by E (with D
2
E > 0) and its ux by F. Laxs entropy condi-
tion expresses that the rate of dissipation of [F] [E] is non-positive. The fol-
lowing theorem provides an equivalent rate when b is close to a.
Theorem 4.3.1 Let E be an entropy of class C
3
of the system (4.1) and F its ux.
Then, for b H
j
(a) a neighbour of a (b =
j
(s. a), that is b a sr
j
(a)), we
have
[F] [E] =
s
3
12
(d
j
r
j
)D
2
E(r
j
. r
j
) O(s
4
).
the values of d
j
, r
j
. and D
2
E being calculated at a.
Proof Since dF = dE d f , we have
[F] [E] =
_
1
0
(dF dE)(a t (b a)) (b a) dt
=
_
1
0
dE(a t (b a))(d f (a t (b a)) ) (b a) dt. (4.9)
Similarly and with the RankineHugoniot condition we have
0 = [ f ] [u] =
_
1
0
(d f (a t (b a)) ) (b a) dt. (4.10)
Taking the scalar product of (4.10) by dE((a b),2) and subtracting from (4.9)
the result is
[F] [E]
=
_
1
0
_
dE(a t (b a)) dE
_
a b
2
__
(A(a t (b a)) ) (b a) dt.
But with (4.7)
[F] [E] =
_
1
0
_
dE(a t (b a)) dE
_
a b
2
__
(A(a t (b a))
A(a. b)) (b a) dt.
We now make use of Lemma 4.2.2:
A(a t (b a)) A(a. b) = A(a t (b a)) A
_
a b
2
_
O([b a[
2
)
=
_
t
1
2
_
D
2
f (a) (b a) O([b a[
2
).
Similarly
dE(a t (b a)) dE
_
a b
2
_
=
_
t
1
2
_
D
2
E(a) (b a) O([b a[
2
).
Thus,
[F] [E] = C D
2
E(b a. D
2
f (b a. b a)) O([b a[
4
)
= Cs
3
D
2
E(r
j
. D
2
f (r
j
. r
j
)) O([b a[
4
)
where
C :=
_
1
0
_
t
1
2
_
2
dt =
1
12
.
The theorem thus results from the following two important lemmas.
Lemma 4.3.2 For 1 j n, we have
D
2
f (r
j
. r
j
) = (d
j
r
j
)r
j

k,=j
c
j k
r
k
.
where the c
j k
depend on the normalisation of the eigenbasis.
Lemma 4.3.3 The basis (r
j
)
1j n
is orthogonal for the symmetric bilinear form
D
2
E.
Actually, we have from these lemmas
D
2
E(r
j
. D
2
f (r
j
. r
j
)) = (d
j
r
j
)D
2
E(r
j
. r
j
)
k,=j
c
j k
D
2
E(r
j
. r
k
)
where the terms of the last sum are zero by orthogonality.
4.3 Shock waves 113
Proof of Lemmas 4.3.2 and 4.3.3
Let us begin with Lemma 4.3.3.
Proof Differentiating the equality dF h = dE (d f h), we have
D
2
F(h. k) = D
2
E(d f h. k) dE (D
2
f (h. k)).
By symmetry we derive
D
2
E(d f h. k) = D
2
E(d f k. h).
Putting h = r
j
and k = r
k
in the above equality we obtain
(
j

k
)D
2
E(r
j
. r
k
) = 0.
which proves the lemma.
Now, let us look at Lemma 4.3.2.
Proof We differentiate the relation (d f
j
)r
j
= 0 in the direction h:
D
2
f (r
j
. h) (d f
j
)(dr
j
h) = (d
j
h)r
j
.
We put h = r
j
in this formula, then we remark that Im(d f
j
) is spanned by the
vectors r
k
for k ,= j since d f is diagonalisable.
Genuinely non-linear characteristic elds
Of course, when D
2
E > 0, that is for what concerns us, we have D
2
E(r
j
. r
j
) > 0
and the sign of [F] [E] is uniquely determined by those of s and of d
j
r
j
provided that this latter number is not zero. This justies the following denition.
Denition 4.3.4 We say that the j th characteristic eld is genuinely non-linear at
a if d
j
r
j
is non-zero at a. We say that it is genuinely non-linear if it is genuinely
non-linear at every point of U.
The notion of a genuinely non-linear eld means that
j
is monotonic along the
integral curves of r
j
and thus also in the neighbourhood of a along H
j
(a). This
is the antithesis of a linearly degenerate eld, which does not mean a eld is one
or the other: the rate of variation d
j
r
j
of the eigenvalue along the eigeneld
can be zero on a closed set of U with empty interior, for example a hypersurface
transverse to r
j
. In this case,
j
is not monotonic along the integral curves of r
j
, or
along the curves of the Hugoniot locus H
j
.
Fig. 4.2: Lax shocks. Here n = 3: in full line (resp. in dotted line) the characteristics
incoming (resp. outgoing).
For a genuinely non-linear eld, there is canonical choice of right or left eigen-
elds (note that because of Theorem3.3.3, a genuinely non-linear eld corresponds
to a simple eigenvalue) by the normalisation
d
j
r
j
1. l
j
r
j
1.
We shall take care not to confuse the differential forms d
j
and l
j
. as l
j
r
k
0
for k ,= j. while this is not the case in general for d
j
(this causes the coupling of
the equations of the system).
We now have
Proposition 4.3.5 We suppose that the j -th characteristic eld is genuinely non-
linear and that we have adopted the above normalisation.
If b H
j
(a) is in the neighbourhood of a, the discontinuity (a. b. = j
j
(a. b))
satises Laxs entropy condition if and only if s 0.
We have seen in the scalar case an inequality comparing the speed of the disconti-
nuity with those of the waves to the right and to the left of a shock. Lax [59] has
introduced for systems the following denition.
Denition 4.3.6 We say that the discontinuity (a. b. ) is a j -shock in the sense of
Lax if it satises the inequalities
j
(b)
j
(a).
j 1
(a) - -
j 1
(b).
Laxs shock condition is one of numerous conditions of admissibility of dis-
continuities, in fact the simplest. It has the great merit of having a geometrical
interpretation in terms of the stability of a discontinuity subject to a perburbation
of small amplitude [64]. It expresses that at a point of discontinuity there are n 1
incoming characteristics, of which the speeds are the eigenvalues
1
(b). . . . .
j
(b).
j
(a). . . . .
n
(a), leading to n 1 scalar data (instead of n at a point of continuity),
4.3 Shock waves 115
which shows up the fact that the speed of the discontinuity is itself an unknown
(the shock curve is a free boundary).
The major inconvenience of Laxs shock condition is that it is unable to be
expressed for a weak solution, but only for a piecewise smooth solution, contrary to
the entropy condition. On the other hand, it keeps its meaning for piecewise smooth
solutions of (4.1) even when the system (4.1) does not possess a non-trivial convex
entropy. Finally these two entropy conditions are equivalent for discontinuities of
small amplitude.
Theorem4.3.7 We suppose that the j -thcharacteristic eldis genuinely non-linear.
If b H
j
(a) in the neighbourhood of a, the discontinuity (a. b. = j
j
(a. b))
satises the Lax entropy condition if and only if it is a j -shock.
In fact, ,=
j
(a).
j
(b) for b ,= a, the two inequalities -
j
(a) and
j
(b) -
are equivalent while
j 1
(a) - -
j 1
(b) is trivial.
Proof From Lemma 4.2.2,
=
j
_
a b
2
_
O([b a[
2
) =
j
(a)
1
2
sd
j
r
j
O(s
2
).
with the result that ,=
j
(a) if s ,= 0, that is, if b ,= a. Similarly ,=
j
(b). In
fact
j
(a) is of the same sign as s, as is
j
(b) because
=
j
(b)
1
2
sd
j
r
j
O(s
2
).
Finally,
j 1
(a) -
j
(a) and
j
(b) -
j 1
(b) complete the proof.
Exercise
4.6 We consider the p-system
u
t
:
x
= 0.
:
t
p(u)
x
= 0.
_
where p
/
> 0.
(1) Calculate the eigenvalues
1
-
2
of the system and the associated vec-
tors. Show that each eld is genuinely non-linear in (u. :) if and only if
p
//
(u) ,= 0.
(2) Let (a. b) R
2
and 1 i 2. Describe H
i
(a. b) as a curve parametrised
by : = b (u. a) where = (1)
i
.
(3) Showthat E(u. :) :=
1
2
:
2
e(u) where e
/
= p is a strictly convex entropy.
Calculate its ux.
(4) Let (u. :) H(a. b). Calculate the rate [F] [E] of production of en-
tropy as a function of u and a only. Show that its sign is equal to that of
[u] (respectively of [u]) if p is convex (respectively concave) between
a and u.
(5) We suppose that (u a) p
//
(u) > 0 for u ,= a. Show that ((a. b). (u. :). )
with (u. :) H
1
(a. b) satises Laxs entropy condition, and Laxs shock
condition, but that those for which (u. :) H
2
(a. b) satisfy neither the one
nor the other. Compare with Proposition 4.3.5.
4.4 Contact discontinuities
If the j th characteristic curve is linearly degenerate, Theorem 4.3.1 does not allow
us to determine from among the j -discontinuities those which satisfy the entropy
condition. In fact all satisfy it, for these are contact discontinuities. They are thus
reversible: (a. b. ) and (b. a. ) are admissible. More precisely:
Theorem 4.4.1 We suppose that the j -th characteristic eld is linearly degenerate
with one simple eigenvalue.
Then H
j
(a) coincides with the integral curve of r
j
and the rate of production of
entropy is zero for every j -discontinuity. Finally
j
(a) = =
j
(b).
Proof First of all, it sufces to show that if b is on the integral curve
j
(a) of r
j
through a, then b H
j
(a). Let us notice, rst of all, that, since d
j
r
j
0,
j
is
constant on
j
(a). Thus
f (b) f (a)
j
[
j
(a)
(b a) =
_
s
0
d
dt
( f (u) f (a)
j
[
j
(a)
(u a)) dt
=
_
s
0
(d f (u)
j
(u))r
j
(u) dt
= 0.
Hence
j
(a) H
j
(a), that is to say that these curves are identical. Then
F(b) F(a)
j
[
j
(a)
(E(b) E(a))
=
_
s
0
d
dt
(F(u) F(a)
j
[
j
(a)
(E(u) E(a))) dt
=
_
s
0
dE(u)(d f (u)
j
)r
j
dt
= 0.
4.4 Contact discontinuities 117
When
j
is of constant multiplicity m > 1 (and therefore is linearly degenerate)
the algebraic properties described above are still valid for the integral manifold I
j
of ker(d f
j
): if b I
j
(a), then b H(a) and the discontinuities (a. b.
j
(a))
and (b. a.
j
(a)) are both admissible. We shall again therefore denote by H
j
(a) this
integral manifold.
Most physical systems, for which n 2, possess simultaneously genuinely non-
linear elds and one (or several) linearly degenerate elds. The two concepts are
therefore equally important. The presence of a linearly degenerate eld is often
associated with an invariance group of the system, for example a rotation group
[24]. It would be erroneous to believe that the linearly degenerate elds are simpler
in their structure, easier to understand, or to treat, under the pretext that the linear
systems are less complicated. It is rather the contrary that occurs. For example, on
account of their dissipative aspect, the genuinely non-linear elds lead to stable
structures (the shocks) which are less perturbed, even by the addition of a parabolic
term (a viscosity) into the system [70] (see Chapter 7). On the other hand the con-
tact discontinuities have a marginal stability in dimension d = 1 and can even be
plainly unstable in higher spatial dimensions (KelvinHelmholtz or Richtmyer
Meshkov instability for gas dynamics). Even in dimension 1, their behaviour with
respect to a parabolic perturbation of the system is extremely complex and can-
not in general be described with the help of conservative integrals. Finally, linear
degenerate elds can lead to solutions which display large amplitude oscillations
even if of high frequency, for example sequences of entropy solutions of the form
u
(x. t ) = :(
1
(x ct )), (see Chapter 10). The persistence of structures of large
amplitude and arbitrarily high frequency renders null and void the linearisation
by which we have justied hyperbolicity as a geometrical condition allowing the
Cauchy problem to be well-posed. In Chapter 10, we shall see therefore an exten-
sion of the notion of hyperbolicity which takes into account the large amplitudes
all over a linearly degenerate eld and which reduces to the actual notion in the
case without linearly degenerate elds and in the case of linear elds.
Riemann invariants
The integral curves of a vector eld can be described as level sets of a list of n 1
independent functions dened on U. Let us consider a simple eigenvalue
j
of d f
and its eld of eigenvectors r
j
. Let us choose arbitrarily a hypersurface Ytransverse
to r
j
and a regular function :
0
: Y R. Under sufciently general hypotheses, Y
meets each integral curve in one point and one only. The Cauchy problem
d: r
j
= 0. u U.
:(u) = :
0
(u). u Y.
_
(4.11)
has a unique global solution. Let us choose on Y independent functions :
0
, 1
n1, that is to say such that the differential form
0
:= d:
1
0
d:
n1
0
does
not vanish on the space tangent to Y. We verify easily that for the corresponding
solutions :
of (4.11), the form := d:

1
d:
n1
satises a differential
equation of the form d r
j
= L(. dr
j
) where L is bilinear. From the Cauchy
Lipschitz theorem, is zero at a point of U only if it is identically zero on the
integral curve passing through that point. By hypothesis, is thus not zero on any
part: the functions :
remain independent at every point. In particular, the level sets

of (:
1
. . . . . :
n1
) are smooth curves, which are the integral curves of r
j
since each
:
is constant along these.

A method of describing the integral curves of r
j
is thus to nd n 1 independent
solutions of the linear differential equation d: r
j
= 0. Each non-trivial solution
(that is to say of which the differential does not vanish) is called a weak Riemann
invariant. There is no general method of solving that equation as that comes down
to knowing how to integrate all the differential equations. But in most applications,
separation of variables, homogeneity properties or considerations of symmetry
enable us to set up an explicit list. In the following sections, we shall see how to
proceed for the p-system and for gas dynamics, where we shall solve globally the
Riemann problem.
If the eld is linearly degenerate of multiplicity m
j
, (4.11) must be replaced by
d:[
ker(d f
j
)
= 0. u U. (4.12)
The initial data are specied over a sub-manifold of codimension m
j
, transverse
to ker(d f
j
). From Theorem 3.3.3, the system (4.12) has n m
j
independent
solutions :
. The level sets of (:

1
. . . . . :
nm
j
) are again integral manifolds of the
eigeneld. We notice that if d
j
does not vanish, the condition of linear degeneracy
makes
j
be a Riemann invariant.
Exercises
4.7 The following theorem, due to B. S evennec [93], is a difcult geometrical prob-
lem. Its physical interpretation is still not clear, at the moment of publication
of this work.
Theorem 4.4.2 Let be an eigenvalue of constant multiplicity m of a linearly
degenerate eld for a physical system. let I be an integral manifold of the eld
of the corresponding eigenspaces (see Theorem 3.3.3). Using the Legendre
transformation q := d
u
E, the set
I
:= {(q. E
(q)): u I]
is included in an afne subspace of dimension m 1.
Verify this statement for the following examples (in each case, rst of all
identify the genuine non-linearity or the linear degeneracy of the elds).
(1) The system of Keytz and Kranzer u
t
((r)u)
x
= 0. r := |u|.
(2) Gas dynamics in eulerian variables:
t
(:)
x
= 0.
(:)
t
(:
2
p(. e))
x
= 0.
_
1
2
:
2
e
_
t
__
1
2
:
2
e p
_
:
_
x
= 0.
_
_
(3) Gas dynamics in lagrangian variables:
:
t
= z
x
.
z
t
q(:. e)
x
= 0.
_
e
1
2
z
2
_
t
(qz)
x
= 0.
_
_
(4) The dynamics of an elastic string:
:
t
= n
x
.
n
t
= (T(r):,r)
x
. r = |:|.
_
4.8 Let u
t
f (u)
x
=0 be a strictly hyperbolic system, of which we choose a
characteristic eld, of multiplicity p. We also choose independent Riemann
invariants n
1
. . . . . n
np
for this eld.
(1) Show that there exists a mapping u .B(u) with values in M
np
(R) such
that, for every classical solution of the system, we have
n(u)
t
B(u)n(u)
x
= 0.
with n = (n
1
. . . . . n
np
)
T
.
(2) What are the eigenvalues of B(u)?
(3) How is B transformed when we change the choice of Riemann invariants?
4.5 Rarefaction waves. Wave curves
Rarefaction waves are, as in the scalar case, the solutions of (4.3) which are of class
C
1
in an interval (
1
.
2
), with : ,= 0. Expanding the differential equation, we arrive
at (d f (:)):
/
= 0whichshows that :
/
() is aneigenvector of d f (:()), associated
with the eigenvalue . Thus there exists an integer j. 1 j n, such that
=
j
(:()). (
1
.
2
). (4.13)
:
/
() | r
j
(:()). (
1
.
2
). (4.14)
Differentiating (4.13) with respect to we deduce 1 = d
j
(:()) :
/
(), which
by (4.14) implies that d
j
r
j
,= 0. Hence the j th characteristic eld is genuinely
non-linear. Conversely, if a characteristic eld, let us say the j th, is genuinely
non-linear in an open set V of U, let us consider a curve
j
, connected in V , being
an integral curve of the vector eld r
j
. Then
j
is monotonic increasing along
j
,
varying from
to
. If
-
1
- -
2
-
, then the equality (4.13) determines

a unique point :() of
j
, and the mapping .:() clearly denes a rarefaction,
which we call a j-rarefaction.
Let us now consider the possibility of having a j -wave, that is a j -rarefaction, a
j -shock or a j -contact-discontinuity, which passes from a xed state a to a neigh-
bouring state b in going fromleft to right, that is, in the direction of increasing. We
suppose that the j th eld is linearly degenerate or else that it is genuinely non-linear
at a.
If it is linearly degenerate, then we go from a to b by a j -contact-discontinuity
whenever b
j
(a), the integral curve of r
j
passing through a (to be replaced by
the integral manifold of the eigeneld if
j
is of multiplicity m 2).
If the eld is genuinely non-linear at a there are two possibilities. Either b
j
(a), but then b a sr
j
(a) with s > 0 and the wave is a rarefaction (we have
normalised r
j
by d
j
r
j
(a) = 1), or b H
j
(a), but now b a sr
j
(a) with
s - 0, and the wave is a shock. In each of these two situations, b describes a curve
parametrised by s and of which a is one extremity. The union of these two curves
and of a forms a curve of class C
2
(from Theorem 4.2.1), tangent at a to the vector
r
j
(a), the j -wave curve originating at a and which we denote by O
j
(a). In the
linearly degenerate case, the curve (or the variety of dimension m) of the j -wave
is
j
(a), which we still denote by O
j
(a).
Finally, to each eld, genuinely non-linear at a or linearly degenerate, there
corresponds a manifold of j -wave indexed by a, dened in the neighbourhood of
a and denoted by O
j
(a), such that for b = O
j
(a), there exists a j th simple wave
passing from a to b. To be perfectly clear, it is even necessary to speak of the direct
wave curve O
d
j
(a) (we x the left state of the wave) in contrast to the reverse wave
curve O
r
j
(a) (where we x the right state of the wave). The relation between the
two families of curve is given by the equivalence
b O
d
j
(a) = O
j
(a) a O
r
j
(b).
The extension of the wave curves O
j
(a) beyond a neighbourhood of a is an
important question when we have in mind realistic problems where the variation of
the solution is not small. The procedure is clear in the case of a linearly degenerate
eld: as long as the eld is linearly degenerate extend O
j
(a) by an integral curve
of r
j
, that is as a Hugoniot curve. For genuinely non-linear eld at a, we can
also extend O
j
(a) on the side of s >0 by an integral curve of r
j
, as long as
j
is strictly increasing along it. On the other hand, on the side of s -0 (shocks),
the monotonicity of
j
is neither a necessary condition (as can be seen in the
scalar case) nor a sufcient condition, since it does not imply in an obvious way
Laxs entropy condition or Laxs shock condition. The extension must follow the
Hugoniot curve (in so far as it is a curve) until a suitable entropy condition leads
to the exclusion of certain discontinuities. When a eld is genuinely non-linear,
except on a hypersurface, transverse to r
j
, there will correspond to it composite
waves, in which (semi-)characteristic shocks are combined with expansion waves,
as in the scalar case. The description of these curves is much more complicated
than any we have seen up until now and can only be made by taking a well-dened
example and treating it thoroughly.
The most satisfactory entropy condition for a characteristic eld of which the
expression d
j
r
j
changes sign is that of Liu [66, 67] which generalises to systems
Oleniks criterion. First of all, let us denote by (a. b) the speed of the discontinuity
between a and b, when f (b) f (a) is parallel to b a and a ,= b.
Denition 4.5.1 Let (u
L
. u
R
; (u
L
. u
R
)) be a discontinuity of the system u
t

f (u)
x
= 0. We say that it is admissible (in the sense of Liu) if the following
conditions are fullled.
(1) There exists an index j such that
j
is simple, such that H
j
(u
L
) extends to a
curve of class C
1
as far as u
R
and that H
j
(u
R
) extends to a curve of class C
1
as far as u
L
.
(2) For all u H
j
(u
L
), located between u
L
and u
R
, we have
(u
L
. u
R
) (u
L
. u).
(3) For all u H
j
(u
R
), located between u
L
and u
R
, we have
(u. u
R
) (u
L
. u
R
).
Let (u
L
. u
R
. s) be a discontinuitysatisfyingLius criterion. Whenu tends tou
L
while
remaining in H
j
(u
L
), (u
L
. u) tends to
j
(u
L
). We thus have (u
L
. u
R
)
j
(u
L
).
Similarly, letting u tend to u
R
along H
j
(u
R
), we obtain
j
(u
R
) (u
L
. u
R
). Lius
criterion is therefore more precise than Laxs criterion.
Exercise: Prove that properties (2) and (3) in Denition 4.5.1 are equivalent to
each other.
Parametrisation of wave curves
We have seenthat a canonical choice of r
j
is possible for a non-linear eld. Similarly,
there exists a canonical parametrisation of the wave curve O
j
(a), by b =
j
(s; a)
where s :=
j
(b)
j
(a). We recall the inequality s >0 on the side of the rar-
efactions and the inequality s -0 on the side of the shocks. We notice that this
parametrisation is of class C
2
but not any better in general. On the side of the
rarefactions, s is exactly the time it takes to pass from a to b in solving the differ-
ential equation u
/
=r
j
(u) where r
j
is normalised by d
j
r
j
= 1.
On the other hand, there is not one favoured parametrisation of a wave curve of
a linearly degenerate eld and anyone must nd that which is most suitable for the
calculations of this or that example.
Finally, let us note, what will serve in the proof of Theorem 4.6.1, that each
function
j
is of class C
2
with respect to its arguments (. a). In fact, the integral
curves of a vector eld, being the solutions of a differential equation, depend in a
C
way (if the eld itself is C
) on the time and the initial point a. Similarly,

the Hugoniot curves are projections on R
n
of a manifold (that of the pairs (a. b) for
which ( f (b) f (a)) (b a) = 0, which is of class C
if f is itself C
) and
if this projection is made transversely to the tangent space at (a. a); these curves
are thus regular. Finally, one glues together the relevant pieces of the Hugoniot
and integral curves in a C
2
way with the following Taylor expansion at a point of
coincidence:
j
(. b)
j
(0. a) = b a r
j
(a) dr
j
(a) (b a) (4.15)
1
2
2
(dr
j
r
j
) O(
3
|b a|
3
).
4.6 Laxs theorem
The form of the solution of the Riemann problem
If i - j , an i -wave which joins a to b and a j -wave that joins b to c have different
velocities, that is to say that, if they are centred at the origin, with the view of
solving a Riemann problem, the zones where they do vary can be disjoint. More
precisely, let x,t [s
1
. s
2
] and x,t [s
3
. s
4
] be these zones. The i -wave has value
b for x > s
2
t whereas the j -wave has value b for x - s
3
t . We can construct a
self-similar solution, which will be a solution of the Riemann problem between
a and c, by gluing these two waves provided that s
2
- s
3
. We shall see that this
condition is realised except perhaps if the two waves are shock waves of sufciently
large amplitudes.
If one of the waves is a shock wave, for example the i -wave, then s
1
= s
2
=:
i
,
the velocity of the shock wave, and this satises the Lax inequalities
i
(b)
i

i
(a) and
i 1
(a) -
i
-
i 1
(b). If the i -wave is a rarefaction wave or a contact
discontinuity, then
i
(a) = s
1
and
i
(b) = s
2
, with s
1
= s
2
in the latter case.
If both waves are rarefaction waves or contact discontinuity, then s
2
=
i
(b) -
j
(b) = s
3
.
If the i -wave is a rarefaction wave or a contact discontinuity and the j -wave is a
shock wave, then s
2
=
i
(b)
j 1
(b) -
i
= s
3
.
Fig. 4.3: Solution of the Riemann problem. Here n = 2.
The case of an i -shock-wave and a j -rarefaction-wave or contact-discontinuity
is symmetric with the preceding case.
If both waves are shock waves and j = i 1, we are unable to deduce the order
of s
2
and s
3
from the inequalities s
2
-
i 1
(b), s
2

i
(a), s
3
>
j 1
(b) and
s
3

j
(c), unless at least one of the shock waves is weak. For example if the
i -shock-wave is of small amplitude, then s
2

i
(b)
j 1
(b) - s
3
, from
which we deduce that s
2
- s
3
.
Of course, the case of shock waves of large amplitude remains to be examined
case by case. For a great number of physical systems, the gluing of an i -shock-wave
and a j -shock-wave is always possible for i - j .
Generalising the idea developed above, we therefore seek the solution of the
Riemann problem between two states u
L
and u
R
under a succession of constant
states u
0
= u
L
. u
1
. . . . . u
n1
. u
n
= u
R
, separated by simple waves. For 1
p n a p-wave localised in a sector of the form x,t [s
2p1
. s
2p
] takes u
p1
to u
p
and the sequence (s
k
)
1kn
is increasing. We have u
p1
O
p
(u
p
), that is
u
p1
=
p
(
p
; u
p
) where
p
R has the value
p
(u
p1
)
p
(u
p
) if the p-th eld
is genuinely non-linear.
Now, let us dene a mapping +(. a), from a neighbourhood of the origin in R
n
into a neighbourhood of a U, by
+(; a) :=
n
(
n
;
n1
(
n1
; . . . ;
1
(
1
; a) . . .)).
The preceding construction relies on the solution of the equation
+(; u
L
) = u
R
. (4.16)
where R
n
is the unknown vector. In fact, we have seen that a solution of the
Riemann problem obtained by the gluing of a simple wave of each family (n
waves in all) corresponds to a solution of (4.16). Conversely if is a solution
of (4.16), if we dene u
0
= u
L
, then u
p1
=
p
(; u
p
) by induction on p, we
have u
n
= u
R
and we can join u
p
to u
p1
by a p-wave, these waves gluing
except perhaps in the case where a p-wave and a ( p 1)-wave are shock waves of
large amplitude, that is if
p
-0 and
p1
-0 are both large. Let us note that the
solution of (4.16), if it exists, can have one (or several) vanishing component(s);
for example
p
=0 means that there is not a p-wave, that is that u
p1
= u
p
. In
this case, because of Laxs inequalities, the ( p 1)-wave and the ( p 1)-wave are
always gluable.
Local existence of the solution of the Riemann problem
The main theorem, due to Lax [59], is the following.
Theorem 4.6.1 (Lax) Let u
t
f (u)
x
= 0 be a strictly hyperbolic system of con-
servation laws in an open set of U. We suppose that each characteristic eld is
either genuinely non-linear or linearly degenerate in the neighbourhood of a.
For every neighbourhood W U of a, there exists a neighbourhood V W
of a such that, for u
L
. u
R
V, the Riemann problem has a solution of the form
described above and with values in W. In addition such a solution is unique.
Because we do not know of a uniqueness theorem suitable for the Cauchy problem
in the case of systems, we cannot guarantee that the solution constructed in this way
is the only one, although it is difcult to imagine a solution which does not have the
structure imposed here: self-similar with simple waves separating n 1 constant
states. For a physical system, Heibig [39, 40] shows that a self-similar solution of
the Riemann problem which satises the entropy inequality necessarily possesses
this structure. This shows that if the non-linearity of the elds is well-dened, a
sole strictly convex entropy might be sufcient to characterise the mathematically
reasonable solutions.
Proof Let us carry out the proof in the case of simple eigenvalues.
Since each function
j
is of class C
2
, + is C
2
with respect to (. u) throughout
a neighbourhood of (0. a) in R
n
U and similarly for the partial functions +
k
dened by
+
k
(
1
. . . . .
k
; a) :=
k
(
k
;
k1
(. . . ;
2
(
2
;
1
(
1
; u)) . . .)).
Let us calculate the differential of + with respect to at = 0, by induction on k.
We have
1
(
1
; a) = a
1
r
1
(a) O(
2
1
). If
+
k
(
1
. . . . .
k
; a) = a
1j k
j
r
j
(a) O(||
2
).
then
+
k1
(
1
. . . . .
k1
; a) = +
k
(
1
. . . . .
k
; a)
k1
r
k1
(+
k
(
1
. . . . .
k
; a))
O(||
2
)
= a
1j k
j
r
j
(a)
k1
(r
k1
(a) O(||)) O(||
2
)
= a
1j k1
j
r
j
(a) O(||
2
).
which justies the induction hypothesis. For k = n, we nd that d
+(0; a) is the
matrix whose column vectors are the eigenvectors r
j
of d f (a). These forming a
basis in R
n
, this matrix is invertible. We shall nowmake use of the implicit function
theorem in the following quantitative form.
Let G be a function of class C
2
dened on a ball B(x
0
; ) of R
n
, with values in
R
n
. We suppose that dG(x
0
) is invertible. Then there exist two numbers > 0 and
L >0, which depend only on , on |dG(x
0
))| and on sup
B(x
0
.)
|D
2
G(x)|, such
that
G is injective on B(x
0
; ),
the image under G of the ball B(x
0
; ) contains the ball B(G(x
0
); ,L) for all
- .
Now, let K be a compact neighbourhood of a, contained in W, and >0 such
that B(a; 2) is contained in K. The implicit function theorem gives two constants
L >0 and >0 corresponding to , to inf
UK
|d
+(0; u)| and to sup

(.u)B
1
K
|D
2
+(; u)|. If u
L
B(a; ) then B(u
L
; ) K and the preceding argument ap-
plies: for all u
R
U satisfying |u
R
u
L
| - ,L, there exists one and only one
R
n
such that || -L and u
R
+(; u
L
). In particular, the Riemann prob-
lem clearly has a solution when u
L
. u
R
B(a;
1
2
,L), and we have || -
L|u
R
u
L
|. Making use of the fact that each +
k
is locally Lipschitz, we see that
all the values taken by the solution of the Riemann problem, even those which are
to be found in a k-rarefaction-wave (corresponding to +
k
(
1
. . . . .
k1
. ; u) with
0 - -
k
), are in W provided that max(|u
L
a|. |u
R
a|) is sufciently
small.
The proof gives an equivalent of and of the constant intermediate states when u
L
and u
R
are close. In fact 0 = +(; u
L
) u
R
= [u]
1j n

j
r
j
(u
L
) O(||
2
).
We thus have
j
l
j
(u
L
) [u] when [u] = u
R
u
L
is small, with the usual
normalisation l
j
r
j
= 1, l
j
being a left eigenvector associated with the eigenvalue
j
. In particular, the intermediate states are given by
u
k
= u
L
1j k
(l
j
(u
L
) [u])r
j
(u
L
) O(|[u]|
2
).
In the strictly hyperbolic case where the eigenvalues
1
. . . . .
p
are not necessarily
simple, the solutionof the Riemannproblemcontains only p distinct waves, but each
set H
j
(a), of dimension m
j
equal to the multiplicity of
j
, can be parametrised by
a vector
j
running over a neighbourhood of the origin in R
m
j
, this parametrisation
being smooth. The preceding proof carries over without change because the tangent
spaces to H
j
(u
L
) are linearly independent and their direct sumis R
n
. The calculation
of the intermediate states up to |[u]|
2
is still easy: we decompose [u] into a sum
of eigenvectors of d f (u
L
),
[u] =
1j p
:
j
.
We then have
u
k
= u
L
1j p
:
j
O(|[u]|
2
).
Comments B. Riemann, in his memoir to the Royal Academy of Sciences of
G ottingen (1860), introduced most of the essential ideas for 2 2 systems in
restricting himself to the study of the system of isentropic gas dynamics. He cal-
culates the expressions r and s which we today call the Riemann invariants. He
shows that (x. t ), considered as a function of r and s, satises a linear hyperbolic
system with variable coefcients: this is the hodograph method. For such a sys-
tem, written in the form of a single equation of the second order, he describes
the method of duality (which bears his name) which reduces the solution of the
non-characteristic Cauchy problem to that of Goursat problems for the adjoint
equation. Noting that the velocity of propagation depends on the state, he shows
that the rst derivatives r
x
and s
x
blow up in a nite time for general data. Riemann
deduces the appearance of shock waves, writes the RankineHugoniot condition
(of which he seems to have no previous knowledge). In the fth section there ap-
pears explicitly Laxs shock condition. Finally, Riemann solves the Riemann
problem for isothermal gas dynamics ( p = ), thus avoiding a discussion of the
possible vacuum.
4.7 The solution of the Riemann problem for the p-system
Hypotheses
Let us consider the p-system, which is equivalent to the non-linear wave equation
y
t t
= ( p(y
x
))
x
:
u
t
:
x
=0.
:
t
p(u)
x
=0.
_
(4.17)
Since f (u. :) = (:. p(u))
T
the matrix d f has the value
_
0 1
p
/
(u) 0
_
.
Its eigenvalues are the roots of x
2
= p
/
(u). If p
/
(u) = 0, the matrix d f is not diago-
nalisable. The systemis hyperbolic if and only if p
/
(u) > 0, which we suppose from
now. The eigenvalues are
1
=
p
/
(u) and
2
=

p
/
(u). The corresponding
eigenvectors are
r
1
=
_
1
p
/
(u)
_
. r
2
=
_
1
p
/
(u)
_
.
We therefore have d
j
r
j
= p
//
(u),2
p
/
(u): the characteristic elds are si-
multaneously genuinely non-linear or linearly degenerate. To solve the Riemann
problem we assume the genuinely non-linear case. At the expense of a change
of variables (x. u) = (x. u), we can suppose that p
//
(u) >0, that is that p
is strictly convex. This hypothesis ensures that lim
u
p
/
(u) >0, but not
that lim
u
p
/
(u) >0, that is that the system might not be uniformly hy-
perbolic when u . We are therefore driven by subsequent needs to make
a slightly stronger hypothesis concerning the hyperbolicity: we suppose that
_
p
/
(u) du = .
Rarefaction waves
A 1-Riemann-invariant is a non-trivial solution of the equation dn r
j
= 0, that
is of
dn
du
=
_
p
/
(u)
dn
d:
.
The simplest solutionof this equationis n := : g(u) where g(u) :=
_
u
0
p
/
(s) ds.
The integral curves r
1
are thus parametrised by u and have the form
: = :
0
g(u) g(u
0
) = :
0
_
u
u
0
_
p
/
(s) ds.
Similarly, the parametrisation by u of the integral curves of r
2
is
: = :
0
g(u) g(u
0
) = :
0
_
u
u
0
_
p
/
(s) ds.
Two points (u
. :
) and (u
. :
) of the same integral curve of r

j
are linked in this
order by a j -rarefaction-wave if and only if
j
is strictly increasing along the length
of this curve from (u
. :
) to (u
. :
). As
2
increasing with u, a 2-rarefaction-
wave is characterised by
:
= :
_
u
_
p
/
(s) ds. u
- u
. (4.18)
Similarly, a 1-rarefaction-wave is characterised by
:
= :
_
u
_
p
/
(s) ds. u
> u
. (4.19)
We notice that in both cases, :
-:
. In addition, if instead of ordering the

states following the xs increasing we order them following the times increasing,
as this is possible since the waves have non-zero speeds, then we see that, in every
expansion wave, u decays with time.
Shocks
The RankineHugoniot condition between two states [u
. :
] and [u
. :
] is
written
[:] = [u]. [ p(u)] = [:].
We derive [ p(u)] =
2
[u], which gives = S where S =

[ p(u)],[u]. Since
p is strictly convex, we have (S
2
)(S
2
) - 0 and (S
1
)(S
1
) - 0,
where we have written
j
=
j
(u
. :
), etc. In the 1-shock-wave, the condition

-
2
thus implies that = S. Laxs inequality is then written

p
/
(u
) -
[ p(u)],[u] -
p
/
(u
), which because of the convexity of p is equivalent to

u
- u
. Finally, a 1-shock-wave is characterised by

:
= :
[u]
_
[ p(u),[u] = :
_
[ p(u)][u]. u
- u
. (4.20)
Similarly, in a 2-shock-wave, =S while the Lax inequality

p
/
(u
) -
[ p(u)],[u] -
p
/
(u
) is equivalent to u
-u
. A 2-shock is thus characterised

by
:
= :
[u]
_
[ p(u),[u] = :
_
[ p(u)][u]. u
> u
. (4.21)
Now, let us show that the shock condition which we are about to treat is here
equivalent to Laxs entropy condition, with the result that our analysis does not
depend on the admissibility criterion adopted.
The natural entropy for this problem is a total energy, sum of the kinetic energy
and of a potential energy e(u) dened within a constant e
/
= p:
E(u. :) =
1
2
:
2
e(u). F(u. :) = :p(u).
The rate of entropy production is
[F] [E] = [:p(u)]
_
1
2
:
2
e(u)
_
= [:] p
[ p]

2
[:](:
) [e]
= [u] p
1
2
[ p][:] [e]
=
_
1
2
[u]( p
) [e]
_
.
where we have used the RankineHugoniot condition to eliminate :
. In addition
[u]
p
2
[e] = (u
)
_
1
0
(sp
(1 s) p
p(su
(1 s)u
)) ds
is of the same sign as [u] since p is strictly convex. Thus [F] [E] has the same
sign as [u]. For - 0, as discontinuity is thus entropic if and only if u
- u
,
while for > 0, it is so if and only if u
-u
. This conrms the criterion obtained

via Laxs shock inequalities.
Wave curves
To resume the two preceding sections, each wave curve is parametrised by u. A
single function of two variables is enough to make this point obvious. Let us put
(u. u
1
) =
_
_
_
u
1
u
_
p
/
(s) ds. u - u
1
.
( p(u) p(u
1
))(u u
1
). u > u
1
.
Fig. 4.4: Two 2-wave curves for the p-system. The relation P O
2
(Q) is not transitive;
the curves do not permit the denition of a coordinate system.
Being given two states (a. b) and (u. :), we have
(u. :) O
1
(a. b) : = b (u. a).
just as
(u. :) O
2
(a. b) : = b (a. u).
In the plane R
2
, the 1-wave curves are strictly decreasing and we infer one from
the other by vertical translation. The 2-wave curves are strictly increasing and we
infer one from the other by vertical translation. These curves are unbounded in the
vertical direction. In fact we have made the hypothesis that (. u
1
) = . On
the other hand, if u , then (u. a) -
( p(a 1) p(a))(u a) gives

(. a) = , and so on.
Let (u
L
. :
L
) and (u
R
. :
R
) be the two initial states of the Riemann problem. The
solution is a priori made up of a 1-wave and a 2-wave which separate two initial
states and an intermediate state (u
0
. :
0
). Making use of the parametrising of the
wave curves, the solution of the Riemann problem comes down to nding the
solution (u
0
. :
0
) of the system
:
0
= :
L
(u
0
. u
L
).
:
R
= :
0
(u
0
. u
R
)
_
(4.22)
and verifying that the two waves are gluable, that is if they are two shock waves,
then
1
-
2
. This last point is trivial since we always have
1
- 0 -
2
.
Eliminating :
0
from the equations (4.22), we are led to the scalar equation in the
single unknown u
0
,
G(u
0
) =0. (4.23)
where G(u) := (u. u
L
) (u. u
R
) [:]. The function G is continuous (it is in fact
of class C
2
) and satises G() = . Also G
/
-0 as for u a,
u
(u. a) =
p
/
(u) - 0 and on the other hand, for u > a, 2
u
(u. a) = p
/
(u)(u a)
p(u) p(a) > 0 (as the sum of two positive terms), while 0.
The equation (4.23) thus has one and only one solution u
0
. The pair (u
0
. :
L

(u
0
. u
L
)) is then the unique solution of (4.22). Finally, the Riemann problem for
the p-system has one and only one solution. We can even make precise the nature
of the waves produced as a function of the values of u
L
, u
R
and [:] by considering
the signs of G(u
L
) = (u
L
. u
R
) [:] and of G(u
R
) = (u
R
. u
L
) [:], since G is
decreasing and G(u
0
) = 0.
Case u
L
u
R
. Then we have G(u
R
) G(u
L
).
If [:] - (u
R
. u
L
), then u
0
> u
R
. There are two shock waves.
If (u
R
. u
L
) - [:] - (u
L
. u
R
), then u
L
- u
0
- u
R
. There are one 1-shock-
wave and one 2-rarefaction wave.
If (u
L
. u
R
) - [:], then u
L
> u
0
. There are two rarefaction waves.
Case u
R
u
L
. Then G(u
L
) G(u
R
).
If [:] - (u
L
. u
R
), then u
0
> u
L
. There are two shocks.
If (u
L
. u
R
) - [:] - (u
R
. u
L
), then u
R
-u
0
-u
L
. There are one 1-rarefaction
and one 2-shock.
If (u
R
. u
L
) - [:], then u
0
- u
R
. There are two rarefactions.
Comments (1) We note that in these criteria, the two values of (u
L
. u
R
) and
(u
R
. u
L
) are of opposite signs. In particular, if :
R
= :
L
then one of the waves
is a shock wave while the other is a rarefaction wave, this remaining true if :
R
:
L
is small with respect to [u
R
u
L
[.
(2) When [:] is equal to one of the values (u
L
. u
R
) and (u
R
. u
L
), one of
the waves disappears, that is the median state (u
0
. :
0
) is equal to (u
L
. :
L
) or to
(u
R
. :
R
).
4.8 The solution of the Riemann problem for gas dynamics
Hypotheses
We consider the system of gas dynamics in one spatial dimension with eulerian
coordinates. The choice of lagrangian coordinates would make the solution of
the Riemann problem more difcult as the eventual appearance of the vacuum is
represented by a Dirac measure for the specic volume. Also, when we approach
multi-dimensional congurations only the eulerian coordinates have a practical
interest. The system is thus
t
(:)
x
= 0.
(:)
t
(:
2
p(. e))
x
= 0.
_
_
e
1
2
:
2
__
t
_
e
1
2
:
2
_
: p:
_
x
= 0.
_
_
(4.24)
The velocity : takes its values in R while and e take positive values or zero.
Many of the calculations are simpler if we use the state variables (. e) and :, be-
cause of the simplicity of the non-conservative formof the systemin these variables,
when > 0:
(
t
:
x
) :
x
= 0.
(
t
:
x
):
1
p
x
= 0.
(
t
:
x
)e
1
p:
x
= 0.
_
_
(4.25)
The matrix of this system is
A = :I
3
_
_
_
0 0
1
p
0
1
p
e
0
1
p 0
_
_
_
.
The eigenvalues are the solutions of ( :)
3
= ( :)( p

2
pp
e
). In the
form (4.25) we see that the system has a singularity all over the plane = 0. This
corresponds to the fact that, when is identically zero, the conservative variables
. q = : and = (e
1
2
:
2
)) are not independent of each other since they are all
zero together (with the result that for (4.24) the singularity reduces to a single point
(0, 0, 0)). The density being zero on an interval expresses the fact that this interval is
free of gas. We cannot exclude this situation in the solution of the Riemann problem,
which introduces an indeterminacy in the variables which describe the ow. Indeed,
it is clear that the vacuum has zero energy, momentum and pressure, on the other
hand the velocity is not dened (this is the quotient q,), which prevents giving a
sense tothe energyux(e
1
2
:
2
): p:. We admit that generally, the speedhaving
to be a bounded variable, the energy ux is also identically zero in the vacuum.
The system is therefore hyperbolic for > 0 if, and only if p

2
pp
e
> 0,
which we shall henceforth assume to be the case (the matrix is not diagonalisable
if p

2
pp
e
= 0).
We express the eigenvectors and the eigenvalues of A as a function c := ( p
2
pp
e
)
1,2
, the speed of sound in the gas:
1
= : c.
2
= :.
3
= : c.
r
1
=
_
_
_
1
p
_
_
_
. r
2
=
_
_
_
p
e
0
p
_
_
_
. r
3
=
_
_
_
1
p
_
_
_
.
We have d
j
r
j
= (

2
p
e
)(c) for j = 1. 3. The rst and the third elds
are of the same nature, in general genuinely non-linear, as for a perfect gas (state
law p = ( 1)e where > 1 is a constant, c
2
= ( 1)e = p, and
d
j
r
j
=
1
2
(1 )c > 0). On the other hand, the second eld is always linearly
degenerate, independent of the state law chosen.
Let us note nally that the same uncertainty as formerly occurs for the speed of
sound in the vacuum. For example for a perfect gas, c
2
= ( 1)e which does
not make sense.
The rarefaction waves
Let us examine the 1-rarefaction-waves by rst calculating the corresponding
Riemann invariants. A 1-Riemann-invariant is a solution n of dn r
1
= 0, that
is of n
cn
:

1
pn
e
= 0. The simplest solutions are : g(. e) and S
where g is a solution of the linear rst order equation.
g

1
pg
e
= c.
and S, the specic entropy considered by the physicists (but which is not an entropy
in the mathematical sense) satises the homogeneous equation S
1
pS
e
= 0.
Let us remark that the non-linearity condition of the rst and third elds can be
interpreted by saying that c and S are two independent functions.
In a symmetric way, the Riemann invariants for the third eld are S and
: g(. e). A translation parallel to the velocity axis thus preserves the family
of integral curves of r
j
for j = 1. 3. Also, the symmetry (. :. e) . (. :. e)
exchanges the two families of curves. More precisely, if there exists a 1-rarefaction
to pass froma state u
= (
. :
. e
) to a state u
= (
. :
. e
), then :c(. e)
is monotonic increasing in going from u
to u
following the integral curve of r

1
.
It follows that : c(. e) is monotonic decreasing from U
= (
. :
. e
) to
U
= (
. :
. e
) along the integral curve of r

3
, that is we can pass from U
to
U
by a 3-rarefaction-wave. The symmetry thus as a matter of fact exchanges the

curves of the rarefaction waves relative to the rst and third characteristic elds.
The curve of the 1-rarefaction-wave issuing from u
can be parametrised by
the pressure p
. Indeed, dp r
1
= c
2
- 0 shows that p is strictly monotonic
along the integral curve of r
1
. If we suppose in fact that d
1
r
1
> 0 (which is true
for known gases and in particular for perfect gases, knowing that > 1), then the
pressure decreases along the 1-rarefactions (this is the origin of the name rarefaction
wave). Writing that S and : g(. e) are conserved, we obtain a parametrisation
of the form
= ( p
. p
).
:
= :
( p
. p
)
_
( p
).
By symmetry, the 3-rarefaction-waves have the parametrised form
= ( p
. p
).
:
= :
( p
. p
)
_
_
_
( p
).
Since the rst and the third components of r
1
are negative, and e also decrease
along the 1-rarefaction-wave: is increasing with respect to its rst argument.
Additionally, ( p;
. p
) = g( p. S
) g( p
. S
) where
c = (
2
p
e
)g = g
p
(
2
p
e
) p g
S
(
2
p
e
)S =
2
c
2
g
p
.
Hence, is strictly increasingly with respect to p. As p diminishes, the velocity
grows in a 1-rarefaction-wave. We can write
:
= :
_
p
dp
c
where the integral is evaluated along the rarefaction curve. By symmetry, we obtain
the following result.
Proposition 4.8.1 With respect to x, the variations of , p, e and : across a
rarefaction wave are as follows, provided d
1
r
1
> 0.
In a 1-rarefaction-wave, the density, the pressure and the specic energy diminish
while the speed grows.
In a 3-rarefaction-wave, the density, the pressure, the specic energy and the
speed grow.
On the other hand, when we follow the particles paths, the density, the pressure
and the specic energy decrease across a rarefaction wave.
Remark As we are now going to see, in the 1-shock-waves and the 3-shock-waves,
the variations of the pressure and of the speed are opposite to those stated above.
The shocks
Let us write the RankineHugoniot condition for a discontinuity of velocity s:
[:] = s[].
[:
2
p] = s[:].
__
1
2
:
2
e p
_
:
_
= s
_
1
2
:
2
e
_
.
By dening z := :s, we obtain the reduced conditions which amount to saying
that (. : s. e)
satisfy the RankineHugoniot condition for a zero velocity:

[z] = 0.
[z
2
p] = 0.
__
1
2
z
2
e p
_
z
_
= 0.
Then, let us denote by m the common value of
and
. There follow
m[z] [ p] = 0.
m
_
1
2
z
2
e
_
[ pz] = 0.
By combining these two equalities, we obtain
m
_
1
2
z
2
e
_
= [ p]z
[z] = (mz
)[z] = (mz
)[z]
=
1
2
(m(z
) ( p
))[z]
= m
_
1
2
z
2
_
1
2
( p
)[z];
this is to say
m[e] =
1
2
( p
)[z] =
1
2
m( p
)[
1
].
There are now two cases, according as m is zero or not. We shall see the case
m = 0 later since it corresponds to contact discontinuities. We therefore assume
that m ,= 0 which implies the fundamental relation across the discontinuities from
which the velocities of the gas and of the discontinuity itself have been eliminated:
[e]
1
2
( p
)
_
1
_
= 0. (4.26)
This relation, which appears to be a necessary condition to satisfy the Rankine
Hugoniot condition, is merely sufcient: if
. e
. e
satisfy it we choose for

m one of the roots, which we hope are real, of m
2
[
1
] [ p] = 0, and then we
dene z
= m,
. The (arbitrary) choice of s brings to an end the construction of

:
with the denitions :
= z
s.
Now, let us look at the admissibility of the shock waves. The convex entropy is
of the form E =h(S) where h is a suitable numerical function. Its ux is F = :E,
whence the rate of entropy production is P = m[h(S)]. Its sign depends on the
one hand on that of z
and on the other on that of [S], provided that h is strictly

monotonic. Again, the symmetry (x. . :. e) .(x. . :. e) exchanges the ad-
missible discontinuities of one family (s - :) with the admissible discontinuities
of the other family (s > :): if (U
. U
. s) is admissible then (U
. U
; s) is also,
in the notation adopted above.
Lemma 4.8.2 Let S = S(. e) be an entropy density in the sense of thermody-
namics, that is to say a solution of
2
S
pS
e
= 0 satisfying S
e
> 0 (the inverse
T = 1,S
e
is called the absolute temperature).
For every numerical function h, the function E := h S an entropy in the
mathematical sense, of ux F = :E. If (. q. ) := (. :.
1
2
:
2
e) . E is
convex, then h is decreasing.
Proof Because of (4.25), we verify immediately that (
t
:
x
)S = 0 for the
smooth solutions: the specic entropy is constant along the trajectories of the gas
particles (this is no longer true when a particle goes through a shock wave). It
is the same for h(S). Combining with the conservation law for mass, it becomes
E
t
(:E)
x
=0: E is an entropy of ux :E.
If E is convex, then the mapping a .k(a) := E(. a. :(a q)) is convex
for every choice of (. q. ), that is, writing S
1
:= h S.
0 k
//
(a) =
1
_
S
1
e
(:
1
a)
2
S
1
ee
_
.
In particular,
0 k
//
(q) =
1
S
1
e
.
We thus nd that S
1
e
0, that is, h
/
0. If the entropy is not trivial, h is strictly
decreasing.
Let us note nally that if m ,= 0, a part of the Lax inequalities is satised. For
example, if m >0, thens - min(
2
.
2
) = min(:
. :
) whichleads us toassociate
the discontinuity with the rst characteristic eld: it will be admissible if and only
if this is a 1-shock-wave. Similarly, if m - 0, it will be admissible if and only if it
is a 3-shock-wave.
The 1-shock-waves
Taking advantage of all the admissibility conditions introduced already, we re-
quire that the shock waves satisfy simultaneously the entropy condition, that is,
m[S] 0 (since h is decreasing), and the Lax shock condition which for a 1-shock is
written
:
- s - min(:
. :
).
We thus have m > 0 and the entropy condition reduces to [S] >0. Observing that
the gas particles traverse the 1-shock-wave from the left towards the right, after
m > 0, we reformulate this condition by saying that the entropy density, which is
constant along the trajectories in the absence of a shock, grows along these across
a shock wave.
The 3-shock-waves
In a symmetrical manner, a 3-shock-wave satises the Lax inequalities
max(:
. :
) - s - :
.
The entropy condition becomes [S] - 0. Since m - 0, the trajectories traverse the
3-shock-waves from right to left, with the result that the entropy again grows along
the trajectories. Finally:
Theorem 4.8.3 Let (u
. u
; s) be a discontinuity which is not of contact (i.e.

m ,= 0). Then it satises Laxs entropy criterion if and only if the entropy density
S grows across the discontinuity when we follow the motion of the particles.
This statement is nothing but the second law of thermodynamics, due to Carnot.
An important consequence of this criterion is the maximum principle for S.
Corollary 4.8.4 For a bounded and piecewise smooth entropy solution of the
Cauchy problem, we have the maximum principle
inf
xR
S(x. t ) inf
xR
S(x. 0).
Proof For t > 0 and x R, we consider the particle path which has arrived at x at
the time t . It clearly started out at the initial instant t
0
= 0 since the trajectories only
traverse the 1-shock-waves and 3-shock-waves and never meet with the 2-waves
which are contact discontinuities of the same speed as the ow (s =
2
=
2
).
The value of S along the length of the trajectory only varies when crossing a shock
wave and it increases in doing so. We therefore have
S(x. t ) S(x
0
. 0) inf
yR
S(y. 0).
which proves the corollary.
Parametrisation of shock curves
Let us consider for example the 1-shock-waves, because of the symmetry evoked
above with the 3-shock-waves. Because of the omnipresence of the operator L :=

2
p
e
and the condition of hyperbolicity, it is more convenient to use the
variables ( p. S) than (. e). In fact, Lp = c
2
> 0 and LS = 0 show that (. e) .
( p. S) is a change of variables. We then have the formulae
c
2
p
= L.
c
2
S
= T( p
e
p
e
).
The genuinely non-linear hypothesis (adapted from the case of perfect gases) is
p
(c) > 0.
The function g used to dene the Riemann invariants of the 1- and 3-characteri-
stic-elds is a solution of the equation
p
g =
1
c
1
. Finally we have the formulae
2
c
2
p
e = p > 0.
2
c
2
p
1
= 1 - 0.
2
c
2
S
e =
2
T p
2
c
2
S
1
= T p
e
.
Since S is a Riemann invariant associated with the 1- and 3-waves, we know
that, for a weak shock, the jump [S] is of the order of the cube of the amplitude
of the shock wave (C
2
matching of shock and rarefaction curves). As p is not a
Riemann invariant for these elds (we have seen that dp r
1
- 0), we can measure
this amplitude by the jump [ p] of p. Hence, we have [S] = O([ p]
3
). Now, using
the relation (4.26), we write, with the now classical notation (k):=
1
2
(k
)).
0 =
_
A
_
de p) d
1
_
=
_
A
_
T dS ( p) p) d
1
_
= T)[S]
_
A
_
(T T)) dS ( p) p) d
1
_
= O([ p
4
] T)[S]
_
A
( p) p) d
1
= O([ p]
4
) T)[S]
_
A
( p) p)
__
p
1
_
dp
_
S
1
_
dS
_
= O([ p]
4
) T)[S]
_
p
( p p))
2
c
2
dp.
Now,
2
c
2
=
2
c
2
) a( p p)) O([ p]
3
).
where a =
p
(
2
c
2
) >0 from the non-linearity hypothesis we have made.
Hence, we have
0 = O([ p]
4
) T)[S] a
_
p
( p p))
2
dp
= O([ p]
4
) T)[S]
a
12
[ p]
3
.
Finally,
[S]
a
12T)
[ p]
3
.
The sign of variation of S is thus the same as that of p across a discontinuity.
From the argument developed above, p thus grows across the 1-shock-waves and
decays across the 3-shock-waves with respect to x, which is the opposite situation to
that of the rarefaction waves (just as we have already observed for the p-system).
Of course, if instead of making x vary while keeping t constant, we follow the
particles, we nd that p grows along the trajectories, that is to say, that the shock
waves are compression waves.
In the favourable cases (those of the perfect gases for example as we shall
see later) equation (4.26) denes globally a curve p
. ( p
. S
) where S
=
Y( p
; p
. S
). On the other hand from the rst two RankineHugoniot relations

we derive the formula
[:]
2
=
[ p]
p)
[e] = [ p]
_
1
_
. (4.27)
Also, we have seen that m[z] [ p] = 0, that is m[:] [ p] = 0. For all the
shock waves (at least for weak shocks, but we shall admit, this being true for a
perfect gas, that it is so for shock waves of arbitrary amplitude), we have [:] - 0,
then either m -0 and [ p] -0 or m >0 and [ p] >0. Again, this is the opposite
to the case of rarefaction waves. The curves of the 1-shock-waves are thus of the
form
S
= Y( p
; p
. S
).
:
= :
( p
; p
. S
).
p
> p
.
where :=

[ p], p)[e] is a function dened for p
> p
. To avoid hav-
ing to extend to other values of the variables, we make use of the symmetry
(x. t. p. :. S) .(x. t. p. :. S) to write the 3-shock-wave in the form
S
= Y( p
; p
. S
).
:
= :
( p
; p
. S
).
p
> p
.
Wave curves
Finally, the 1-wave curves are described in the form
S
= ( p
; p
. S
).
:
= :
( p
; p
. S
).
by dening on the one hand := when p
. and := when p
> p
.
and on the other hand := Y when p
> p
and := S
when p
. By
symmetry, the 3-wave curves are described by
S
= ( p
; p
. S
).
:
= :
( p
; p
. S
).
Concerning the 2-waves, which are contact discontinuities because the second
eld is linearly degenerate, their curves are the integrals of the vector eld r
2
, which
are given by
:
= :
.
p
= p
.
Being given a state to the left ( p
L
. :
L
. S
L
) and a state to the right ( p
R
. :
R
. S
R
) the
usual procedure is to seek two intermediate states, of indices 1 and 2, and three
waves linking these four states. The central wave being a contact discontinuity, we
have p
1
= p
2
and :
1
=:
2
. We shall denote these common values by p and :. There
are thus a 1-wave from ( p
L
. :
L
. S
L
) to ( p. :. S
1
) and a 3-wave from ( p. :. S
2
) to
( p
R
. :
R
. S
R
). This results in the equations
S
1
= ( p; p
L
. S
L
). (4.28)
: = :
L
( p; p
L
. S
L
). (4.29)
S
2
= ( p; p
R
. S
R
). (4.30)
: = :
R
( p; p
R
. S
R
). (4.31)
The cancellation of : from equations (4.29) and (4.31) reduces the Riemann
problem to that of solving a single scalar equation in the unknown p:
( p; p
L
. S
L
) ( p; p
R
. S
R
) = :
L
:
R
. (4.32)
Once this equation has been solved, (4.28) and (4.30) yield the values of S
1
and S
2
. Finally : is given by (4.29). However, the equation (4.32) does not al-
ways have a solution. We shall see for example that for a perfect gas, is an
increasing function of p (this is true generally at least as long as p - p
, since
then =g( p. S
) g( p
. S
) and
p
g >0 is our hypothesis of non-linearity).
If we admit this property, then the left-hand side of (4.32) is minimal for p =0,
taking a value V( p
L
. S
L
. p
R
. S
R
) =(0; p
L
. S
L
) (0; p
R
. S
R
), nite in general. If
:
L
:
R
-V( p
L
. S
L
. p
R
. S
R
), equation (4.32) does not have a solution and we do
not nd a solution of the Riemann problem by the classical method.
This difcultyis removedbyobservingthat a vacuumcanoccur whenthe pressure
is zero. In this case, there is no contact discontinuity and the vacuum is found
between the straight lines of slopes :
1
and :
2
. We have necessarily :
1
- :
2
and
p
1
= p
2
= 0. Finally there are two cases:
Either :
L
:
R
V( p
L
. S
L
. p
R
. S
R
), andthenthe solutionof the Riemannproblem
is made up of a wave of each family and there is no vacuum. In this case
the fact that the 1- and 3-waves are rarefaction waves or shock waves can be
determined by considering the position of :
L
:
R
with respect to ( p
R
; p
L
. S
L
)
and ( p
L
; p
R
. S
R
), as for the p-system.
or :
L
:
R
- V( p
L
. S
L
. p
R
. S
R
), and then the solution of the Riemann prob-
lem is made up of a 1-rarefaction-wave (leading to a state of zero pres-
sure), followed by a vacuum, followed by a 3-rarefaction-wave starting from
zero pressure. We verify clearly that in this case :
1
- :
2
, since :
2
:
1
=
:
R
:
L
V( p
L
. S
L
. p
R
. S
R
).
The case of a perfect gas
We now take up the case where p := ( 1)e, where > 1 is a constant. The
rst calculations are immediate and give
c =
_
( 1)e.
g = 2
_
e
1
.
S = (1 ) log log e.
T = e.
The functions of the formh S are mathematical entropies of ux :h S. We
have seen in Exercise (3.7) that the mapping (1,. :. e
1
2
:
2
) . S is concave. It
is written then as the inmum of a family A of afne functions:
S = inf
_
l
_
1
. :. e
1
2
:
2
_
: l A
_
.
To every afne function l(. :. E) =
0
1

2
:
3
E, we make a corre-
sponding afne function m(. q. e) :=
0
2
q
3
. This correspondence
sends the set A onto the set B. Then
S = inf
_
m
_
. :.
_
1
2
:
2
e
__
: m B
_
.
which shows that S is a concave entropy of the conservative variables
u :=
_
. :.
_
1
2
:
2
e
__
.
Let us look at the shock curves, in the light of equations (4.27) and (4.26). This
latter is written
( 1)(
) ( 1)(
) = 0
which reduces to
[:]
2
=
( p
)
2
_
1
2
p
1
2
p
_
.
In a 1-shock-wave, [ p] > 0, and hence we have (since [:] - 0)
:
=
p
_
1
2
p
1
2
p
_
.
The parametrisation by p of the wave curves is done by means of the function
( p; p
. S
) dened here by
( p; p
. S
) =
_
_
( p p
)
_
_
1
2
p
1
2
p
_
. p > p
.
2c
_
_
p
p
_
( 1),2
1
_
_
( 1). p p
.
The second line of the above formula is obtained by writing that, in a 1-rarefaction-
wave, on the one hand =g
, on the other hand S
= S
, that is to say
p
1
= p
1
. We nd that the minimal value V( p

L
.
L
. p
R
.
R
) belowwhich
4.9 Exercises 143
the value of :
L
:
R
leads to the creation (if we venture to so express it) of a vacuum,
V =
2
1
(c
L
c
R
).
Finally, noticing that (; p
. S
) = , we discover that there is no upper

limit imposed on :
L
:
R
. From the intermediate value theorem ( is certainly
continuous) equation (4.32) possesses at least one solution as long as :
L
:
R
V.
But as (; p
. S
) is obviously increasing, this solution is unique.

Theorem 4.8.5 The Riemann problem for the dynamics of perfect gases has a
unique solution. That is of classical form (a 1-wave followed by a contact disconti-
nuity followed by a 3-wave) if :
L
:
R
V( p
L
. S
L
. p
R
. S
R
). Otherwise, it is made
up of a 1-rarefaction-wave and of a 3-rarefaction-wave which join respectively the
states ( p
L
. :
L
. S
L
) and ( p
R
. :
R
. S
R
) to a vacuum.
4.9 Exercises
4.9 For gas dynamics, we consider one of the Hugoniot curves H
j
(u
) with
j = 1. 3.
(1) Express the differential of the restriction of p to H
j
(u
) as a function of
the differential of that of 1,.
(2) Calculate the differential of the restriction of S to H
j
(u
). Deduce that S
is monotonic along H
j
(u
) so long as
2
c
2
[1,] [ p] is not zero.
4.10 We consider only classical solutions of gas dynamics.
(1) Let s(x. t ) be a quantity satisfying the transport equation (
t
:
x
)s = 0.
Show that
1
x
s does too.
(2) Let g be a numerical function. Show that E := g(
1
S
x
) is an entropy
with ux F = :E.
(3) We construct by induction S
0
:= S. . . . . S
n
:=
1
x
S
n1
. Let g be a real
function of m1 real variables. Showthat g(S
0
. . . . . S
m
) is an entropy
of ux F = :E.
4.11 We choose to express every thermodynamic quantity as a function of the
entropypressure pair ( p. S).
(1) Show that
d = c
2
(dp p
e
T dS).
de = c
2
(
2
pdp p
T dS).
(2) We consider the (unrealistic) case where all the elds are linearly degener-
ate. Showthat there exists a numerical function h such that
2
c
2
h(S) 1.
(3) Deduce that e and are expressed in the form
e =
1
2
h(S) p
2
k(S).
1
= h(S) p l(S).
(4) Show that [S] = 0 implies the relation (4.26). Deduce that in the neigh-
bourhood of u
, S S
along the curves H

j
(u
) for j = 1. 3.
4.12 We consider the interaction of two shock waves of the same family, (u
. u
0
;
s
). (u
0
. u
; s
). More precisely, the initial condition is

u(x. 0) =
_
_
u
. x - 1.
u
0
. 1 - x - 1.
u
. x > 1.
We denote by z := 1, the specic volume
(1) Calculate the solution of the Cauchy problem up to the time T of inter-
action. Show that T is nite.
(2) We suppose that the by-product of the interaction, that is the solution of
the Riemann problem with u
L
=u
. and u
R
=u
, reduces to a single
shock wave. Derive the formula
p
(z
z
0
) p
(z
0
z
) p
0
(z
) = 0.
(3) In a shock wave with velocity s, show that
[ p]
[z]
= ((: s))
2
.
(. :) taking either of the values, downstream or upstream.
(4) Deduce from what has come before that the result of the interaction of
two shock waves of the same family cannot reduce to a single shock wave
(show that s
= s
before nishing).
4.13 Solve the Riemann problem for the dynamics of barotropic gases:
t
(:)
x
= 0.
(:)
t
(:
2
p())
x
= 0.
_
(4.33)
where ( 0) . p() 0 is the equation of state of the gas. We shall make
the appropriate hypotheses on p for the system to be hyperbolic and to have
two genuinely non-linear characteristic elds (for the sense of variation of
j
along the integral curve of r
j
, we shall adopt the same assumptions as for a
polytropic gas). We shall take account of the fact that, as for a non-isothermal
gas (i.e. a general gas), it must sometimes admit a vacuum. Following the
4.9 Exercises 145
position of :
R
:
L
with respect to the appropriate values of H(
L
.
R
) and
H(
R
.
L
) we shall determine the nature (shock or rarefaction) of the waves.
4.14 (See [5], [77], [78], [52], [94])
We consider the system which describes the dynamics of an elastic string in
R
2
. We have : = (:
1
. :
2
) and n = (n
1
. n
2
) :
:
t
= n
x
.
n
t
= (T(r):,r)
x
. r := |:|.
We write also q := :,r, which is a unit vector.
We suppose that T(1) = 0 (in the reference frame, the string is at rest),
T
/
>0 and T
//
> 0.
(1) Show that the system is hyperbolic if and only if r > 1. We shall denote
this zone by H, which describes the string in extension.
(2) Showthat the 1- and 4-characteristic-elds are genuinely non-linear, while
the 2- and 3-elds are linearly degenerate. Establish a symmetry relation
between the j -waves and the (5 j )-waves.
(3) Show that in parametric form each wave curve can be written in the form
n
= n
j
(:
. :
).
What can we deduce about the
j
, from the symmetry relations?
(4) We wish to solve the Riemann problem in the usual form. We suppose that
r
L
. r
R
> 1 and we denote the intermediate states by (u
j
. :
j
) for 1 j 3.
Show that q
1
= q
L
, q
2
= q
R
. and r
1
= r
2
= r
3
. We denote this common
value by r.
(5) Eliminating the vectors n
j
(and using (3) above) reduce the solution of
the Riemann problem to that of a single vector equation with values in R
2
,
whose unknowns are q
2
and r.
(6) Writing that q
2
is a unit vector leads to the solution of a scalar equation of
the form
J(r; n
R
n
L
. :
L
. :
R
) = 0.
(7) Study the variations of J with respect to its rst variable on the interval
(1. ). Deduce that the Riemann problem has one and only one solution
with values in H.
(8) Characterise the nature of the 1-wave and of the 4-wave as a function of the
values, which should be calculated explicitly, of J(r
L
; n
R
n
L
. :
L
. :
R
)
and of J(r
R
; n
R
n
L
. :
L
. :
R
).
5
The Glimm scheme
It is not the purpose of this work to introduce the schemes for the numerical simula-
tion of the systems of conservation laws, which is very well done in other works [62,
34]. But it is impossible to study the theory of systems without describing Glimms
scheme, which gives the sole result of any generality concerning Cauchys problem.
Curiously, this scheme, the only one for which we have at our disposal a conver-
gence theorem for systems in one space dimension, is rarely used, no doubt by
reason of its random aspect (which prevents it attaining a high precision) and also
because its extension to several space dimensions is disappointing.
We therefore restrict ourselves to systems of n conservation laws in one space
dimension,
u
t
f (u)
x
= 0. x R. t > 0. (5.1)
u(x. 0) = u(x). x R. (5.2)
for which we knowa priori the Riemann problemhas a solution. For example, since
the principal result concerns an initial datum u near to a constant, we can suppose
that the systemis strictly hyperbolic and that each of its characteristic elds is either
genuinely non-linear or linearly degenerate, as we can use Laxs theorem for the
local solution of the Riemann problem.
5.1 Functions of bounded variation
Glimms theory makes use of the class of functions of bounded total variation on
R. We recall that if E is a normed vector space and if I is an interval of R (which
can be either open or closed), the total variation of a function :: R E on I ,
denoted by TV(:; I ), is the upper bound of
r
j =1
|:(x
j
) :(x
j 1
)|.
146
5.1 Functions of bounded variation 147
when x = (x
0
. . . . . x
r
) runs through the set of nite increasing sequences with
values in I . We say that : is of bounded total variation on I if TV(:; I ) - .
The set BV(I ; E) of these functions is a Banach space when we equip it with the
norm TV(:; I ) |:(y)|, y being a point chosen in I . The main property of the
space BV is Hellys theorem.
Theorem 5.1.1 We suppose that E is of nite dimension and that I is bounded.
Then the canonical mapping of BV(I ; E) into L
1
(I ; E) is compact.
We take heed of the fact that this mapping is not injective since the functions in L
1
are dened only almost everywhere. We could make it injective by replacing BV
by its quotent modulo the null functions almost everywhere. The norm of a class
of functions : would then be the lower bound of the norms of its elements. This
theorem can be seen as a variant of the RellichKondrachov theorem for Sobolev
spaces since the image of BVis also the space of locally integrable functions whose
distributional derivative is a bounded measure. This space is particularly appropriate
(at least in one space dimension) in the study of weak solutions involving shock
waves and contact discontinuities and which are smooth elsewhere.
In several space dimensions, the situation is clearly less favourable since
we know [4, 85] that the space BV is not suitable for the linear systems
u
t

1j d
A
j
u
x
j
= 0, except when the matrices A
j
commute pairwise.
Although it is not excluded that the non-linearity of certain characteristic elds
contributes to partially regularise the solution, the physical systems also have
linearly degenerate elds and it is improbable that functions of bounded vari-
ation settle the question. However, no other satisfactory function space has
been suggested until now to study weak solutions.
Now, let us introduce some rules of calculation. When a function :: I E is
piecewise continuous, discontinuous only at the points a
1
. . . . . a
s
and piecewise
C
1
between these, the total variation of : is calculated simply by the formula
TV(:; I ) =
s
j =1
(|:(a
j
0) :(a
j
)||:(a
j
) :(a
j
0)|)
_
I {a
1
.....a
s
]
_
_
_
_
d:
dx
_
_
_
_
dx.
If I = (a. b) and if c (a. b), then
TV(:; I ) = TV(:; (a. c)) TV(:; (c. b)) [:(c) :(c 0)[ [:(c) :(c 0)[.
The following inequality is a consequence of the denition.
148 The Glimm scheme
Proposition 5.1.2 If : BV(R) and if h > 0, we have
_
R
[:(x h) :(x)[ dx h TV(:; R).
In fact the number of jumps of a function of bounded variation is at most denumer-
able and, free to modify : at these points with the result that :(x) is on the segment
of extremities :(x 0) and :(x 0), we have
TV(:; R) = lim
h0
1
h
_
R
[:(x h) :(x)[ dx.
Proof This uses only the triangle inequality and the relation of Chasles:
_
R
[:(x h) :(x)[ dx =
kZ
_
(k1)h
kh
[:(x h) :(x)[ dx
=
kZ
_
h
0
[:(y (k 1)h) :(y kh)[ dy
=
_
h
0
kZ
[:(y (k 1)h) :(y kh)[ dy
_
h
0
TV(:; R) dy = h TV(:; R).
It is easy now to prove Hellys theorem. In fact if F is a bounded family of real
functions dened on a bounded interval I we go on to consider the family F of
their extensions by 0 to the whole of R. This family is again bounded in BV(R)
since each extension satises TV(

f ; R) TV( f ; I ) 2| f |
3| f |
BV(I )
. From
the above proposition, F is uniformly equi-integrable. In addition, the elements of
F are with support in

I , which is a xed compact set, and are uniformly bounded
on R, since | f |
| f |
BV(I )
. Thus, the set F satises the hypotheses of the
relative compactness theorem of Kolmogorov in L
1
(R) and we conclude that F is
relatively compact in L
1
(I ).
The last result which we need concerns functions which also depend on a time
variable.
Theorem5.1.3 We suppose that E is nite-dimensional andwe consider asequence
(:
m
)
mN
of functions dened on [0. T]R, with values in E satisfying the following
three hypotheses:
(1) there exists a positive real number M such that TV(:
m
(t ); R) M for all
m N,
Fig. 5.1: The grid with sampling points.
(2) |:
m
(t. 0)| M for all m N,
(3) there exists a sequence (
m
)
mN
, which converges to 0, such that
_
R
|:
m
(t. x) :
m
(s. x)| dx
m
M[t s[
for all m N and all s. t [0. T].
Then this sequence is relatively compact in L
1
loc
((0. T) R): we can extract a sub-
sequence whose restriction to every bounded open set O (0. T) R converges
in L
1
(O). Also the limit : belongs to C ([0. T]; L
1
(R)).
In fact the limit also satises
_
R
|:(t. x) :(s. x)| dx M[t s[.
and :(t. ) (which is well-dened as an element of L
1
(R) for all values of t ) admits
for t (0. T) a representation with bounded variation satisfying TV(:(t. ); R)
M and |:(t. 0)| M.
The proof of this theorem will be given in 5.8.
5.2 Description of the scheme
The approximate solutionof the CauchyproblemgivenbyGlimms scheme depends
on the choice of the space step Lx and of the time step Lt and on that of a sequence
a =(a
0
. a
1
. . . .) of which each term is an element of (1. 1). In general, the ratio
:= Lx,Lt is chosen a priori to ensure a sufcient speed of propagation (the
CourantFriedrichsLewy condition) and remains constant when we make h = Lx
tend to zero. We then denote by u
h
a
the approximate solution, although it depends
also on , as we only vary h and a in the sequel.
This is dened by induction on n N in each strip [nLt. (n 1)Lt ] R. Pos-
sibly this induction may fail at a stage N and the solution will be dened only on
(0. NLt )R. At the instants of the formnLt , u
h
a
is piecewise constant, constant on
the meshes I
j
:= (( j 1)Lx. ( j 1)Lx) for j n 2Z. The meshes are thus ar-
ranged in alternate rows. At the initial instant, we dene u
h
a
(0. I
j
) = u(( j a
0
)Lx),
which is a sampling of the initial condition. Similarly, for n 1, we pass from
nLt 0 to nLt 0 through a sampling value
u
h
a
(nLt. I
j
) := u
h
a
(nLt 0. ( j a
n
)Lx 0). j n 2Z.
This, the choice of the value to the left, is conventional and is intended to remove
the ambiguity when we must sample a discontinuity in the approximate solution
(which happens only exceptionally).
It remains to dene u
h
a
in the strip (nLt. (n 1)Lt ) R as the exact solution
of the Cauchy problem in this strip, of which the initial condition is the piecewise
constant function u
h
a
(nLt. ). This exact solution is known to us during a certain
time interval t
n
: it is the gluing of solutions of the Riemann problem. Let us write
u
n. j
:= u
h
a
(nLt. I
j
). The Riemann problem centred in t = nLt and x = kLx
(for k n 1 2Z), of which the left and right states are respectively u
n.k1
and u
n.k1
, admits a solution :
n.k
by hypothesis. The function :(. ) dened for
t nLt by
:
n
(t. x) = :
n.k
(t. x). (x. t ) : x I
k
.
is a weak entropy solution of the Cauchy problemconsidered while :
n
is continuous
at the interfaces between the meshes, that is to say for x = j Lx, j n 2Z. It
is enough for this that the waves of the Riemann problem issuing from the node
kLx do not reach the boundaries of the mesh I
k
, this for all k. Denoting by V
n
the
upper bound of the speeds of the waves of all the Riemann problems solved at the
instant nLt , we observe that :
n
is the exact solution sought in the time interval
t
n
= V
1
n
Lx. The calculation of u
h
a
is thus effective until the following instant
(n 1)Lt provided the CourantFriedrichsLewy (CFL) condition is satised:
V
n
1. (5.3)
We note that V
n
depends only on the (ordered) list of the states u
n. j
, j n 2Z.
In particular, suppose that u takes its values in a domain K U, compact and
invariant for the Riemann problem, that is to say satisfying the following property:
For all :
L
. :
R
K, the solution of the Riemann problem between :
L
and :
R
has its values in K.
Under this hypothesis, it is immediate that u
h
a
takes its value in K while the ap-
proximate solution is dened, that is, while the condition (5.3) is satised. But as
K is compact, there exists a bound V
K
of the speed of the waves in the Riemann
problems whose initial data are in K. And as V
n
V
K
, it is sufcient to choose a
priori = (V
K
)
1
for (5.3) to hold and for the approximate solution to be dened
for all time. This remark is due to D. Hoff [42].
In the general case, grosso modo for systems of at least three equations, there does
not exist an invariant compact domain for the Riemann problem (see Chapter 8).
We therefore dene the approximate solution by induction on the strips (t
n
. t
n1
)
R with t
n1
t
n
= V
1
n
Lx, hoping that

n
V
1
n
diverges. However, Glimms
theorem, which we are going to prove, states that for a small enough initial datum
the approximate solution remains in a xed compact set, independent of , with
the result that there again exists a value of which satises the CFL condition at
all stages of the calculation.
Theorem 5.2.1 (Glimm) Let u be an interior point of U. We suppose that each
characteristic eld is either genuinely non-linear or linearly degenerate in the
neighbourhood of u. Then, there exist two numbers > 0 and C > 0 such that for
every given initial function satisfying the hypothesis
| u u|
L
TV( u) 0. (5.4)
the Cauchy problem (5.1), (5.2) possesses a weak solution in R
t
R
x
satisfying
in addition
|u(t. ) u|
L
C(| u u|
L
TV( u)),
TV(u(t. )) CTV( u),
|u(t. ) u(s. )|
L
1 C[t s[TV( u),
u satises Laxs entropy inequalities E
t
F
x
0 for every convex entropy E of
ux F:
__
R
R
(E(u)
t
F(u)
x
) dx dt
_
R
E( u)(x. 0) dx 0. D
(R
2
).
Of course, this theorem is tied to Glimms scheme by a statement of convergence.
However, as we shall see in the following section, the approximate solution, though
it converges in general, does not converge to a weak solution of the Cauchy prob-
lem when we choose certain sequences a. The convergence is linked to a random
property of the sequence a, which explains that we have recourse to a parameter as
complex as a generic element of A = (1. 1)
N
.
First of all, let us provide A with the uniform probability measured d, product
of the uniform measures dm
j
=
1
2
da
j
on each factor (1. 1). This is the unique
measure dened on the class of Borel sets of A which satises the identities
_
A
g(a) d(a) = 2
1N
_
1
1
. . .
_
1
1
G(a
0
. . . . . a
N
) da
0
. . . da
N
when g(a) := G(a
0
. . . . . a
N
) has only a nite number of arguments. We see from
the StoneWeierstrass theoremthat these functions forma dense sub-space of C (
A)
sothe above formula allows us todene ina unique manner the integral of a function,
continuous on

A, with respect to d.
Here is the convergence result.
Theorem 5.2.2 Under the hypotheses of Theorem 5.2.1, there exist two numbers
h
0
> 0 and
0
> 0 such that, for all a A and every step h = Lx, 0 - h - h
0
,
Lt = Lx (0 - -
0
), the approximate solution is dened for all time and
satises at each instant
_
_
u
h
a
u
_
_
L
C(| u u|
L
TV( u)).
TV
_
u
h
a
_
CTV( u).
Inaddition, there exists asubset N of measure zeroin Asuchthat, for all a AN ,
the sequence (u
h
a
)
h0
is relatively compact in L
1
loc
(R
R), its limits being the

weak solutions of the Cauchy problem such as are described in Theorem5.2.1.
Of course, the uniqueness of the entropy solution in the class where we show the
existence not being known,
1
it is not possible to write a simpler statement. The
scalar case is the most favourable because of Theorem 2.3.5 and in this case it is
the whole sequence (u
h
a
)
h
which converges, this for almost all a. Also, the proof
of the stability of the scheme (obtaining a priori estimates) is much more simple
and general in the scalar case (we have for example C = 1): we no longer suppose
that the given initial function is small. It is the same for the systems said to be of B.
Temple (see Chapter 13) which extend in a natural manner the scalar conservation
laws. This remark is also of value for a class of systems which we shall study in 5.6
and which contains the isothermal model of gas dynamics. In the general case, we
can ask if the hypothesis of a small datum is essential for the existence of a weak
solution to the Cauchy problem, since the real world does not consist of such data.
We do not have the means to answer this question, but it has been observed that the
estimate TV(u(t. )) CTV( u) cannot be true if the constant C depends solely on
| u u|
for rather general systems of at least three conservation laws [47]. The
1
Actually, a recent result of A. Bressan states that the limit is unique whenever Glimms estimate and consis-
tency hold.
5.3 Consistency 153
number 3 is here optimal since in the case of 22 systems (n = 2 equations), only
the norm of u u in L
must be supposed small (see 5.9).

As often in numerical analysis, the stability of the scheme implies its convergence
(Theorem 5.4.1). It is the possibility of showing the stability which distinguishes
the general case from particular cases. In fact, only the convergence is the object
of a probabilistic analysis, while that of the stability, which leads to the estimate
(5.4), proceeds from physical ideas and makes use of the notion of interaction
potential.
Before dealing with the proof of Theorem 5.2.2 we shall explain in the next
section why certain sequences a A are not suitable.
5.3 Consistency
For most of the systems of physical interest, one at least of the characteristic elds
is genuinely non-linear and the work of Lax shows that there exist pairs of states
(u
L
. u
R
) linked by a shock wave. We denote by c the speed of this shock wave
and we calculate the approximate solution provided by Glimms scheme when the
given initial condition is
u(x) =
_
u
L
. x - 0.
u
R
. x > 0.
Since the solution of the Riemann problem between two equal states is constant
and since the scheme proceeds by sampling and by solutions of Riemann prob-
lems, we see immediately that the states u
n. j
are all with values in {u
L
. u
R
]. More
precisely, there exists a number j
n
n 1 2Z such that u
n. j
= u
L
if j - j
n
and u
n. j
= u
R
if j > j
n
. The approximate solution is thus completely known if
we realise the recurrence j
n
. j
n1
. In the strip (t
n
. t
n1
) R, the approximate
solution takes the values
u
h
a
(t. x) =
_
u
L
. x j
n
h - c(t t
n
).
u
R
. x j
n
h > c(t t
n
).
The CFL condition is written [c[ 1, and this does not depend on n. The approx-
imate solution is thus dened for all time. Also, u
h
a
(t
n1
0. x) takes the value u
L
on I
j
for all j - j
n
and the value u
R
for j > j
n
. Thus, u
n1. j
takes the value
u
L
for j - j
n
and the value u
R
for j > j
n
. As j
n1
j
n
is odd, we thus have
j
n1
= j
n
1 and in fact
j
n1
= j
n

_
1. a
n1
- c.
1. a
n1
c.
Finally
j
n
= n 1 2 card{m N: 0 m n. a
m
c].
The approximate solution takes the values u
L
and u
R
at one side and the other of
the broken line which passes through the nodes P
n
= (nLt. j
n
h). The slope of the
straight line OP
n
has the value
p(a; h. nLt ) = p
n
=
j
n
h
nLt
=
j
n
n

1
2
n
card{m N: 0 m n. a
m
c].
If the approximate solution converges to the exact solution of the Cauchy problem,
which is the shock wave of speed c, we must have lim
h0
p(a; h. t ) = c, that is to
say,
2
n
card{m N: 0 m n. a
m
c] 1 c. (5.5)
If we wish to maintain that this convergence takes place for all the possible systems,
that is for shock waves of arbitrary speed and numbers compatible with the CFL
condition, it is necessary that
2
n
card{m N: 0 m n. a
m
] 1 . (5.6)
when (1. 1) and n . A sequence a which satises this property is
called equi-distributed in (1. 1). An equivalent condition is the convergence of
quadrature formulae:
lim
n
1
n 1
n
k=0
f (a
k
) =
1
2
_
1
1
f (x) dx. f C ([0. 1]). (5.7)
A classic example of an equi-distributed sequence is a
n
= n (mod 2) where is
an irrational number. But to put Glimms scheme into operation, Collela [10] has
proposed the sequence of Van der Corput [38] in which the lling of the interval
(1. 1) is mades at an optimal speed (this refers to the notion of discrepancy of
a sequence which goes beyond the objective of this section). This sequence is
obtained by writing each integer n as a number to the base 2, n =
r

1
with
j
= 0 or 1 and
r
= 1, then calculating the number b
n
written in binary mode as
b
n
=
1
.
r
. Finally we put b
n
= 1a
n
. The rst elements of this sequence are
1 0
1,2 1,2
3,4 1,4 1,4 3,4
.
.
.
.
.
.
5.3 Consistency 155
Thus, only the equi-distributed sequences let us hope for convergence of u
h
a
to a
weak solution of the Cauchy problem. Happily we have
Proposition 5.3.1 Almost every (with respect to d) sequence a A is equi-dis-
tributed.
This proposition explains that the convergence of the scheme can take place
for almost every sequence a except for those that are badly distributed. In fact,
T.-P. Liu has improved Glimms theorem in proving that convergence takes
place for every equi-distributed sequence [69].
Proof Let F be a dense denumerable subset of C ([1. 1]). For f C ([1. 1])
and a A, we write
I ( f ) =
1
2
_
1
1
f (x) dx . I
n
(a; f ) =
1
n 1
n
k=0
f (a
k
).
If a sequence a satises lim
n
I
n
(a; f ) = I ( f ) for all f in F, then it is
equi-distributed for if g C ([1. 1]) and if > 0, there exists f in F such that
sup
x
[ f (x) g(x)[ and there exists N N such that, for n > N, we have
[I
n
(a; f ) I ( f )[ . But then, for n N, we have
[I
n
(a; g) I (g)[ [I
n
(a; g f )[ [I
n
(a; f ) I ( f )[ [I ( f g)[ 3.
We thus have lim
n
I
n
(a; g) = I (g) for every continuous function g and this is
equivalent to the equi-distribution of a. The set of sequences badly distributed is
thus the (denumerable) union of sets N
f
dened by
J(a; f ) := limsup
m
[I
m
(a; f ) I ( f )[
2
> 0.
Now making use of Fatous lemma,
_
A
J(a; f ) d(a) limsup
m
_
A
[I
m
(a; f ) I ( f )[
2
d(a).
where the integral on the right-hand side has value
1
(m 1)
2
m
j.k=0
_
A
f (a
j
) f (a
k
) d(a)
2
m 1
I ( f )
m
k=0
_
A
f (a
k
) d(a) I ( f )
2
= I ( f )
2
_
m
m 1
2 1
_
1
m 1
I ( f
2
)
=
1
m 1
(I ( f
2
) I ( f )
2
)
m
0.
Thus
_
A
J(a; f ) d(a) is null, with the result that N
f
is of null measure. Finally,
the (denumerable) union of the N
f
for f ranging over F is of null measure.
5.4 Convergence
We show in this section that the stability of Glimms scheme in BV implies the
convergence to a weak entropy solution for almost every choice of the sequence a.
Theorem 5.4.1 Let u BV(R) and > 0. We suppose that for h (0. h
0
)
(with h
0
>0 suitably chosen) and for all a A, Glimms scheme denes a global
approximate solution u
h
a
and that there exists a constant M > 0 such that we have
for all time
_
_
u
h
a
u
_
_
L
TV
_
u
h
a
_
M.
Then the sequences (u
h
a
)
h>0
are relatively compact in L
1
loc
(R
R) and their limit

are, for d-almost all a A, weak solutions of the Cauchy problem (5.1), (5.2).
Let us note that we do not assume that the given initial condition is small in BV(R),
withthe result that, if we knowhowtoprove the stabilityof the scheme for arbitrarily
large given initial data, we immediately deduce an existence theorem for such data.
Compactness
The compactness of the sequences (u
h
a
)
h>0
will follow from Theorem 5.1.3, once
we have veried the third hypothesis. Let us rst suppose that s = nLt 0 and
nLt - t - (n 1)Lt 0. In these calculations let us write u = u
h
a
. Then u(s. x)
has value u
n. j
on I
j
( j n even), in the same manner as u(t. j h). We therefore have
_
R
[u(t ) u(s)[ dx =
j n2Z
_
I
j
[u(t ) u(s)[ dx
=
j n2Z
_
I
j
[u(t. x) u(t. j h)[ dx
j n2Z
2h TV(u(t ); I
j
) = 2h TV(u(t )) 2Mh.
Then, if s = nLt 0, and t = nLt 0,
_
R
[u(t ) u(s)[ dx =
j n2Z
_
I
j
[u(s. ( j a
n
)h) u(s. x)[ dx
j n2Z
2h TV(u(s); I
j
) 2Mh.
5.4 Convergence 157
Combining these two inequalities we bound the integral for any s and t by 2(N 1)
Mh where N is the number of integers n such that s nLt t . Finally,
_
R
[u(t ) u(s)[ dx 2M([t s[ h).
We can therefore apply Theorem 5.1.3.
We note that we have implicity assumed that the CFL condition is satised,
by supposing that u
h
a
is globally dened. We make use of this when we write
u(t. j h) = u
n. j
for nLt - t - (n 1)Lt .
Estimate of the error
The error due to the scheme is the value of the expression which should be
null for a weak solution in the variational formulation of the Cauchy problem,
namely
e(a; . h) :=
__
R
R
_
u
h
a

t
f
_
u
h
a
_

x
_
dx dt
_
R
u(x) (x. 0) dx.
We prove here the following lemma.
Lemma 5.4.2 Under the hypotheses of Theorem 5.4.1 we have
lim
h0
_
A
[e(a; . h)[
2
d(a) = 0
for all D(R
2
)
n
.
Proof Let D(R
2
)
n
. In each strip B
n
= (nLt. (n 1)Lt ) R, u
h
a
is a weak
solution, piecewise smooth, of a Cauchy problem; that is we have
__
B
n
_
u
h
a

t
f
_
u
h
a
_

x
_
dx dt =
_
R
u
h
a
((n 1)Lt 0. x) ((n 1)Lt. x) dx
_
R
u
h
a
(nLt 0. x) (nLt. x) dx.
Summing these equalities (all these integrals except a nite number among them
are null) we obtain e(a; . h) =
n0
e
n
(a; . h) where
e
n
(a; . h) :=
_
R
_
u
h
a
(nLt 0. x) u
h
a
(nLt 0. x)
_
(nLt. x) dx.
these quantities beingall null but a nite number. It is easytosee that eache
n
(a; . h)
is O(h), for by writing n
n
:= u
h
a
(nLt 0) we have
e
n
(a; . h) =
j n2Z
_
I
j
(n
n
(x) n
n
(( j a
n
)h)) (nLt. x) dx.
[e
n
(a; . h)[
j n2Z
2h TV(n
n
; I
j
)||
(5.8)
2h TV(n
n
)||
2hM||
.
Besides, e
n
(a; . h) in fact depends only on (a
0
. . . . . a
n
) and not on the entire
sequence a and behaves in mean as O(h
2
). In fact
1
2
_
1
1
e
n
(a; . h) da
n
=
j n2Z
1
2h
__
I
j
I
j
(n
n
(x) n
n
(y)) (nLt. x) dx dy
=
1
4h
j n2Z
__
I
j
I
j
(n
n
(x) n
n
(y)) ((nLt. x)
(nLt. y)) dx dy.
Thus
1
2
_
1
1
e
n
(a; . h) da
n
j n2Z
TV(n
n
; I
j
)TV((nLt ); I
j
)
2h
2

j n2Z
TV(n
n
; I
j
)|
x
|
2h
2
TV(n
n
)|
x
|
2h
2
M|
x
|
. (5.9)
We develop now the integral over A.
_
A
[e(a; . h)[
2
d(a) =
n.m0
_
A
e
n
e
m
d(a)
=
n0
_
A
[e
n
[
2
d(a) 2
0m-n
_
A
e
n
e
m
d(a).
Let N be the number of strips B
n
whose intersection with the support of is not
empty. As this support is contained in a half-plane t T, we have
N 1
T
Lt
= 1
T
h
.
The rst sum is bounded above, from (5.8), by N(2hM|
x
|
)
2
= O(h). Also,
5.4 Convergence 159
each integral
_
A
e
m
e
n
d(a) is O(h
3
), as by (5.9) and (5.8),
_
A
e
m
e
n
d(a)
_
1
1
. . .
_
1
1
e
m
_
1
2
_
1
1
e
n
da
n
_
2
n
da
0
da
n1
_
1
1

_
1
1
2hM||
2h
2
M|
x
|
2
n
da
0
da
n1
= 4h
3
M
2
||
|
x
|
.
The second sum is thus bounded above by N(N 1)4h
3
M
2
||
|
x
|
= O(h).
Finally
_
A
[e(a; . h)[
2
d(a) = O(h).
which proves the lemma.
Conclusion
From the lemma, when D(R
2
)
n
, there exists a negligible part N
of A such
that for a A N
, we have lim
h0
e(a; . h) = 0. Let us choose a denumerable
dense subset F of D(R
2
)
n
. The set N , the union of the N
when ranges over

F, is negligible in A. Being given a A N , let us consider a limiting value of
the sequence (u
h
a
)
h
in L
1
loc
(R
R) (we have seen that there exist such limits).

We know that u(x. t ) is the pointwise limit, almost everywhere in R
R, of a
sub-sequence (u
h
p
a
)
pN
where h
p
0is a suitable sequence of mesh sizes. From
the theorem of dominated convergence and since f is continuous, we have
lim
p
__
R
R
f
_
u
h
p
a
_
dx dt =
__
R
R
f (u) dx dt.
and therefore
lim
p
e(a; . h
p
) =
__
R
R
(u
t
f (u)
x
) dx dt
_
R
u(x) (x. 0) dx.
Finally, since a A N , we deduce
__
R
R
(u
t
f (u)
x
) dx dt
_
R
u(x) (0. x) dx = 0
for all F and hence for all D(R
2
)
n
since F is dense and since the left-hand
side is a continuous linear form on D(R
2
)
n
. This completes the proof of Theorem
5.4.1.
Entropy inequalities
When E: U R is a convex entropy of ux F, we prove the entropy inequality
in the same manner provided that the shock waves used in the solution of the
Riemann problem satisfy this inequality (this is the least that we can ask of them).
The approximate solutions satisfy in each band the inequality, for D
(R
2
),
_
(n1)Lt
nLt
_
R
_
E
_
u
h
a
_

t
F
_
u
h
a
_

x
_
dx dt
_
R
E
_
u
h
a
(nLt 0)
_
(nLt ) dx
_
R
E
_
u
h
a
((n 1)Lt 0)
_
((n 1)Lt ) dx.
Denoting still the error due to the scheme by e(a; . h), that is to say
e(a; . h) :=
_
R
R
_
E
_
u
h
a
_

t
F
_
u
h
a
_

x
_
dx dt
_
R
E( u) (x. 0) dx.
we thus have e(a; . h)
n0
e
n
(a; . h) where
e
n
(a; . h) :=
_
R
_
E
_
u
h
a
(nLt 0)
_
E
_
u
h
a
(nLt 0)
__
(nLt ) dx.
On the compact set B( u; M), E is Lipschitz with a constant denoted by K. We then
have, as in (5.8),
[e
n
(a; . h)[ 2hKM||
and similarly
1
2
_
1
1
e
n
(a; . h) da
n
2h
2
KM|
x
|
.
Writing e(a; . h) :=
n0
e
n
(a; . h), we deduce againthat
_
A
[ e(a; . h)[
2
da
n
=
O(h) and hence that lim
h0
e(a; . h) = 0 for almost all a A, that is
liminf
h0
e(a; . h) 0.
The same arguments as were used in the preceding section then show the existence
of N
E
, a negligible part of A, containing N , such that for a A N
E
, the limiting
values of (u
h
a
)
h>0
satisfy Laxs inequality
__
R
R
(E(u)
t
F(u)
x
) dx dt
_
R
E( u) (0) dx 0
for all D
(R
2
).
5.5 Stability 161
5.5 Stability
Supplements apropos of the local Riemann problem
Since the characteristic elds are each either genuinely non-linear or linearly de-
generate, Theorem 4.6.1 ensures, for every neighbourhood of u, the existence
of a neighbourhood
1
such that, for all (u
L
. u
R
)
1

1
, the Riemann
problem between u
L
and u
R
admits a unique solution with values in . This so-
lution is made up of the succession of waves of each family, a contact disconti-
nuity if the eld is linearly degenerate, a shock wave or a rarefaction wave oth-
erwise. The k-wave links the constant states u
k1
and u
k
(u
0
= u
L
, u
n
= u
R
).
Using the parametrisation s .
k
(s. :) of the wave curve issuing from a point
: (with s =
k
(
k
(s. :))
k
(:) if the kth eld is genuinely non-linear), dened
in Chapter 4, we construct the solution of the Riemann problem by solving the
equation +(. u
L
) = u
R
where
+(. :) :=
n
(
n
.
n1
(
n1
. . . . .
1
(
1
. :) )).
The mapping + is of class C
2
on V , V being a neighbourhood of the origin
which depends only on the choice of (which we take compact) and satises
+
k
(0. :) = r
k
(:).
r
k
(:) being an eigenvector of d f (:) associated with the eigenvalue
k
and nor-
malised by d
k
r
k
1 when the eld is genuinely non-linear. We thus have
k
= l
k
(u
L
) (u
R
u
L
) O(|u
R
u
L
|
2
) denoting by (l
k
)
1kn
the dual basis
of (r
k
)
1kn
. The intermediate constant states are given by induction on k: u
k
=
k
(
k
; u
k1
).
The essential idea of the stability analysis made by Glimm [32] concerning his
scheme is that of the interaction of successive Riemann problems. If three states u
L
,
u
m
, u
R
are given in
1
, we have u
m
= +(. u
L
), u
R
= +(; u
m
) and u
R
=+( ; u
L
).
What can we say about the vector when we express it as a function of the
parameters (. . u
m
) ? The cases u
L
= u
m
and u
R
= u
m
give us the formulae
(0. . u
m
) = and (. 0. u
m
) = respectively. As is of class C
2
(from the
implicit function theorem and since +is of class C
2
), we deduce that (. . u
m
)
= O(||
2
||
2
), which we are now going to improve.
In fact, we shall have = when u
m
is a value taken by the solution of
the Riemann problem between u
L
and u
R
, that is to say when there exists an index
p {1. . . . . n] such that
for k > p,
k
= 0,
for k - p,
k
= 0,
the pth eld is linearly degenerate, or
p
= 0, or
p
= 0 or (
p
> 0 and
p
> 0).
The last case cited is that of a p-rarefaction-wave that passes through the value
u
m
. If the pth eld is genuinely non-linear, the third condition is thus written
p
= 0 by writing z
= max(0. z). The set of the above condition is thus

written L(. . u
m
) = 0, where L is the quadratic interaction term
L(. . u
m
) =
1p-qn
[
q
p
[
pGNL
p
.
the symbol
pGNL
meaning that the summation is over the indices of the genuinely
non-linear elds only. Finally:
Lemma 5.5.1 The function (. . u
m
) . is of class C
2
in a neighbour-
hood of (0. 0. u). It satises
(1) = O(||
2
||
2
),
(2) L = 0 = = 0.
Owing to a geometrical lemma of which we shall give the statement and the proof
in 5.8, we deduce the result which will enable us to establish the stability.
Lemma 5.5.2 There exist a neighbourhood Oof (0. 0. u) and a real number c
0
> 0
such that in O we have
| (. . u
m
) | c
0
L(. . u
m
).
In the sequel we shall take O of the form O
2
, small enough for us to have
+(. +(. u
m
))
1
when (. . u
m
) O.
A linear functional
If | u u|
is small enough, u has values in

2
and we are able to start to put
Glimms scheme into operation. The ratio = Lt ,Lx is xed so that V
1
- 1
and the scheme stops if the approximate solution leaves
2
. One of our aims is
to show that it does not leave if the given initial state is sufciently close to u in
BV(R). At the rst iteration, we still have u
1.k

1
since u
0.k

2
. As long
as u
h
a
(nLt ) is dened with values in
2
, we denote by (n. k), (n. k), (n. k)
and I(n. k) = (n 1. k) the respective solutions of +(. u
n1.k
) = u
n.k1
,
+(. u
n.k1
) = u
n1.k
, +(. u
n.k1
) = u
n.k1
, and +(I. u
n1.k1
) = u
n1.k1
.
Since u
n1.k
is an intermediate state of the Riemann problem between u
n.k1
and
u
n.k1
(this is the sampling principle) we have (n. k) = (n. k) (n. k) and
5.5 Stability 163
likewise
L((n. k). (n. k)) = 0.
[
p
[ = [
p
[ [
p
[. 1 p n.
p
=
p
. p GNL.
_
_
(5.10)
In addition I(n. k) = ((n. k 1). (n. k 1). u
n.k
). In future, we shall omit
the last argument which is always easy to identify. We dene a functional L(n) of
which we shall show the equivalence with the total variation of u
h
a
(nLt ):
L(n) :=
kn12Z
|(n. k)|.
In fact, when u
R
and u
L
are in
1
with u
R
= +(; u
L
), we have P( u) (u
R
u
L
) where P(:)
1
is the matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors of d f (:),
normalised by d
p
r
p
1 if p GNL. There thus exists a constant C > 1 such
that
C
1
|u
R
u
L
| || C|u
R
u
L
|. u
R
. u
L

1
.
Since u
n.k1
and u
n.k1
have values in
2
, the Riemann problem between these
states has a solution with values in
1
and the above inequality applies to all the
quantities (. . . I)(n. k). The total variation of u
h
a
(nLt ), by breaking it up on
transverse waves (Chasles relation), is bounded above by
C
n
p=1
[
p
(n. k)[ = C|(n. k)|
by choosing the norm l
1
on R
2
. We deduce that
C
1
TV
_
u
h
a
(t )
_
L(n) CTV
_
u
h
a
(t )
_
for nLt t (n 1)Lt , and similarly
C
1
TV
_
u
h
a
((n 1)Lt )
_
L(n 1) CTV
_
u
h
a
((n 1)Lt )
_
.
In particular, L(0) CTV( u).
Fromnowon, lookingtoeffect aninductionfromn ton 1, we omit the argument
n in (. . . I) and we suppose the sequence (u
n.k
)
kn2Z
takes values in
2
. We
shall bound L(n 1) above.
L(n 1) =
kn2Z
|I(k)| =
kn2Z
| ((k 1). (k 1))|
kn2Z
(|(k 1)| |(k 1)| c
0
L((k 1). (k 1))).
Reordering the terms and with (5.10), we nd
L(n 1) L(n) c
0
A(n). (5.11)
where we have dened
A(n) :=
kn2Z
L((k 1). (k 1)).
Obviously, the presence of the positive term c
0
A(n) on the right-hand side does not
allow us to come to a conclusion.
A quadratic functional
We now introduce the interaction potential
Q(n) :=
j.kn12Z;
j -k
L(( j ). (k)).
In particular
A(n) Q(n). (5.12)
Because of the formulae (5.10) and although Lis not bilinear we can in any case
develop
L(( j ). (k)) = L(( j ). (k)) L(( j ). (k))
L(( j ). (k)) L(( j ). (k)). (5.13)
Since L is sub-additive, we have also
L(I( j ). I(k)) L(( j 1). (k 1)) L(( j 1). (k 1))
L(( j 1). (k)) L(( j 1). (k 1))
L(( j 1). (k 1))
L(( j 1). (k)) L(( j ). I(k)).
where we have denoted by ( j ) the difference I( j )( j 1)( j 1). Reordering
5.5 Stability 165
the terms, we thus have
Q(n 1)
j.kn12Z;
j -k
{L(( j ). (k)) L(( j ). (k)) L(( j ). (k 1))
L(( j ). (k)) L(( j ). (k)) L(( j ). (k 1))
L(( j 1). I(k 1))]
j n12Z
{L(( j ). ( j )) L(( j 2). ( j ))]
= Q(n) A(n)
j -k
{L(( j ). (k 1)) L(( j ). (k 1))
L(( j 1). I(k 1))].
as L(( j ). ( j )) = 0. The following three lines are elementary applications of
Lemma 5.5.2.
L(( j ). (k 1)) |( j )| |(k 1)| c
0
|( j )|L((k). (k 2)).
L(( j ). (k 1)) c
0
|( j )|L((k 2). (k)).
L(( j 1). I(k 1)) c
0
|I(k 1)|L(( j 2). ( j )).
Bringing all these together, we arrive at
Q(n 1) Q(n) A(n)
_
2c
0
L(n) c
2
0
A(n) 1
_
. (5.14)
The good functional, which permits us to estimate a priori the approximate
solution if TV( u) | u u|
is sufciently small, is L := L 2c
0
Q. We recall
that, u being xed, ,
1
and
2
have been chosen a priori, but compact, and c
0
depends only on this construction. Taking (5.11), (5.14) and (5.12) into account we
obtain the upper bound
L(n 1) L(n) c
0
A(n){4c
0
L(n) 1]. (5.15)
provided that (u
n.k
)
kn2Z
has values in
2
. It is important to note that we do not
suppose that the states u
n1. j
are in
2
.
The induction
We now choose a number which satises the following two conditions:
-
1
8c
0
C
the ball B( u; (1 5C
2
,4)) is included in
2
.
Fig. 5.2: Wave curves of a system ` a la Nishida.
Finally, we suppose that the initial condition is close to the constant state u, in the
sense that
| u u|
TV( u) . (5.16)
We have L(0) C and hence L(0) L(0)(1 2c
0
L(0))
5
4
CTV( u)
5
4
C
because Q(n) L(n)
2
since L(. ) || ||. In particular L(0) 1,4c
0
.
Let us make the induction hypothesis L(n) L(0). Then L(n) 1,4c
0
and
therefore
kn12Z
|u
n.k1
u
n.k1
| CL(n) CL(n) CL(0)
5C
2
4
.
As lim
k
u
n.k
= lim
x
u(x) and | u() u| , we have |u
n.k
u|
(1 5C
2
,4) and hence u
n.k

2
. The approximate solution is thus again dened
up to (n 1)Lt and the upper bound (5.15) is valid. As L(n) 1,4c
0
, we have
L(n 1) L(0), which proves the induction.
Under the hypothesis (5.16), we thus have L(n) L(0) for all n 0, from
which we derive
TV
_
u
h
a
(nLt )
_
5C
2
4
TV( u).
_
_
u
h
a
(nLt ) u
_
_

_
1
5C
2
4
_
(| u u|
TV( u)).
The analogous estimates for nLt - t - (n 1)Lt are elementary and are left to
the reader. This completes the proof of Theorem 5.2.2 and hence that of Theorem
5.2.1.
5.6 The example of Nishida
This section is devoted to the study of certain systems for which we can show
the stability of Glimms scheme without supposing that the initial datum is small.
Since the stability involves the convergence for almost all a A, we deduce a
global existence theorem for a weak solution for the Cauchy problem without other
hypothesis than TV( u) - .
Hypotheses and theorem
Since the initial datum is of arbitrarily large variation, the wave curves must be
dened globally in order that we can solve all the Riemann problems.
We only consider 2 2 strictly hyperbolic systems (n = 2), with characteristic
velocities u .
j
(u), j = 1. 2,
1
-
2
. We introduce the Riemann invariants
u . r(u) and u . s(u) which are the solutions without critical points of the
differential equations
dr (d f
1
) = 0.
ds (d f
2
) = 0.
We suppose that u .(r. s) is a diffeomorphism of U on R
2
. The class of systems
which we consider is such that the wave curves O
j
(:), j = 1. 2, are connected,
allowing the unique solvability of the Riemann problem and, last but not least,
deducing the one from the other by the translations (r. s) . (r r
0
. s s
0
) and
the symmetries (r. s) .(s r
0
. r s
0
).
To ensure the connectedness of the wave curves, we are led to suppose the
characteristic elds are genuinely non-linear or else linearly degenerate (the case
of a scalar equation is sufciently instructive). Each wave curve O
j
(:) contains thus
a half straight-line ending in :, parallel to the axis s = 0 if j = 1, r = 0 otherwise.
From the uniqueness of the solution of the Riemann problem, we deduce that O
1
(:)
is transversal to the straight lines r =const. In fact, being given a and b in O
1
(:) with
r
a
= r
b
, these two states would be linked by a 2-rarefaction-wave, for example in
the direction a .b (or by a 2-contact-discontinuity-wave). The Riemann problem
between : and b would therefore have two distinct solutions
:
1-S
.b.
and
:
1-S
.a
2-R
.b.
which contradicts the uniqueness (here S stands for shock, and R for rarefaction
waves).
The curves O
1
are thus parametrised by r and the property of translation shows
that there exists a smooth function f : R R with for example f (R
) = {0] such
that O
1
(:) is given by the equation
s s
:
= f (r r
:
).
By symmetry the 2-wave curves O
2
(:) are given by the equation
r r
:
= f (s s
:
).
Again, the uniqueness of the solution of the Riemann problem implies [ f ()
f ()[ ,= [ [ for ,= . In fact, if f () f () = , then the Riemann prob-
lem between u
L
and u
R
(r
L
= s
R
= 0, s
L
= r
R
= f ()) admits two solutions
u
L
1-S
.u
m
(r = s = )
2-S
.u
R
.
u
L
1-S
.u
m
(r = s = )
2-S
.u
R
.
Similarly, if f () f () = , the Riemann problem between u
L
and u
R
(r
L
= s
R
= 0, s
L
= r
R
= f ()) admits two solutions
u
L
1-S
.u
m
(r = . s = )
2-S
.u
R
.
u
L
1-S
.u
m
(r = . s = )
2-S
.u
R
.
Since f (R
) = {0] we deduce by continuity that [ f () f ()[ - [ [ for

,= . Putting n =
1
2
(r s) and z =
1
2
(r s), we can rewrite the equations of
1-wave curves in the form
n n
= F(z z
)
and similarly the 2-wave curves as
n n
= F(z
z).
We have F
/
= (1 f
/
),(1 f
/
), with the result that F is strictly increasing. The
solution of the Riemann problem leads to eliminating the component n
m
of the
median state u
m
, and to searching for the unique root z
m
of the equation
F(z z
R
) F(z z
L
) = n
R
n
L
.
The last hypothesis is the inequality
F(z
1
z
2
) F(z
1
) F(z
2
). z
1
. z
2
0. (5.17)
Remarking that F(z) = z for z 0, we have also
F(z
1
z
2
) F(z
1
) F(z
2
). z
1
. z
2
0. (5.18)
We are now able to state the result which Nishida [80] has obtained for the isother-
mal model of gas dynamics. This example will be the object of 5.6.
Theorem5.6.1 For a systemof two conservation laws such as are described above,
the scheme of Glimm is stable in BV(R) for every given initial condition u
BV(R)
2
. The families (u
h
a
)
h>0
of approximate solutions are relatively compact in
L
1
loc
(R
R) and their limiting values are for almost all a A weak entropy
solutions of the Cauchy problem.
Of course, only the stability has to be proved.
A distance in U
Being given two states a. b U, we dene a distance d(a. b) := [z
m
z
a
[[z
m
z
b
[ where u
m
= (n
m
. z
m
) is the median state in the Riemann problem between a
and b:
F(z
m
z
a
) F(z
m
z
b
) = n
b
n
a
. (5.19)
In fact, d is not symmetric. Of the two properties of d of which we shall have
need, the rst is the triangular inequality.
Lemma 5.6.2 If a
j
U, j = 1. 2. 3, we have
d(a
1
. a
3
) d(a
1
. a
2
) d(a
2
. a
3
).
The proof of this lemma has remained complex for a long time, necessitating the
study of fteen or so cases, rarely presented in an exhaustive way, until done so
elegantly by F. Poupaud [84].
Proof Let a
i j
be the median state between a
i
and a
j
. Eliminating n from the
equations (5.19), we obtain
F(z
13
z
1
) F(z
13
z
3
) = F(z
12
z
1
) F(z
12
z
2
) F(z
23
z
2
) F(z
23
z
3
).
We let x = z
13
z
1
, y = z
13
z
3
, = z
12
z
1
, = z
12
z
2
, = z
23
z
2
,
= z
23
z
3
. The following equalities arise:
x y = . (5.20)
F(x) F(y) = F() F() F( ) F(). (5.21)
If xy 0, then
d(a
1
. a
3
) = [x[ [y[ = [x y[ = [ [
[[ [[ [ [ [[ = d(a
1
. a
2
) d(a
2
. a
3
).
If x and y are positive, we write that F(
) F(
) = F([[) F(0) F()

with
= max(. 0), and
= max(. 0). We deduce from (5.21) that one of

the two following inequalities is true:
F(x) F(
) F(
) F(
) F(
)
or
F(y) F(
) F(
) F(
) F(
).
If the rst holds (the two cases are similar) then F(x) F(
)
because of (5.17). Since F is strictly increasing, we have x
.
Finally,
d(a
1
. a
3
) = x y = 2x (x y)
2(
)
= [[ [[ [ [ [[ = d(a
1
. a
2
) d(a
2
. a
3
).
The case x 0, y 0 is treated in the same way using (5.18).
Simpler is the following case of an equality.
Lemma 5.6.3 If a
2
is an intermediate value in the solution of the Riemann problem
between a
1
and a
3
, then d(a
1
. a
3
) = d(a
1
. a
2
) d(a
2
. a
3
).
In fact, d(a. b) is nothing but the total variation of x,t . z in the solution of the
Riemann problem between a and b and we can express it by Chasles relation.
Finally, d is equivalent to the usual distance of U.
Lemma 5.6.4 Let K be a compact set of R
2
and C its image by (n. z) .u. There
exists a number c
K
1 such that for all a. b C, we have
c
1
K
|b a| d(a. b) c
K
|b a|.
Proof First of all, C is a compact set and
0 - m = min F
/
(z) M = max F
/
(z) -
for the zs of the form z
with u
C. In each wave, we thus have

N
1
[z
[ [n
[ N[z
[.
with N = max(M. m
1
). We therefore have
d(a. b)
1
1 N
1
([z
m
z
a
[ [n
m
n
a
[ [z
m
z
b
[ [n
m
n
b
[)
where N
1
is the same number but associated with a compact set C
1
which contains
all the median states of the Riemann problems between the points a and b of C.
Thus
d(a. b)
1
1 N
1
([z
b
z
a
[ [n
b
n
a
[) const.|b a|
since (n. z) .u is Lipschitz of constant K in C.
Conversely, the mapping (r
a
. s
a
. r
b
. s
b
) .(r
m
. s
m
) is of class C
2
with (r
m
. s
m
) =
(r
b
. s
a
) O(|b a|
2
) when b tends to a, from Laxs theorem. We thus have
z
m
=
1
2
(r
b
s
a
) O(|b a|
2
) and
d(a. b) =
1
2
([r
b
r
a
[ [s
b
s
a
[) O(|b a|
2
) const.|b a|
2
on the compact set C.
Stability
We make use of a functional slightly different from that of the general case:
M(n) :=
kn12Z
d(u
n.k1
. u
n.k1
).
By the triangle inequality, we have
M(n 1)
kn2Z
(d(u
n1.k1
. u
n.k
) d(u
n.k
. u
n1.k1
)).
Let us reorder the terms of this sum:
M(n 1)
kn12Z
(d(u
n.k1
. u
n1.k
) d(u
n1.k
. u
n.k1
)).
But as u
n1.k
is an intermediate value in the solution of the Riemann problem
between u
n.k1
and u
n.k1
, the right-hand side takes the value
k
d(u
n.k1
. u
n.k1
)
from Lemma 5.6.3. We therefore have
M(n 1) M(n).
By induction, while the approximate solution is dened, we have M(n) M(0),
that is TV(z
h
a
(. nLt 0)) TV( z). As z
n.
= z(), we deduce
[z
n.k
[ [ z()[ TV( z) := z.
Let us write c = max{[F
/
(z)[; [z[ z]. In each j -wave, we have TV(n) c TV(z)
and hence TV(n
h
a
(. nLt 0)) c TV( z). Thus
[n
n.k
[ [ n()[ c TV( z).
which shows that u
h
a
takes its values in a compact set C which does not depend on h
or on a or on n or on . We can thus choose a priori for the approximate solution
to be dened for all time. In addition, the mapping u .(n. z) being bi-Lipschitz
on the compact set in question, we have
TV
_
u
h
a
(. nLt 0)
_
c
C
_
TV
_
n
h
a
_
TV
_
z
h
a
__
(1 c)c
C
TV( z) cTV( u).
which completes the proof of Nishidas theorem.
The isothermal model of gas dynamics
An isothermal gas has for equation of state, with the standard notation, p() = c
2
where c is the constant speed of sound. By a change of scale, we can suppose that
c = 1. In lagrangian coordinates, the one-dimensional motion is governed by the
equations
:
t
= q
x
.
q
t

_
1
:
_
x
= 0.
_
_
(5.22)
: being the specic volume and q the velocity of the gas. The characteristic speeds
are = :
1
while the Riemann invariants are
r = q log :. s = q log :.
Here, n = q and z = log :. In a shock the RankineHugoniot condition is written
[q] [:] = 0.
_
1
:
_
= [q]
and hence :
2
=1. In a 1-shock-wave, we have = (:
1
2
and therefore
n
=
_
:
_
:
with :
- :
as the entropy condition. On the other hand, in a 1-rarefaction-wave,

s is constant, that is to say that n
= log(:
,:
) and we have :
2
> :
1
. Thus
the 1-wave curve is given by n
= F(z
) with
F(z) =
_
_
_
z. z 0.
2 sinh
z
2
. z 0.
In a 2-shock-wave, we have = (:
1
2
,
n
=
_
:
_
:
and :
> :
as the entropy condition. Similarly, in a 2-rarefaction-wave, r is

constant, that is to say n
= log(:
,:
) and we have :
- :
and thus again

n
= F(z
). The wave curves have thus the formdemanded and we have

clearly F
/
> 0. In fact f
/
= (F
/
1),(F
/
1) (1. 1). It remains to verify that
F(a b) F(a) F(b) for a. b 0 which is trivial, and F(a b) F(a) F(b)
for a. b 0, which is classic:
F(a b) = 2
_
sinh
a
2
cosh
b
2
sinh
b
2
cosh
a
2
_
2
_
sinh
a
2
sinh
b
2
_
= F(a) F(b).
where we have used sinh 0, cosh 1.
As an application of Theorem 5.6.1, we therefore have
Theorem 5.6.5 (Nishida) Let : BV(R) and q BV(R) be such that inf
x
:(x) >
0. Then the Cauchy problemfor the system(5.22) possesses a weak entropy solution
which satises :(x. t ) :
where :
is an explicitly calculable constant.

In fact, :
= exp( z) with the notation of the preceding section. More precisely,

:
= :() exp(TV(log :)).

Of course, this value is not, in general, an optimal bound.
5.7 2 2 Systems with diminishing total variation
Description
We shall consider strictlyhyperbolic systems, whose wave curves have for equations
r = const. (respectively s = const.), r and s being the Riemann invariants. These
systems were studied for the rst time by B. Temple [103]. This property is satised
at least by the wave curves which correspond to a linearly degenerate eld. As the
appropriate Riemann invariant is likewise constant across a rarefaction wave, we
see that the hypothesis concerns only shock waves.
The solution of the Riemann problem is particularly simple in this case. Let us
consider a characteristic quadrilateral K U dened by
K = {u U: r
r(u) r
. s
s(u) s
]
and which is complete, that is to say that
K [r
. r
] [s
. s
]. u .(r(u). s(u)).
is a diffeomorphism. Then for u
L
and u
R
in K, the Riemann problem has a unique
solution with values in K, for which the median state u
m
is determined by r
m
=
r
R
. s
m
= s
L
.
In particular, the remark of Hoff (see 5.2) shows that if the Cauchy datum u has
values in K, there exists a value of the ratio = Lt ,Lx such that u
h
a
is dened
for all time and has values in K.
Stability
To study the stability of Glimms scheme, we consider the functionals
V
1
(t ) = TV
_
r u
h
a
(t ); R
_
.
V
2
(t ) = TV
_
s u
h
a
(t ); R
_
.
If nLt - s. t - (n 1)Lt , u
h
a
(s) and u
h
a
(t ) differ only by a diffeomorphism of R,
u
h
a
(s. x) = u
h
a
(t.
s.t
(x))
with the result that V
j
(s) = V
j
(t ). In addition, sampling is an operation which
diminishes the total variation:
V
j
(nLt ) V
j
(nLt 0).
After these two remarks which do not make use of the particular structure of the
system we calculate V
j
(nLt 0). For j = 1, this is the sum of the variations of
5.7 2 2 Systems with diminishing total variation 175
Fig. 5.3: The Riemann problem for a system of B. Temple.
r u
h
a
in the Riemann problems solved at the instant nLt . As r is constant in the
2-waves, V
1
(nLt 0) is the sum of the variations of r in the 1-waves. Finally r
is monotonic in the 1-waves (this is true for very general systems), for example in
supposing that a 1-wave is either a shock wave, or a rarefaction wave, or a contact
discontinuity, as r is monotonic in a rarefaction, Finally, the variation of r in a
Riemann problem is [r
R
r
L
[ and we deduce that V
1
(nLt 0) = V
1
(nLt ) and
similarly for V
2
. Thus t . V
j
(t ) is decreasing:
V
j
(t ) V
j
(0) {TV(r u). TV(s u)].
Finally, C being a Lipschitz constant on K of the diffeomorphism u . (r. s) and
its inverse, we have the estimate
TV
_
u
h
a
(t )
_
CTV
_
(r. s) u
h
a
(t )
_
CTV((r. s) u) C
2
TV( u).
which shows the stability of Glimms scheme in BV(R). We have seen that this
entails the convergence. Let us state the result.
Theorem5.7.1 (Leveque and Temple. Serre) We suppose that the integral curves
of the eigenvector elds of d f are the wave curves of the system (5.1). Let K be a
complete characteristic quadrilateral in U.
For all u BV(R)
2
with values in K, the Cauchy problem has a weak entropy
solution with values in K and which satises
TV(r u(t )) TV(r u).
TV(s u(t )) TV(s u).
Example 5.7.2 The following system has been considered by numerous authors,
for example [52]:
u
t
((u)u)
x
= 0. (5.23)
where u = (u
1
. u
2
) and C
2
(U = R
R; R). We write r = |u| (the Riemann

invariants will be denoted differently) and we suppose that
r
> 0 (but
r
- 0 could
also arise) withr
r
: =u
1
1
u
2
2
. Finally, we suppose that lim
r
(u) = .
Thus, (. ): U [
1
2
.
1
2
] ((0). ) realises a diffeomorphism.
The system (5.23) is strictly hyperbolic, with characteristic speeds
1
=,
2
=
r
r
. The rst characteristic eld is linearly degenerate while the second is
genuinely non-linear when (r)
rr
,= 0.
The Riemann invariants of this system are the angle = arctan(u
2
,u
1
) and the
function . We have seen that only the shock waves have to be considered. These
are relative to the second characteristic eld and satisfy the RankineHugoniot
condition
[((u) )u] = 0.
from which we deduce either u
L
u
R
= 0, or
L
=
R
= . But this latter
case is that of a contact discontinuity. The shocks therefore satisfy u
L
u
R
= 0,
that is to say
L
=
R
. The system thus satises the hypotheses of the preceding
section. If the given initial condition is of bounded variation and with values in U
,
Fig. 5.4: Wave curves and invariant domain for the system (5.23).
if besides inf
x
r(x) > 0, there exists a complete characteristic quadrilateral K
dened by
[[
1
2
. inf
x
(u) sup
x
(u).
which contains the values of u (cf. Fig. 5.4). The compact set K is invariant for
the Riemann problem and thus for Glimms scheme. By Theorem 5.7.1, this one
converges. The Cauchy problem therefore has a weak entropy solution with values
in K for almost all (t. x) R
R.
In inf
x
r(x) = 0, the situation is more delicate as the hypothesis does not ensure
that

is of bounded variation, u . not being Lipschitz. On the other hand, as
(. ) . u is Lipschitz, it is sufcient to consider a given initial function u for
which

and are of bounded variation to obtain the convergence of Glimms
scheme and the existence of a solution of the Cauchy problem.
5.8 Technical lemmas
Proof of Lemma 5.5.2
We begin by stating an intermediary result, the inspiration for which comes from a
course at Rennes given by G. M etivier.
Lemma 5.8.1 Let I be a part of {1. . . . . m]{1. . . . . n] and f C
2
b
([0. )
mn
).
If f is identically zero when H
I
(x. y) :=

(i. j )I
x
i
y
j
is identically zero, then we
have the inequality
[ f (x; y)[ C
m.n
H
I
(x. y) sup
a.b.i. j
2
f
x
i
y
j
(a; b)
. x. y > 0.
The constant C
m.n
depends only on m and n.
Proof By linearity, we can suppose that
sup
a.b.i. j
2
f
x
i
y
j
(a; b)
1.
We proceed by induction on (m. n). If m = 0 or n = 0, I is empty, hence f 0,
and the result is obvious. Similarly if m. n 1 when I is empty. We suppose
therefore that m 1, n 1, that I is not empty and that the lemma is true for the
pairs (m 1. n) and (m. n 1). We can suppose that (1. 1) I .
We apply the lemma (as an induction hypothesis) to the functions
(x
/
. y)
f
0
. f (0. x
/
; y).
(x. y
/
)
f
1
. f (x; 0; y
/
).
(R
)
mn1
R.
For example, f
0
is identically zero on the zeros of H
J
where J = I ({2. . . . . m]
{1. . . . . n]). We thus have
[ f
0
[ C
m1.n
H
J
C
m1.n
H
I
.
Now let us x a point (x
/
. y
/
) of [0. )
mn2
and let us dene
g(x
1
. y
1
) := f (x
1
. x
/
; y
1
; y
/
) f (0. x
/
; y
1
. y
/
) f (x
1
. x
/
; 0. y
/
) f (0. x
/
; 0. y
/
).
We have g(0. y) = g(x. 0) = 0 and so
g(x
1
. y
1
) =
_
x
1
0
_
y
1
0
2
g
ab
(a. b) da db.
from where we derive [g(x
1
. y
1
)[ x
1
y
1
. Finally,
[ f (x. y)[ x
1
y
1
(C
m1.n
C
m1.n1
C
m.n1
)H
I
(x. y)
C
m.n
H
I
(x. y).
The constant C
m.n
is calculated by the recurrence relation
C
m.n
: = 1 C
m1.n
C
m1.n1
C
m.n1
.
We nowapply Lemma 5.8.1 to the function (. ) . f (. ) := (. . u
m
)
considering separately the 2
2n
sectors of the form J
1
J
2n
with J
j
= R
.
Clearly, f must be dened over the whole of R
2n
by truncation and extension by
zero, or else quite simply remark that Lemma 5.8.1 remains true when we replace
[0. ] by [0. A] where A > 0 is an arbitrary nite number. Noting that L(. . u
m
)
is of the form H
I
(. ) in each of the sectors, the inequality [ (. . u
m
) [
c
0
L(. . u
m
) is thus established, this with the constant c
0
depending on the
base point u
m
. But from Lemma 5.8.1 it depends only on the upper bound, on a
neighbourhood of (0. 0) of the second derivatives of (. . u
m
). This bound is itself
bounded above by a constant when u
m
remains in a neighbourhood of u and this
completes the proof of Lemma 5.5.2.
Let us xa compact set K =[0. T][L. L] of R
t
R
x
. The sequence (a
m
(t ))
mN
of the restrictions of :
m
(t ) to (L. L) is relatively compact in L
1
(L. L) for all
t [0. T] by Hellys theorem. Let Q be a dense subset of [0. T] (for example the
rational numbers). We can extract, making use of the diagonal procedure, a sequence
(a
m(k)
(t ))
kN
such that m(k) and (a
m(k)
(t ))
kN
converges in L
1
(L. L) for
all t belonging to Q. We denote this limit by a(t ).
Passing to the limit in the inequality
_
L
L
[a
m(k)
(t. x) a
m(k)
(s. x)[ dx
m(k)
M[t s[. t. s Q.
it becomes
_
L
L
[a(t. x) a(s. x)[ dx M[t s[. t. s Q.
This shows that a is the restriction to Q of a Lipschitz function dened on [0. T]
with values in L
1
(L. L). We again denote this function by a(t ), which is clearly
unique.
Being given > 0 and t [0. T], there exists s Q such that 2M[t s[ - .
Then there exists l N such that
m(k)
- and
_
L
L
[a
m(k)
(s) a(s)[ dx - for all
k > l. For these indices we therefore have
_
L
L
[a
m(k)
(t ) a(t )[ dx
_
L
L
[a
m(k)
(t ) u
m(k)
(s)[ dx
_
L
L
[a
m(k)
(s) a(s)[ dx
_
L
L
[a(t ) a(s)[ dx
2M[t s[
m(k)
_
L
L
[a
m(k)
(s) a(s)[ dx
3 .
that is to say that
lim
k
a
m(k)
(t ) = a(t ). t [0. T].
for the norm of L
1
((L. L)).
Now let us dene H
k
(t ) =
_
L
L
[a
m(k)
(t ) a(t )[ dx. We have
H
k
(t ) 2ML sup
t [0.T]
_
L
L
[a[ dx 4ML. t [0. T].
We have seen also that (H
k
(t ))
kN
tends to zero for all t [0. T]. The theorem of
dominated convergence thus ensures that
lim
k
_
T
0
H
k
(t ) dt = 0.
that is to say that (a
m(k)
(t ))
kN
tends to a in L
1
(K). The sequence (a
m
)
mN
is thus
relatively compact in L
1
(K).
Finally, as R
R is the denumerable union of such blocks, the diagonal proce-

dure allows us to nd a sequence again denoted by (m(k))
kN
such that (a
m(k)
)
kN
converges in L
1
() for every bounded open set of R
R.
Remark The proof of Theorem 5.1.3 is simpler when
m
= 0, for all m. This is
then a consequence of the theorems of Helly and of Ascoli and Arzel` a.
5.9 Supplementary remarks
Other numerical schemes
Several other numerical schemes are very close in conception to that of Glimm,
especially that of Lax and Friedrichs. In the latter, only the sampling disappears, to
be replaced by an averaging:
u
n.k
:=
1
2h
_
(k1)h
(k1)h
u
h
a
(nLt 0. y) dy.
The scheme of Godunov differs fromthat of Lax and Friedrichs only by the position
of the meshes. In place of being in alternate rows, they are aligned according to
the rectangular network Z2Z. These three schemes are particular cases of those
dened and studied by H. Gilquin [29], where the denition of u
n
depends on a
probability measure d
n
:
u
n.k
:=
_
1
1
u
h
a
(nLt 0. (k s)Lx)d
n
(s).
For all these schemes, which are monotonic (that is to say preserve the order)
in the scalar case, convergence takes place provided that the sequence (d
n
)
nN
is
equi-distributed in (1. 1) and that the approximation is stable in BV (exercise).
Unfortunately, we do not in general know how to prove this stability, except for
the scalar conservation laws and their natural generalisations, the Temple systems
(see Chapter 13). In the case of certain systems of two conservation laws, called
2 2 systems, the method of compensated compactness has enabled us to obtain
theorems of convergence to weak solutions which we do not knowto be of bounded
variation [10, 14].
The rich case
The systems of conservation laws called rich (or semi-hamiltonian according to the
terminology of Tsarev [106, 107]) will be studied in greater detail in Chapter 12. The
5.9 Supplementary remarks 181
system (5.1) is called rich if it is strictly hyperbolic and if there exists a complete
system of Riemann invariants, that is to say a system of curvilinear coordinates
n
1
(u). . . . . n
n
(u) satisfying
dn
j
(u)(d f (u)
j
(u)) 0. j = 1. . . . . n.
The 2 2 systems are rich as long as they are strictly hyperbolic. In addition, we
still suppose that each characteristic eld is genuinely non-linear or else linearly
degenerate in order to be able to use Laxs theorem.
Lemma 5.9.1 If the system (5.1) is rich in , then there exists a constant c
0
such
that for all u
L
, u
R
, and u
m
in
1
, we have
| | c
0
(|| ||)L(. ).
with the notation u
m
= (; u
L
) and u
R
= (; u
m
) = ( ; u
L
).
In making use of this estimate, Glimm [32] improved the stability result in weak-
ening the condition of smallness on the given Cauchy condition: for every number
V
0
> 0, there exists a number such that if TV( u) - V
0
and | u u| , then
Glimms scheme is stable in BV(R) (hence the Cauchy problem admits a weak
entropy solution).
Proof We use the expansion (4.15) for three Riemann problems.
We obtain
u
m
u
L
=
j
r
L
j

1
2
2
j
(dr
j
r
j
)
L
j -k
k
(dr
k
r
j
)
L
O(||
3
).
u
R
u
m
=
j
r
m
j

1
2
2
j
(dr
j
r
j
)
m
j -k
k
(dr
k
r
j
)
m
O(||
3
)
=
j
r
L
j

1
2
2
j
(dr
j
r
j
)
L
j -k
k
(dr
k
r
j
)
L
j.k
j
(dr
k
r
j
)
L
O(||
3
||
3
).
u
R
u
L
=
j
r
L
j

1
2
2
j
(dr
j
r
j
)
L
j -k
k
(dr
k
r
j
)
L
O(| |
3
).
We know that = O(||
2
||
2
). Combining the above equalities and
making use of the dual basis (l
p
(u
L
))
1pn
to that of the eigenvectors r
j
, we have
therefore
p
= l
p
j -k
j
(dr
k
r
j
dr
j
r
k
)
L
O(||
3
||
3
).
But the existence of the pth Riemann invariant n
p
is equivalent to the geometric
condition of Frobenius:
l
p
(dr
k
r
j
dr
j
r
k
) = 0. l j. k n.
Thus
p

p

p
= O(||
3
||
3
). Finally, the fact that the right-hand side is
zero when L(. ) = 0 leads by an analogous calculation to that in the general case
to the upper bound
[
p
p
[ const.(|| ||)L(. ).
Continuous Glimm functional
M. Schatzman [89, 90] has adapted the calculation of Glimm for an exact solution
of a system of conservation laws, when it is of class C
1
outside a denumerable
family of shocks which statisfy Laxs condition. Without going into details, let us
say that in the absence of shocks, the linear term is replaced by
V(u(t )) =
i
_
R
[l
i
(u) u
x
[dx.
the l
i
being the linear eigenforms of d f . The quadratic form becomes then
Q(u(t )) =
_ _
x-y
D(Z(x). Z(y)) dxdy. Z := (l
1
(u) u
x
. . . . . l
n
(u) u
x
).
In the general case, these functionals contain supplementary terms to take into
account shock waves and can even be dened for a general spatial curve ; we
write then V(u; ) and Q(u; ). For a given initial condition of small total variation,
there exists a number K > 0 such that .(V KQ)(u; ) is decreasing, which
furnishes an a priori estimate of u(t ) in BV(R), uniform in time.
5.10 Exercises
5.1 (1) Let be a real number and a = n E(n) the fractional part of n.
Showthat the sequence (a
n
)
nN
is equi-distributed in (0. 1) if and only if
is irrational. When RQwe shall apply the criterion (5.7) to functions
judiciously chosen, then we shall proceed by a density argument.
(2) Find a real number > 1 for which the sequence a
n
=
n
E(
n
) is not
equi-distributed in (0. 1).
5.10 Exercises 183
(3) For n N, let a
n
= 10
k
2
n
, where k = E(log
10
2
n
). It is thus an element
of the interval (
1
10
. 1). Show that (a
n
)
nN
is not equi-distributed in (
1
10
. 1).
5.2 (1) Show that if an entropy E (not necessarily convex) of ux F satises
E
t
F
x
0, for all simple admissible waves, then the weak solutions
obtained by Glimms scheme also satisfy this inequality.
(2) For the system (5.23), show that these solutions satisfy
(rg())
t
(r(u)g())
x
= 0
for all g C [
1
2
.
1
2
]. Verify that these equations contain that of the
system (5.23). Finally show the inequality
r
t
(r(u))
x
0.
5.3 The dynamics of an isothermal gas in one dimension and in eulerian variables
and governed by the system
t
(u)
x
= 0.
(u)
t
(u
2
c
2
)
x
= 0.
_
(5.24)
where U = R
R and c > 0 is the (constant) speed of sound. Show that

this system belongs to the class described in 5.6. The Cauchy problem thus
has a weak solution.
5.4 We consider the so-called Leroux system
t
(u)
x
= 0.
u
t
(u
2
)
x
= 0.
_
with U = R
R.
(1) Showthat it is strictly hyperbolic in U
. Showthat the Riemann invariants

are the slopes of the straight lines which pass through (. u) and which
are tangents to the parabola I of equation u
2
4 = 0.
(2) Show that these straight lines are the wave curves of the system and that
U is an invariant domain for the Riemann problem.
(3) Deduce that if the given initial condition ( . u) is of bounded variation
and if inf
x
( u) > 0, then the Cauchy problem has a weak solution.
(4) Let L be one of the tangents of I, with equation u = . Show
that the weak solution which we have constructed satises
(( u )
)
t

__
u

_
( u )
_
x
0.
5.5 We consider a strictly hyperbolic 2 2 system of Temple type. Let K U
be a complete characteristic quadrilateral. We denote the Riemann invariants
by r and s.
(1) Show that if K is small enough, then
sup
uK
1
(u) - inf
uK
2
(u).
(2) We suppose from now on that
sup
uK
1
(u) := c
1
- c
2
:= inf
uK
2
(u).
We consider a given initial datum u, such that
u( x) =
_
u
L
. x .
u
R
. x .
Show that s(u
n. j
) = s(u
L
) for all j J
n
, where
J
n
= 2E
_

2h
_
n 2 card{m: 1 m n. a
m
- c
2
].
(3) Deduce that the weak solutions of the Cauchy problem, obtained by
Glimms scheme, satisfy
(x - c
2
t ) (s(u(x. t )) = s(u
L
))
and similarly
(x > c
1
t ) (r(u(x. t )) = r(u
R
)).
(4) Show that there exists a time T of uncoupling, beyond which the evolu-
tion proceeds according to independent scalar conservation laws. More
precisely, there exists a point X such that we have three zones for t > T.
A zone is dened by c
1
(t T) - x X - c
2
(t T) where u(t. x),
constant, is determined by r(u) = r(u
R
) and s(u) = s(u
L
). A zone is
dened by x - X c
1
(t T) where u(t. x) =
1
((t. x); u
L
) and
is a solution of a scalar conservation law. Finally a zone is dened by
x > X c
2
(t T) where u(t. x) =
2
((t. x); u
R
) and is the solution
of another scalar conservation law.
5.6 We consider a strictly hyperbolic 2 2 system whose characteristic elds are
genuinely non-linear. To x our ideas, the speeds, expressed as functions of
the Riemann invariants, satisfy
1
r
> 0.
2
s
> 0.
5.10 Exercises 185
We suppose that the Riemann problem has a unique solution. We are given a
bounded initial condition u such that r u and s u are increasing and have
values in a characteristic quadrilateral K U.
(1) Show that u BV(R)
2
.
(2) Let u
L
and u
R
be the data of a Riemann problem. Show that if r(u
L
)
r(u
R
) and s(u
L
) s(u
R
) the waves of the Riemann problem are rarefac-
tion waves. We might begin by studying the case of equality.
(3) Show by induction on n that the sequences (r(u
n. j
))
j n2Z
and
(s(u
n. j
))
j n2Z
are increasing and that the Riemann problems which are
solved by putting into effect Glimms scheme only make use of rarefaction
waves.
(4) Deduce that u
h
a
is dened for all time t 0 and that
TV
_
r u
h
a
(t )
_
= TV(r u).
TV
_
s u
h
a
(t )
_
= TV(s u).
Conclude that the Cauchy problem possesses a weak entropy solution on
R
R.
6
Second order perturbations
We are interested in this chapter in perturbations of hyperbolic systems of conser-
vation laws
t
u
d
=1
f

(u) = 0 (6.1)
by diffusion terms of second order. To adhere closely to physical examples, we
restrict ourselves to perturbations of conservative form:
t
u
d
=1
f

(u) =
d
.=1
(B
(u)
u). (6.2)
In these models, B
(u), for 1 . d, denotes matrices whose coefcients

are smoothfunctions denedonthe state space U. The coefcient >0is ultimately
to tend to zero. It may come from a change of scale (x. t ) .(x. t ) in which the
process of diffusion seems secondary with respect to the transport phenomena. For
example, for a gas, we generally admit that the thermal conduction and, especially,
the viscosity have rather weak effects.
For a given initial state u
0
(x), the solution of the Cauchy problemfor (6.2), when
it is well-posed, will be denoted by u
(t. x). The natural question is to know if

u
converges, in a sense to be made precise, when tends to zero, to an entropy

solution u of the Cauchy problem for (6.1). We are also interested in the behaviour
of u
in the neighbourhood of a shock wave of u. Let us say immediately that the

convergence is proved only in very few cases.
To be complete, we should hope equally to know that u
converges when the

given initial state u
0
also depends on and converges to a u
0
. This will lead us to
consider particular solutions in the form of a progressive wave U(( x ct ),).
Their analysis, relatively simpler than that of the Cauchy problem, allows another
approach to the stability of shocks.
186
6.1 Dissipation by viscosity
Not every perturbation of the form (6.2) leads to a well-posed Cauchy problem.
A natural requirement is that it is linearly well-posed in the neighbourhood of a
constant state. By the change of variables (x. t ) .(x. t ), we are led to the case
= 1. The linearised system
t
:
d
=1
A
( u)
: =
d
.=1
B
( u)
: (6.3)
possesses particular solutions of the form :(x. t ) = exp(t i x)V, V R
n
, if
and only if V is an eigenvector of the matrix
M() :=
d
.=1
( u) i
d
=1
( u)
associated with the eigenvalue . The dispersion relation, which links and ,
is thus
det(I
n
M()) = 0. (6.4)
A necessary condition for the Cauchy problem to be well-posed for (6.3) is that
the real part of the solutions of the equation (6.4) retains an upper bound when
ranges over R
d
. In particular, making || tend to , we see that the eigen-
values of the matrices B( u; ) :=

.

B( u) must all have their real parts

non-negative, for S
d1
. Quite evidently, none of these conditions is sufcient.
Not only are they not sufcient for the Cauchy problem for (6.3) to be well-posed
for each >0 (after all, we have not excluded that the matrices B
are singu-
lar, even zero), but they ensure still less the convergence of u
when tends to
zero.
Non-dissipative case
To understand why the convergence of u
demands stronger hypotheses than the

existence, let us look at the case of a physical system, where (6.1) is compatible
with a strongly convex entropy E (D
2
u
E > 0), of ux F. Let us suppose that the
tensor B(u) satises the following condition:
..i. j.k
2
E
u
i
u
k
B
kj
(u)m
j
m
i
= 0. m M
dn
(R). (6.5)
188 Second order perturbations
This condition excludes neither the Cauchy problem being well-posed nor that it
produces a smoothing effect. For example, the linear system
t
_
:
n
_
=
_
0 1
1 0
_
2
x
_
:
n
_
(take E = :
2
n
2
to satisfy (6.5)) leads to two uncoupled Schr odinger equations
via the change of unknowns (:. n) .(: i n. : i n), an equation whose semi-
group is smoothing for initial data with rapid decay.
For such systems, we have the identity
t
E(u
) div F(u
) =
((d
u
E B
)(u
). (6.6)
valid at least for smooth solutions, let us say of class C
2
. For these, when they
decay quickly enough at innity, we deduce from (6.6) the conservation of energy
(or of entropy, according to the context)
_
R
d
E(u
(t. x)) dx =
_
R
d
E(u
0
(x)) dx. t > 0.
This shows that the sequence (u
)
>0
is bounded in a certain LebesgueOrlicz space
associated with E. If in addition u
and f (u
) converge simultaneously to u and

f (u) in the sense of distributions,
1
then this convergence will occur in general for
the strong topology of a Lebesgue space because of the non-linearity of f (see
Exercise 6.1). Free to extract a sub-sequence, pointwise convergence will occur
almost everywhere. Finally, we can think that (u
remains localized (the speed of

propagation is nite when is zero), at least enough to be able to apply the theorem
of dominated convergence. We then obtain
_
R
d
E(u(t. x)) dx =
_
R
d
E(u
0
(x)) dx. t > 0.
The conservation of energy when =0 contradicts the development of shock waves
for whichwe hope that the non-positive measure
t
E(u) div F(u) is not identically
zero.
Dissipation or production of entropy
Another way to see that the condition (6.5) is incompatible with the convergence of
u
to an entropy solution of (6.1) when that contains a shock wave is an asymptotic

analysis in a neighbourhood of a point of discontinuity (t
0
. x
0
) of this wave. If the
1
with the result that u is a weak solution of (6.1).
wave front is tangent to the hyperplane with equation y := (xx
0
)c(t t
0
) = 0,
a change of scale suggests that u
has an asymptotic expansion of the form

u
(t. x) = U
_
y
. t. x
_
O().
The function z . U(z. t. x) is called a prole of the shock wave. With values in
U, it is smooth and tends when z to the states u
(t. x) situated on one side

or other of the shock. We shall see in Chapter 7 that U is the heteroclinic orbit of
a very simple vector eld. On the right-hand side of (6.6), in the form
, the
terms e
obey the following asymptotic expansion:

e
(d
u
E B
)(U)U
/
O().
where the rst term tends to zero in L
p
loc
for all nite p since it is bounded and
localized in a zone of size round about the shock wave. Therefore e
0
in D
/
(R
d1
) and a passage to the limit in (6.6) must give the entropy equality
t
E(u) div F(u) = 0 instead of the entropy inequality expected.
We remark that the situation remains the same when we replace the condition
(6.5) by the weaker hypothesis
..i. j.k
2
E
u
i
u
k
B
kj
(u)
i
j
= 0. R
d
. R
n
.
The calculation is the same but the right-hand side of the balance of the entropy is
now written
..i. j
Q
i j
(u
)
_
i
_
.
We must verify that the second sum tends to zero in the sense of distributions
by making use of the asymptotic expansion of u
. Now the coefcient of

2
in
i
is identically zero (this is due to the structure of codimension
1 of the shock waves), with the result that the terms of this sum are of the form
L(U)U
/
O() where L(U) is bounded. This term thus tends to zero in D
/
(R
d1
).
This discussion shows that it is essential that the perturbation is strictly dissipative
for the entropy of the system. However, if we demand that it satises the Legendre
Hadamard condition
..i. j.k
2
E
u
i
u
k
B
kj
( u)
i
j
c( u)||
2
||
2
. R
d
. R
n
. (6.7)
we shall miss most of the perturbations of physical origin. In fact, each time that
the system(6.1) contains a conservation lawsuch as that of mass,
t
div(:) =0,
this will not be perturbed, that is to say that the matrices B( u; ) :=

.

(u) will be singular, having a line of zeros. The left-hand side of (6.7) will
thus be zero for ker B( u; ) and also for D
2
u
E ker B( u; )
T
. Since the
quadratic form . (B(u; ) [ D
2
u
E ) must be positive semi-denite, a natural
hypothesis is that there exists a continuous function c(u) > 0 such that
_
B( u; ) [ D
2
u
E
_
c( u)|B( u; )|
2
. S
d1
. R
n
. (6.8)
We say then that the tensor B is dissipative with respect to the entropy E.
Now let us see a formal consequence of (6.8). The entropy balance for the
perturbed problem is now
t
E(u
)div F(u
..i. j.k
2
E
u
i
u
k
(u
)B
kj
(u
j
=
. (6.9)
If d =1 (the multi-dimensional case is not as clear but the reader will treat it without
difculty where E = |u|
2
when B is constant), we deduce
t
E(u
)
x
F(u
) c(u
)|B(u
)
x
u
|
2

x
e
.
Supposing that the solution is sufciently smooth (so that the above inequality
is correct) and that it decays rapidly at innity, the integration with respect to x
yields
d
dt
_
R
E(u
) dx
_
R
c(u
)|B(u
)
x
u
|
2
dx 0.
Finally
_
R
E(u
(T. x)) dx
_
T
0
dt
_
R
c(u
)|B(u
)
x
u
|
2
dx
_
R
E(u
0
(x)) dx.
which furnishes a priori estimates. If now the sequence (u
is bounded in
L
() and converges almost everywhere to u(t. x) in an open set of R

d1
, then
u
and f (u
) converge to u and f (u) in L

1
loc
(), hence in D
/
(), and u
t
f (u
)
x
tends to u
t
f (u)
x
in the sense of distributions. In addition, the hypothesis
above shows that
1,2
x
(
1,2
B(u
)
x
u
) tends to zero in the sense of distribu-

tions. Passing to the limit in (6.2), we obtain u
t
f (u)
x
= 0. Passing also to the
limit in
E(u
)
t
F(u
)
x

_
dE(u
) B(u
)u
x
_
x
.
we obtain this time the desired entropy inequality E(u)
t
F(u)
x
0.
Let us note again that the asymptotic analysis of a shock wave no longer contra-
dicts the production of entropy. In fact, the dominant term of
..i. j.k
2
E
u
i
u
k
(u
)B
kj
(u
j
is
1
(B(U; )U
/
[ D
2
u
E(U)U
/
) which is of the form
1
V(
1
y) where V is
positive, zero at innity. This term has a mass independent of , strictly positive.
The set of the terms considered therefore tends to a negative singular measure
carried by the front of the shock wave, which is nothing but the measure of entropy
dissipation (the opposite of the measure of entropy production).
Example 6.1.1 Let us illustrate the criterion (6.8) by the NavierStokes equations
of the dynamics of a compressible, viscous, heat-conducting uid. The case d = 1
is as usual the easiest to treat since we can use lagrangian coordinates. Denoting by
, :, p(. e). T(. e). e the specic volume, the velocity, the pressure, the temper-
ature, the specic internal energy, we express the relative viscosity and the thermal
conduction as functions of and of e. The NavierStokes equations are written as
t
:
x
= 0.
:
t
p
x
= (b:
x
)
x
.
_
e
1
2
:
2
_
t
( p:)
x
= (b::
x
kT
x
)
x
.
The coefcients b and k are positive. There are two points of view, according as
we neglect or not the effects due to the viscosity compared with those due to the
thermal transfers (which is realistic in the case of a gas). In one case, we shall have
b 0 and k > 0, in the other b. k > 0. The diffusion tensor takes the value
B =
_
_
_
0
b d:
b: d: k dT
_
_
_
.
Its kernel is the plane dT =0 in the case without viscosity, the straight line d: =
dT = 0 in the viscous case.
The mathematical entropy is the opposite E = S(. e) of the physical en-
tropy. This satises the relation T dS =de p d. We have T >0. For the smooth
solutions of the NavierStokes equations, we nd
S
t
=
_
kT
x
T
_
x
b
T
:
2
x

kT
2
x
T
2
.
that is to say that
(B [ D
2
E) =
b
T
(d: )
2
k
T
2
(dT )
2
.
In both cases, the condition (6.8) is satised, with c = 1,(kT
2
) in the inviscid case
and a more complicated expression in the viscous case.
Partially hyperbolic systems
The NavierStokes equations give the occasion to remark that the diffusion effect
may or may not have a smoothing effect.
In the inviscid case, with only thermal conduction, Ling Hsiao and Dafermos
[16] have shown that shock waves can develop from very smooth initial data.
For such solutions, , : and T
x
are discontinuous while T is continuous (even
if its initial value T
0
is not). The discontinuities satisfy the RankineHugoniot
relations:
[:] s[] = 0. [ p] = s[:].
[T] = 0. [ p:] = s
_
e
1
2
:
2
_
[kT
x
].
The shock waves are therefore similar to those of an isothermal gas, which explains
the importance given in the literature to this model.
We note however that to a sufciently small and smooth initial condition there
can correspond a global smooth solution as has been shown by Slemrod [95]. On the
other hand, in the viscous case, the diffusion is powerful enough for the solution of
the Cauchy problemto be smooth for all time if the given initial condition is (see for
example [51]). In fact a discontinuity should have to satisfy the RankineHugoniot
conditions
[:] s[] = 0. [:] = 0. [T] = 0.
We should have s = 0. We show easily (see [43]) that d[],dt = O([]) with the
result that no discontinuity can appear if it did not exist before the initial instant (and
similarly no discontinuity can disappear). In fact, as the tensor B is not invertible,
the NavierStokes system is not parabolic and its semi-group is not smoothing. For
a measurable bounded given initial condition, the velocity : and the temperature
T are a little smoothed in the sense that :
x
. T
x
L
2
loc
(R
R), but the smooth-

ness of the specic volume is simply propagated. For example, if 0 s -1 and
1 p -,
( . t
1
) W
s. p
loc
( . t
2
) W
s. p
loc
. t
1
. t
2
0.
The viscous isentropic case gives way to an analogous phenomenon. The Navier
Stokes equations are reduced to the conservation of mass and to Newtons law:
t
:
x
= 0.
:
t
p()
x
= (b():
x
)
x
.
Adiscontinuity satises the conditions [:] = 0 and [:] s[] = 0, hence the condi-
tions s = 0. Again, there is a discontinuity in at (t
0
. x
0
) if ( 0 . ) is discontinuous
at x
0
. The smoothness of is propagated without it improving.
We see the fact that the diffusion tensors are not invertible allow that discon-
tinuous solutions exist for the perturbed problems. However, the diffusion is often
sufcient for the discontinuities not to appear spontaneously. When they do so even
then, we must see there a genuinely non-linear hyperbolic behaviour and anticipate
that the equation (6.9) will not be satised. The solution of the Cauchy problemwill
not be unique. We must then select the physically admissible solution by imposing
the entropy inequality
t
E(u) div F(u)
..i. j.k
B
kj
2
E
u
i
u
k
(6.10)
while giving a convenient sense to the third and fourth terms.
6.2 Global existence in the strictly dissipative case
The parabolic case is that where the LegendreHadamardcondition(6.7) is satised.
Following Hoff and Smoller [43, 44], we restrict ourselves to the case of a diagonal
perturbation and with constant coefcients
B
i j
=
j
i
b
i
. u U.
The hypothesis (6.7) amounts to saying that the differential operators Q
i
:=
.
b
are elliptic. The equation of the heat type :

t
Q
i
: =0 possesses
a fundamental solution K
i
of the form
K
i
(t. x) = t
d,2
k
i
_
x
t
_
where k
i
belongs to S(R
d
) (the Schwarz class), k
i
>0 and
_
k
i
(y) dy =1. The
solution of the Cauchy problem for :
t
Q
i
: = g is given by the Duhamel formula
:(t. ) = K
i
(t ) :
0
_
t
0
K
i
(t s) g(s) ds
where denotes the convolution product in R
d
and :
0
the initial condition.
Local existence in L
Let us return to the non-linear system that we have to solve. In view of later appli-
cations, we also take into account external forces g(x. t ) = (g
1
. . . . . g
n
) which are
a priori given:
t
u
i
div f
i
(u) Q
i
u
i
= g
i
. 1 i n. (6.11)
Being given an initial condition u
0
:=R
d
.U, a solution of the Cauchy problem
is a solution of the non-linear integral equation
u
i
(t ) = K
i
(t ) u
0i

d
=1
_
t
0
K
i
(t s) f
i
(u(s)) ds
_
t
0
K
i
(t s) g
i
(s) ds. 1 i n. (6.12)
when the terms have a meaning. We shall suppose that there exists a point u such
that u
0
u is bounded and square-integrable.
The existence and uniqueness (local in time) of a solution of (6.12) are obtained
by writing it as a xed point of the mapping
u . Lu.
(Lu)
i
(t ) := K
i
(t ) u
0i
=1
_
t
0
K
i
(t s) f
i
(u(s)) ds
_
t
0
K
i
(t s) g
i
(s) ds.
and by showing that this is a contraction in a suitable complete metric space.
Norms
For : R
n
we write |:| = max
1i n
[:
i
[. We have chosen this norm because it
denes invariant balls B(a; s) for the semi-group associated with the system of
non-coupled linear equations
t
:
i
Q
i
:
i
= 0, 1 i n (when Q
1
= = Q
n
,
then any norm of R
n
can be used), thanks to the maximum principle. For m N
and 1 p we write
|:|
p
= ess sup
0t T
|:(t )|
p
the usual norm of L
(0. T; (L
p
(R
d
))
m
) and
|:|
1p
=
_
T
0
|:(t )|
p
dt
that of L
1
(0. T; (L
p
(R
d
))
m
). We shorten | |
to | |
(it is the norm of

(L
((0. T)R
d
))
m
). We remark that these norms depend on the choice of T > 0 if
: is dened in a time interval containing (0. T). For example, lim
T0
|:|
1p
= 0
when : belongs to L
1
(0. T
1
; (L
p
(R
d
))
m
). Finally we shall dene, similarly, the
norms in L
q
(0. T; X) where X is a Banach space, for example a Sobolev space.
Hypotheses
We are given two numbers r
0
and r such that 0 -r
0
-r and a point u such that
B( u; r) U. We suppose that the initial datum has values in B( u; r
0
) (which is
restrictive only ifU ,= R
n
) and that u
0
u is square-integrable. As far as the forces
g
i
are concerned their smoothness will be made precise in each statement. We shall
denote by G
T
the ball of (L
(0. T) R
d
)
n
dened by |u u|
r. It is a
complete metric space. We are going to consider L as a mapping dened on G
T
.
The essential result concerning local existence in time is the following.
Lemma 6.2.1 Let g L
1
(0. S; (L
(R
d
))
n
) with S > 0. There exists a time T > 0
such that L is a contracting mapping of G
T
into itself for the norm | |
. If
in addition g L
1
(0. T; (L
2
(R
d
))
n
), then L is equally contracting for the norm
| |
2
.
We deduce then from Picards theorem the statement of existence (in which we do
not suppose that f is the ux of a hyperbolic system).
Corollary 6.2.2 Let g and T be as above. The mapping L possesses a unique xed
point u G
T
. In addition u L
(0. T; (L
2
(R
d
))
n
). In fact, there exists a number
C
1
= C
1
(r
0
. r. T) such that we have
|u u|
C
1
(|u
0
u|
|g|
1
). (6.13)
|u u|
2
C
1
(|u
0
u|
2
|g|
12
). (6.14)
Proof Let us rst show that we can choose T with the result that L(G
T
) G
T
.
Using the fact that
_
R
d K
i
(t. x) dx 1, we have
Lu(t ) u = K(t ) (u
0
u)
_
t
0
x
K(t s) ( f (u(s)) f ( u)) ds
_
t
0
K(t s) g(s) ds.
We have used a vector notation to simplify the equations. Let us denote by M(r) a
Lipschitz constant for the function f in B( u; r). As K
i
0, we have |K
i
(t )|
1
= 1,
therefore (and it is there that we use the fact that B( u; r
0
) has its edges parallel to
the axes)
|Lu(t ) u|
|u
0
u|
M(r)|u u|
_
t
0
|
x
K(t s)|
1
ds
_
t
0
|g(s)|
ds.
However, since
x
K
i
(t ) = t
1
2
(d1)
l
i
(t
1
2
x) where l
i
S (R
d
), we have |
x
K(t )|
= Ct
1
2
. Thus, for u G
T
.
|Lu(t ) u|
r
0
Cr M(r)
_
t
0
ds
t s
|g|
1
.
hence
|Lu(t ) u|
r
0
2Cr M(r)
T |g|
1
.
Choosing T small enough that
r
0
2Cr M(r)
T |g|
1
r. (6.15)
we have that Lu G
T
. For u. : G
T
, q = 2 and q = , we then have
|L:(t ) Lu(t )|
q
M(r)
_
t
0
|
x
K(t s)|
1
|:(s) u(s)|
q
ds
and therefore
|L: Lu|
q
2CM(r)
T|: u|
q
.
From (6.15) the ratio k = 2CM(r)T
1,2
is strictly less than 1. The mapping L is
thus contracting in G
T
for the norm | |
2
.
To show that the xed point u of L is in L
(0. T; (L
2
(R
d
))
n
), we note that the
sequence of iterates (we take u
m1
=Lu
m
and u
0
u) is Cauchy in this space,
hence converges for the norm| |
2
to the limit u. But there exists a sub-sequence
which converges almost everywhere and hence u =u is simultaneously in L
(0. T;
(L
2
(R
d
))
n
) and in (L
((0. T) R
d
)
n
). Finally, the constant C
1
has the value
1,(1 k).
Estimate of the derivatives
To show that u(t ) has partial derivatives of order p which are in L
2
L
, we show
that each iterate u
m
has and that the corresponding norms remain bounded when
m tends to innity. For that, we shall suppose that in the rst instance u
0
u
H
p1
W
p1.
. Using the smoothing property of the semi-group we shall remove
this hypothesis later. Let us begin with the case
2
p = 1.
Lemma 6.2.3 Let g L
1
(0. T; (H
1
W
1.
(R
d
))
n
) and T be as above. There exist
T
0
(0. T] and C
2
> 1 such that the solution of (6.12) satises
u u L
(0. T
0
; L
2
).
t
1,2
x
u L
(0. T
0
; L
2
L
)
with the upper bounds
|u u|
2
C
2
(|u
0
u|
2
|g|
12
).
|t
1,2
x
u|
2
C
2
(|u
0
u|
2
|
x
g|
12
).
|t
1,2
x
u|
C
2
(|u
0
u|
|
x
g|
1
).
Remark In this statement as in those that follow, the time of existence T
0
depends
only on r
0
. r and the norm of g in L
1
(0. S; X) where X is an appropriate Banach
space (here, X = H
1
W
1.
). The constants C
1
. C
2
depend only on r, while T
0
is bounded below by a number (2CM(r))
2
which depends only on r.
Proof of lemma
The rst inequality has already been proved. It is sufcient then to show that L
preserves the above inequalities, that is to say that if : (given in G
T
) satises them,
then L: satises them. Let : G
T
0
L
(0. T; L
2
) where T
0
has still to be made
precise. We have
x
L:(t ) =
x
K(t ) (u
0
u)
_
t
0
x
K(t s)
x
f (:(s)) ds
_
t
0
K(t s)
x
g(s) ds.
Hence
|
x
L:(t )|
2
Ct
1,2
|u
0
u|
2
C
_
t
0
|
x
f (:(s))|
2
ds
t s
|
x
g|
12
.
But
|
x
f (:(s))|
q
M(r)|
x
:(s)|
q
2
From here on, we differ from the analysis of Hoff and Smoller, who do not estimate the L
-norms of the
derivatives. It does not seem possible to perform an induction argument using only the L
2
-norms and the
Lemma 2.1 of [44] appears to be false.
for all 1 q . The above equation therefore becomes
|
x
L:(t )|
2
Ct
1,2
|u
0
u|
2
CM(r)
_
t
0
|
x
:(s)|
2
ds
t s
|
x
g|
12
.
Let us choose T
0
(0. T] with the result that
l :=CM(r)
_
T
0
_
1
0
d
(1 )
- 1. (6.16)
Then
|
x
L:(t )|
2
Ct
1,2
|u
0
u|
2
l T
1,2
0
|t
1,2
x
:|
2
|
x
g|
12
.
from which
|t
1,2
x
L:|
2
C|u
0
u|
2
l|t
1,2
x
:|
2
T
1,2
0
|
x
g|
12
.
As u
0
u, the repeated use of the preceding argument implies
|t
1,2
x
u
m
|
2

1
1 l
_
C|u
0
u|
2
T
1,2
0
|
x
g|
12
_
.
Finally
|
x
L:(t )|
Ct
1,2
|u
0
u|
C
_
t
0
|
x
f (:(s))|
ds
t s
|
x
g|
1
.
which leads in a similar way to
|t
1,2
x
L:|
C|u
0
u|
l|t
1,2
x
:|
T
1,2
0
|
x
g|
1
and to
|t
1,2
x
u
m
|

1
1 l
_
C|u
0
u|
T
1,2
0
|
x
g|
1
_
.
We continue with the derivatives of higher order.
Lemma 6.2.4 Let p 2, g L
1
(0. S; (H
p
W
p.
(R
d
))
n
) and T
0
be as above.
There exists a polynomial P depending on p, with positive coefcients depending
on r, s, and on the norm of D
2
f in C
p2
(B( u; r)), such that, if also u
0
u
(H
p1
W
p1.
(R
d
))
n
, then the solution u of (6.12) satises
u u L
(0. T
0
; (H
p1
W
p1.
(R
d
))
n
).
t
1,2
(u u) L
(0. T
0
; (H
p
W
p.
(R
d
))
n
).
with
_
_
p1
x
u
_
_
2
_
_
p1
x
u
_
_
P(|u
0
u| G
p1
).
_
_
t
1,2
p
x
u
_
_
2
_
_
t
1,2
p
x
u
_
_
P(|u
0
u| G
p
).
where |u
0
u| is the norm in H
p1
W
p1.
and G
p
that of g in L
1
(0. T; (H
p
W
p.
(R
d
))
n
).
Proof We proceed by induction on p. We show that L preserves the inequalities
that u
0
u satises trivially. We deduce that u
m
, then u also, satises them, which
is the substance of the lemma. In the rst place we have
p1
x
L:(t ) = K(t )
p1
x
u
0
_
t
0
x
K(t s)
p1
x
f (:(s)) ds
_
t
0
K(t s)
p1
x
g(s) ds.
Hence, if q = 2 or q = ,
_
_
p1
x
L:(t )
_
_
q

_
_
p1
x
u
0
_
_
q
C
_
t
0
_
_
p1
x
f (:(s))
_
_
q
ds
t s
_
t
0
_
_
p1
x
g(s)
_
_
q
ds.
However,
p1
x
f (:) d f (:)
p1
x
: is a polynomial without constant term in the
variables
x
:. . . . .
p2
x
:, whose coefcients are the derivatives of f of orders
between 2 and p 1, and hence are bounded on B( u; r). From the induction hy-
pothesis, the iterates u
m
therefore satisfy
_
_
p1
x
f (:) d f (:)
p1
x
:
_
_
q
Q(|u
0
u| G
p2
)
where in fact Q depends only on the norm of u
0
u in H
p2
W
p2.
, on G
p2
and on the norm of D
2
f in C
p3
(B( u; r)). Thus
_
_
p1
x
Lu
m
(t )
_
_
q

_
_
p1
x
u
0
_
_
q
G
p1
CM(r)
_
t
0
_
_
p1
x
u
m
(s)
_
_
q
ds
t s
C
_
t
0
Q(|u
0
u| G
p2
)
ds
t s
and hence
_
_
p1
x
Lu
m
(t )
_
_
q
Q
1
(|u
0
u| G
p1
) k
_
_
p1
x
u
m
_
_
q
.
from which
_
_
p1
x
u
m
(t )
_
_
q

1
1 k
Q
1
(|u
0
u| G
p1
). (6.17)
Similarly, applying the induction hypothesis and using (6.17) to bound the term
|
p
x
f (u
m
) d f (u
m
)
p
x
u
m
|
q
, we obtain
_
_
p
x
Lu
m
(t )
_
_
q
Ct
1,2
_
_
p1
x
u
0
_
_
q
C
_
t
0
_
_
p
x
f (u
m
(s))
_
_
q
ds
t s
_
t
0
_
_
p
x
g(s)
_
_
q
ds
Ct
1,2
_
_
p1
x
u
0
_
_
q
G
p
C
_
t
0
_
M(r)
_
_
p
x
u
m
(s)
_
_
q
Q
2
(|u
0
u| G
p1
)
_
ds
t s
.
Thus
_
_
t
1,2
p
x
Lu
m
_
_
q
Q
3
(|u
0
u| G
p
) l|t
1,2
p
x
u
m
|
q
.
from which it follows that
_
_
t
1,2
p
x
u
m
_
_
q

1
1 l
Q
3
(|u
0
u| G
p
).
Now let us show that the solution is smooth when t >0, this being true even for
non-smooth data. If u
0
u belongs only to L
2
(R
d
) (with still |u
0
u|
r
0
), then
the iteration converges to the unique solution u in L
(0. T; (L
2
L
(R
d
))
n
). In
addition t
1,2
u
m
L
(0. T
0
; H
1
W
1.
). Let t
0
>0. Making use of the semi-group
property of K, we have
L:(t ) = K(t t
0
) (L:)(t
0
)
_
t
t
0
x
K(t s) f (:(s)) ds
_
t
t
0
K(t s) g(s) ds.
Applying this to : = u
m1
and using the fact that L:(t
0
) H
1
W
1.
, we deduce
that if also g L
1
(0. S; (H
2
W
2.
(R
d
))
n
), we have for all t
0
-t -T
0
and q = 2
or ,
_
_
(t t
0
)
1,2
2
x
u
m
_
_
q
P
_
|u
0
u|
2
. |u
0
u|
. G
1
. G
2
.
1
t
0
_
for a suitable polynomial P. In proceeding by induction on the order of the deriva-
tives, we state that if g is still more smooth, there exists a polynomial P
p
of p 3
variables such that if t
(0. T
0
], then
_
_
(t t
)
1,2
p
x
u
m
_
_
q
P
p
_
|u
0
u|
2
. |u
0
u|
. G
1
. . . . . G
p
.
1
_
(6.18)
for q = 2, q = , p 2 and for all m. The convergence towards the solution of
(6.12) thus conrms that u L
loc
(0. T
0
; (H
p
W
p.
)
n
) when g L
1
(0. S; (H
p
W
p.
(R
d
))
n
). Let us sum up this in the following theorem.
Theorem 6.2.5 Let u
0
(L
2
L
(R
d
))
n
be such that u
0
takes its values in
a block
n
i =1
[a
i
. b
i
] strictly included inU. Let g L
1
(0. S; (H
p
W
p.
(R
d
))
n
).
Then there exists T
0
(0. S] such that the system(6.11) possesses a unique solution
in C ([0. T
0
]; (L
2
(R
d
))
n
) L
((0. ) R
d
) with u(0. ) = u
0
. In addition there
exists C >1 such that this solution satises
u L
loc
(0. T
0
; (H
p
W
p.
)
n
).
|u u|
2
|t
1,2
x
u|
2
C(|u
0
u|
2
|g|
12
).
|u u|
|t
1,2
x
u|
C(|u
0
u|
|g|
1
).
Finally, for all t
(0. T
0
], there exists a polynomial P
p
such that for all t (t
. T
0
],
we have
_
_
(t t
)
1,2
p
x
u
_
_
2
P
p
(|u
0
u|
2
. |u
0
u|
. G
1
. . . . . G
p
).
_
_
(t t
)
1,2
p
x
u
_
_
P
p
(|u
0
u|
2
. |u
0
u|
. G
1
. . . . . G
p
).
Proof If u C ([0. T]; (L
2
(R
d
))
n
) (L
((0. T) R
d
))
n
is the solution of (6.2)
and satises u(0. ) = u
0
, then this is a solution of (6.12) and we have seen that
this exists (continuity with values in L
2
comes from the fact that the u
m
have this
property since K(t ) u
0
has it) and is unique. We have already shown all the other
stated properties.
Remark This theorem is not optimal. We can for example weaken the hypotheses
concerning g. If, in addition, g is somewhat smooth with respect to the time (for
example
t
g (L
2
L
)
n
), the solution itself is also somewhat smooth when
t > 0. That is shown as previously, by differentiating the integral equation as often
as is necessary with respect to the time. As an example, we can state
Theorem 6.2.6 Let g (D(R
d1
))
n
and u
0
(L
2
L
(R
d
))
n
. Then there exists
T > 0 such that the (unique) solution of the Cauchy problem (6.11) is of class C
on (0. T] R
d
. If moreover u
0
is of class C
, then the solution is of class C
on
[0. T] R
d
.
Extension of the solution (case g 0)
In what has gone before we have not had the use of an entropy. In fact, the anal-
ysis has not used the hyperbolicity of the inviscid system (when we suppress the
viscosity). However, the entropy plays an essential r ole in the extension of the
solution to R
R
d
. We suppose that the inviscid system has a strongly convex
entropy, denoted by E, of ux F (hence this systemis symmetrisable hyperbolic by
Theorem3.4.2). Free toreplace the entropy E byu . E(u)E( u)dE( u) (u u),
we can suppose that E is positive, and zero at u. Hence, there exists a number > 0
such that, for all a B( u; r), we have
|a u|
2
E(a)
1
|a u|
2
.
The solution of the Cauchy problem, since it is smooth, satises
E(u)
t
div F(u) c(u)|B
x
u|
2
.
Similarly, on B( u; r), c(u) satises c(u)|Bm|
2
|m|
2
, m M
dn
where
is a positive constant. The expressions e
, of the form
(dE B
)(u)
u, tend
to zero at innity since u L
H
p
for p large enough (let us say p >
1
2
d 1).
Similarly for F(u) which satises F( u) =0 (we are allowed this choice) and
dF( u) = dE( u) d f ( u) = 0. The integration over R
d
thus gives
d
dt
_
R
d
E(u) dx
_
R
d
|
x
u|
2
dx 0.
In particular, t .
_
R
d E(u) dx decreases on (0. T
0
] and hence also on [0. T
0
]
since u is continuous in L
2
(R
d
). Thus
_
R
d
E(u(t. x)) dx
_
R
d
E(u
0
(x)) dx.
from which it follows that
|u(t ) u|
2

1
|u
0
u|
2
.
Also, if 0 -t
-t
1
T
0
, the upper bound (6.18) and Sobolevs inequality which
corresponds to the injection H
m
C
0
for m >
1
2
n give
|u(t
1
) u|
|u(t
1
) u|
1
2
_
_
m
x
u(t
1
)
_
_
2

1
|u
0
u|
1
2
P
m
_
|u
0
u|
2
.
1
(t
1
t
)
,2
with = (m. n) (0. 1]. The numbers r
0
, r, t
and t
1
being xed, there exists a
number r
1
> 0 such that if |u
0
u| r
1
, then the right-hand side is less than r
0
.
But then the Cauchy problem, made up of the system (6.2) and the initial condition
u(t
1
) at t = t
1
, possesses a smooth solution in the interval (t
1
. t
1
T
0
) which has all
the properties stated in Theorem 6.2.5. The solution sought is therefore dened at
least on the interval (0. t
1
T
0
). We can take t
=
1
4
T
0
and t
1
=
1
2
T
0
. The number
r
1
depends only on the choice of r
0
and of r, with the result that we can extend
the solution of the Cauchy problem to all the intervals of the form (0.
1
4
qT
0
) by
repeating the same argument. The nal result is therefore the following.
203
Theorem 6.2.7 (g 0) Let u U and the numbers r >r
0
>0 be such that the
block B( u; r) is contained inU. There exists r
1
>0 such that if u
0
(L
2
L
(R
d
))
n
and if |u
0
u|
r
0
, |u
0
u|
2
r
1
, then the Cauchy problem for (6.11) (where
g 0) possesses a global solution u C
b
(R
; (L
2
(R
d
))
n
) L
(R
R
d
)
n
. This
solution is unique in this class and satises the estimates of Theorem 6.2.5 with in
addition
|u u|
2
(r)|u
0
u|
2
.
Existence with a small diffusion
The above theorem provides global existence for small data and Theorem 6.2.5
ensures the local existence for all smooth data when > 0 is xed. In practice, as
we consider the sequence (u
)
>0
when tends to zero, we wish to know that these
solutions are dened in a common strip (0. S) R
d
. We ought therefore to show
that the time of existence T
of u
does not tend to zero.

In fact, neither of the two above theorems leads to this conclusion. To apply
them, we consider a xed value of , let us say =1, by the change of variables
(t. x) .(t. x). Hence, we apply them to the given initial condition
u
0
(x) :=u
0
(x).
This always satises | u
0
u| r
0
and the local theorem yields a solution u
in
the strip (0. T
0
(r)) R
d
. But the solution u
(t. x) = u(t ,. x,) is only dened for

0 - t T
= T
0
. Besides, the global theorem 6.2.7 does not apply for small as
| u
0
u|
2
=
d,2
|u
0
u|
2
> r
1
.
We shall see in the following section a sharper estimate which makes use of the
regular solution of the hyperbolic problem (6.1) (which is clearly hyperbolic since
it has a convex entropy) and which permits us to prove the existence of u
and
the convergence of the sequence (u
)
>0
to that value in a strip (0. S) R
d
for an
S > 0. However, we shall restrict ourselves to the case of a single space dimension.
In this section, we shall prove a convergence result when d =1, if the diffusion has
constant coefcients.
We suppose still that the system (6.1) possesses a strongly convex entropy E
of ux F. Hence, it is symmetrisable hyperbolic. Let 0 - r
0
- r, u and u
0

L
(R; B( u; r
0
)) as in the preceding section. There exists a unique local smooth
solution of the Cauchy problemfor (6.2). We denote this solution by u
and its time

of existence by T
> 0. We have seen that T
T
0
(r). We dene
S
= inf{ T
; |u
(t ) u|
> r
0
. t [. T
0
] [. T
)].
There exist times arbitrarily close to S
for which |u
(t ) u|
r
0
. From the
local existence theorem, we thus have that T
T
0
and all the estimates that
we have stated are valid for u
when t (0. T
0
S
) as u(t ) can be considered

as the solution of the Cauchy problem after a time less than T
0
and for a given
initial condition with values in B( u; r
0
). In fact, we shall use only the estimate
|u
(t ) u|
r.
Finally, suppose that u
0
H
2
(R)
n
. Then Theorem 3.6.1 assures us that the
Cauchy problem for the system (6.1) possesses a unique regular solution u in a
strip (0. T) R which satises u C ([0. T); H
2
(R)) C
1
([0. T) R). The aim
of this section is to prove the convergence of u
to u when tends to zero.

For that, we begin by establishing and energy estimate.
The energy estimate
This estimate having an interest in its own right, we present it for very general
diffusion tensors.
Theorem 6.3.1 Let : . B(:) be a diffusion tensor satisfying the inequality
(D
2
E(:) [ B(:)) c(:)|B(:)|
2
. R
n
.
where : .c(:) > 0 is a continuous function.
We suppose that the Cauchy problem for the system (6.2) has a smooth solution
u
with values in B( u; r) for all (t. x) [0. t
] R. We suppose nally that u, the

solution of the Cauchy problem for (6.1), has values in a compact set inU (this is
true, even if it entails reducing the value of T).
Then there exists a constant C >0 such that the upper bounds below are valid
for all t [0. min(T. t
)] :
|u
(t ) u(t )|
2
C
t . (6.19)
_
t
0
_
R
_
_
B(u
)u
x
_
_
2
dx ds Ct. (6.20)
It is clear that these estimates cannot remain valid if u is a weak solution
with discontinuities. For example (6.20), when B is invertible, implies, that u
x
remains in a bounded set of (L
2
((0. t )R))
n
. By equation (6.2), we deduce that
u
t
remains in a compact set of L
2
(0. t ; (H
1
loc
(R))
n
). By a classical compactness
lemma, it follows that (u
(t ))
is a relatively compact sequence for the topology

205
of uniform convergence, for almost all t , and this prevents the convergence
(even in L
(0. t ; L
2
(R))) to a discontinuous function, in contradiction to the
rst upper bound (6.19).
We shall note alsothat this theoremdoes not require that B is invertible. It constitutes
a uniform estimate with respect to the diffusion.
Proof For every function g dened onU, we write g = g(u) and g
= g(u
). We
introduce the expressions
L(t. x) := E
E dE (u
u).
(t. x) := F
F dE ( f

f ).
We have
L
t

x
= dE
_
B
x
_
x
dE ((u
u)
t
( f

f )
x
)
(dE)
t
(u
u) (dE)
x
( f

f )
= (dE
dE)
_
B
x
_
x
D
2
E(u
t
. u
u) D
2
E(u
x
. f

f )
=
_
(dE
dE) B
x
_
x

_
D
2
E
x
D
2
Eu
x
[ B
x
_
D
2
E(d f u
x
. u
u) D
2
E(u
x
. f

f ).
Let >0 be a lower bound of c(:) on B( u; r), then
L
t

x

_
_
B
x
_
_
2

_
(dE
dE) B
x
_
x
|D
2
E u
x
|
_
_
B
x
_
_
D
2
E(u
x
. f

f d f (u
u)).
where we have also used the symmetry of d f relatively to the quadratic form D
2
E
(Theorem 3.4.2).
On the compact set B( u; r), the expression L is greater than c
1
(r)|u
u|
2
where c
1
(r) > 0. As f

f d f (u
u) = O(|u
u|
2
), we therefore have
L
t

x

_
_
B
x
_
_
2

_
(dE
dE) B
x
_
x
c
2
(r)|u
x
|
L
|D
2
E u
x
|
_
_
B
x
_
_
.
Using the CauchySchwarz inequality, we nd that this gives
L
t

2
_
_
B
x
_
_
2

_
(dE
dE) B
x
_
x
c
2
(r)|u
x
|
L

2
|D
2
E u
x
|
2
.
Let us integrate this inequality over R. As u
u L
2
(R) and u
x
L
2
(R), the
integrals of
x
and of ((dE
dE) B
x
)
x
are zero. There thus remains
d
dt
_
R
Ldx

2
_
R
_
_
B
x
_
_
2
dx c
3
_

_
R
Ldx
_
. (6.21)
Since L(0. ) 0, the Gronwall inequality yields
_
R
Ldx e
c
3
t
c
3
t c
4
t.
from which |u
(t ) u(t )|
2
2
c
4
t ,c
1
. Finally, integrating (6.21) from 0 to t , we
obtain

2
_
t
0
_
R
_
_
B
x
_
_
2
dx ds c
3
_
t
1
2
c
4
t
2
_
c
5
t.
which completes the proof of the theorem.
The essential point of this theorem is that the constant C depends only on r and
on the norms of u in H
1
(R)
n
and in W
1.
(R)
n
. But it does not depend on >0
or on the time of existence S
T
0
. In particular, we deduce immediately that
u
converges to u in L
(0. S; L
2
(R)
n
) where S := min(T. liminf
0
S
). For this
result to have a signicance, it must be shown that S > 0. That will be shown later
on. But rst we examine two particular cases.
Two most favourable cases
We return to the estimates of the preceding section to prove the following equality:
L
t

x
= (dE
dE)
_
B
x
_
x
D
2
E(u
x
. f

f d f (u
u)). (6.22)
Now we use differently the dissipation:
L
t

x
(D
2
E
(u
u)
x
[B
(u
u)
x
)
=
_
(dE
dE) B
x
_
x
((D
2
E D
2
E
)u
x
[B
(u
u)
x
)
(dE dE
)
x
B
u
x
D
2
E(u
x
. f

f d f (u
u)).
Thus
L
t

x
|B
(u
u)
x
|
2

_
(dE
dE)B
x
_
x
(dE dE
)
x
B
u
x
((D
2
E D
2
E
)u
x
[B
(u
u)
x
) c
2
(r)|u
x
|
L.
Using Youngs inequality, we have
L
t

x

2
|B
(u
u)
x
|
2
[(dE
dE) B
(u
u)
x
]
x
c
2
(r)|u
x
|
Lc
3
|u
x
|
2
L(dE dE
)
_
dB
x
_
u
x
. (6.23)
Let us decompose the last term into two parts. The rst,
(dE dE
) (dB
u
x
)u
x
/
is integrable since u L
(0. T; H
2
(R)) and its integral is bounded above by
207
_
R
Ldx c
4
(|u|
H
2
(R)
)
2
. The second is
(dE dE
) (dB
(u
u
x
))u
x
/
which is a bad one, in general. There are, however, two favourable cases. On the
one hand, when the tensor B has constant coefcients, since this term is then zero.
On the other hand the parabolic case (B is thus invertible), since then
(dE dE
) (dB
(u
u)
x
)u
x
c|u
x
| |u
u| |B
(u
u)
x
|

4
|B
(u
u)
x
|
2
c
5
(|u
x
|
)L.
Finally, the inequality (6.23), integrated with respect to x, leads to
d
dt
_
R
Ldx

4
_
R
|B
(u
u)
x
|
2
c
6
_
R
Ldx c
4
2
.
The estimate of Theorem 6.3.1 is therefore improved in
Theorem 6.3.2 We suppose that
(1) either the diffusion tensor has constant coefcients,
(2) or the perturbationis parabolic (B is invertible and D
2
E B is positive denite).
We suppose that the Cauchy problem for the system (6.2) has a smooth solution
u
with values in B( u. r) for all (t. x) [0. t
] R. We suppose, nally, that the

solution of the Cauchy problem for (6.1) has values in a compact set of U (which
is true even if it means a reduction in the value of T).
Then, there exists a constant C > 0 such that the upper bounds below are valid
for all t [0. min(T. t
)] :
|u
(t ) u(t )|
2
C
t . (6.24)
_
t
0
_
R
|B(u
)(u
u)
x
|
2
dx ds Ct. (6.25)
Uniformity of the existence times
We return to the case where the diffusion B is invertible and with constant coef-
cients. The inequality (6.20) is therefore an estimate or u
x
u
x
in L
2
((0. t ) R).
Even if we have to replace r
0
by a number r
1
(r
0
. r), we can suppose that
|u
0
u|
- r
0
. Then, we denote by T
1
> 0 the time during which the solution
u of the hyperbolic problem remains with its values in B( u;
1
2
(r
0
|u
0
u|
)).
If liminf
0
S
- T
1
, then S
T
0
- T
1
for arbitrarily small values of . On the
interval [S
. S
T
0
], we have |u
(t ) u|
r
0
and therefore |u
(t )u(t )|

r
0
|u(t ) u|

1
2
(r
0
|u
0
u|
) which is a strictly positive constant. In

addition, the classical inequality |:|
2
2|:|
2
|:
x
|
2
, valid for all : in H
1
(R),
gives |u
(t ) u(t )|
4
4c(r)t |(u
u)
x
|
2
2
. Finally,
T
0
_
r
0
|u
0
u|
2
_
4
_
S
T
0
S
|u
u|
4
dt
c
1
(r)(S
T
0
)
_
S
T
0
S
|(u
u)
x
|
2
2
dt
2c
1
(r)(S
T
0
)
_
S
T
0
S
__
_
u
x
_
_
2
2
|u
x
|
2
2
_
dt
c
2
(r)(S
T
0
)
2
.
where we have used Theorem6.3.1 and the C (0. T; H
1
) smoothness of u. Fromthis
inequality, we deduce an explicit lower bound of the time during which u
exists
and |u
u|
stays less than r:

S
T
0
min
_
_
T
0
c
2
(r)
_
1,2
_
r
0
|u
0
u|
2
_
2
. T
1
_
.
The nal result is therefore the following.
Theorem6.3.3 Let :
t
f (:)
x
= 0be asystemof conservationlaws equippedwitha
strongly convex entropy E (thus, it is symmetrisable hyperbolic). Let B M
n
(R) be
a matrix with constant coefcients satisfying (D
2
E(u) [ B) c(u)||
2
, R
n
,
with u .c(u) > 0 continuous. Finally, let u
0
H
2
(R)
n
, with values in a compact
set K of U, this compact set being invariant for the equation :
t
= B:
xx
.
We denote by u the local smooth solution of the Cauchy problem
_
u
t
f (u)
x
= 0.
u(0. ) = u
0
.
For > 0, we denote by u
the local smooth solution of the Cauchy problem

_
u
t
f (u
)
x
= Bu
xx
.
u
(0. ) = u
0
.
Then there exist a time T >0 and a constant c(K) >0 such that u and u
(for
0 - - 1) are dened on [0. T) R and satisfy
|u
(t ) u(t )|
2
C(K)
t . t [0. T).
_
t
0
_
_
u
x
_
_
2
2
ds C(K)t. t [0. T).
In particular, u = lim
0
u
for the norm of L
(0. T; (L
2
(R))
n
).
209
Comments It is not, in general, clear that T
c
, the time during which we have the
convergence of u
to u, is equal to the time of the existence T

e
of u. But as the
sole obstacle to the energy estimates is the growth of u
in L
(R)
n
, we clearly
have T
c
= T
e
once a maximum principle yields a set K ofU in which u
remains
indenitely. The most obvious case is that of a scalar equation. Let us take also as
an example the Keytz and Kranzer system
u
t
((|u|)u)
x
= 0.
which we perturb in a diagonal manner:
u
t
((|u
|)u
)
x
= u
xx
.
The expression
:=
1
2
|u
|
2
satises the inequatility
t
(A(
))
x

xx
for a suitable function A: R
.R. Thus
(t. x)
1
2
|u
0
|
2
and we deduce that

u
tends to u in L
([0. T
e
); (L
2
(R))
n
).
We are restricted to invertible diffusion tensors with constant coefcients because
this allows the use of Duhamels formula and the kernel of a parabolic linear
equation, with all the explicit estimates which result. It is, however, plausible from
Theorem6.3.1 that an existence result, uniformwith respect to (0. 1], must arise
for the diffusions : . B(:) satisfying the inequality
(D
2
E(:) [ B(:)) c(:)| B(:)|
2
. R
n
.
where c(:) >0. The difculty in the general case is that we must proceed with the
estimates of derivatives of order for 0 [[ m with m >1
1
2
d, exactly as in
the proof of Theorem 3.6.1, treating in addition the diffusion term.
Even in the case of an invertible diffusion tensor with constant coefcients,
we are restricted to the one-dimensional case because of the inequality |:|
2

2|:|
2
|:
x
|
2
which is precisely what we need to obtain a lower bound for S
. Here
also, we should need the estimates of higher order derivatives when d 2.
The convergence of u
to a weak entropy solution of the system (6.1) is a much

more delicate question. Onthe one hand, the estimates, if theyexist, must be validfor
sufciently weak norms, for example L
p
norms. On the other hand, we do not have a
theoremgiving a priori the existence of entropy solutions (that of Glimm, restricted
to small data, is not satisfactory). It is just this convergence which has been used
to construct such solutions. The main method used to establish this procedure has
been that of compensated compactness (see the fundamental articles by Tartar [101]
and DiPerna [17, 18]). This method is restricted to 2 2 systems (more generally
to the systems called rich) and gives no information concerning the smoothness of
the entropy solution.
The arguments of this section have been used in a more complex body of prob-
lems, that of a problem with boundary conditions of Dirichlet type, in [30], [31].
See Chapter 15.
6.4 Scalar case. Accuracy of approximation
In the scalar case, we are given the very strong properties such as the maximum
principle, the uniqueness of the Cauchy problem and the contraction property in
L
1
(R
d
) (see Theorem 2.3.5): for two solutions u and : of the same equation u
t

div f (u) = 0, we have
|u(t ) :(t )|
1
|u(0) :(0)|
1
.
These properties and their generalisations to solutions of the perturbed equation
u
t
div f (u
) = Lu
(6.26)
allow us (cf. [58]) to bound the error |u
(t ) u(t )|
1
due to the approximation.
Theorem6.4.1(Kuznetsov) There exists aconstant C >0suchthat, if u
0
BV(R
d
)
and if u(0) = u
(0) = u
0
, then
|u
(t ) u(t )|
1
C
t TV(u
0
).
This statement can be improved in the genuinely non-linear case in.
Theorem6.4.2 We suppose that d = 1 and that inf
R
f
//
> 0. Then, for u
0
BV(R)
and with compact support, we have
|u(t ) u
(t )|
1
C(u
0
)
1,2
t
1,4
.
Remark (1) Of course, this last estimate is only better than that of Kuznetsov for
t 1. In addition, if u
0
L
1
(R
d
), the two estimates are only useful when they are
better than the trivial bound
|u(t ) u
(t )|
1
|u(t )|
1
|u
(t )|
1
2|u
0
|.
The interesting times are therefore
(a) t _
1
, in the general case,
(b) 1 _t _
2
, in the one-dimensional genuinely non-linear case.
(2) Neither of these two results is uniform with respect to the time and indeed
they could not be. In the linear case, with f 0, we have u(t. x) = u
0
(x) while
|u
(t )|
tends to zero when t tends to innity. We thus have that

lim
t
inf
|u(t ) u
(t )|
1
|u
0
|
1
.
which is independent of .
The genuinely non-linear case (in which d = 1 and u
0
L
1
) is subtler and is
supported by the asymptotic description of u and of u
with > 0 and xed. We

can suppose that f
/
(0) = 0 and f
//
(0) = 1. First of all, u(t ) is asymptotic in L
1
to
an N-wave (see [19], Theorem 9.1):
N(x. t ) =
_
x,t.
(2pt ) x
(2qt ).
0. otherwise,
where
p := inf
xR
_
x
u
0
() d. q := sup
xR
_

x
u
0
() d.
In addition, u
(t ) is asymptotic in L
1
to a non-linear diffusion wave of the form
:(t. x) =
1
t
V
_
x
t
_
.
where V is positive (if
_
u
0
dx > 0, negative otherwise). Thus
lim
t
inf
|u(t ) u
(t )|
1
lim
t
_
0
2pt
[x[
t
dx = p.
which is independent of .
(3) As |u
(t ) u(t )|
2|u
0
|
2 TV(u
0
) if inf u
0
0 sup u
0
, we can de-
duce from Kuznetsovs theorem and the H older inequality the following estimate:
|u
(t ) u(t )|
p
C(t )
1,2p
TV(u
0
)
for p 1.
(4) If we measure the error in a norm other than L
1
(R), we can obtain a power of
different from
1
2
; the above remark is an illustration of this. But the exponent can
approach the optimal value 1 in the favorable cases. Tadmor [100] has shown that
if inf f
//
>0 and if the initial condition has a Lipschitz increasing part, that is if
M; x - y =
u
0
(y) u
0
(x)
y x
M.
then
|(u
(t ) u(t )) |
K(t. u
0
)|
x
|
for every test function D(R).

Before proving these theorems, we are going to state some properties of the
parabolic equation (6.26). First of all, the Cauchy problem has a unique locally
smooth solution. This satises the maximum principle since the equation can also
be written as a transportdiffusion equation :
t
f
/
(:) : = L:. Thus, u
re-
mains with values in the interval I = [inf
xR
u
0
(x). sup
xR
u
0
(x)] which entails
that the smooth solution is dened for all time t 0. If : is another solution of the
same equation (6.26), we have
(u
:)
t
div( f (u
) f (:)) = L(u
:). (6.27)
Now, we use the following formulae. If : R
2
R is a Lipschitz function and if
a. b are two functions belonging to W
1.1
loc
(R
d1
) (in particular if a and b are smooth)
then (a. b) W
1.1
loc
(R
d1
) and we have
x
j
(a. b) =

a
a
x
j

b
b
x
j
. 0 j d. (6.28)
In addition if : RR is convex and Lipschitz then we have
L( a)
/
(a)La. (6.29)
Multiplying equation (6.27) by sgn(u
:) and applying the preceding formulae

with (a. b) :=[a b[, (a. b) :=sgn(a b)( f

(a) f

(b)) and (a) :=[a[, we
deduce
[u
:[
t
div {sgn(u
:)( f (u
) f (:))] L[u
:[.
Integrating over [0. T] R
d
, we obtain
|u
(t ) :(t )|
1
|u
(0) :(0)|
1
. t 0.
In particular, if u
(0) =u
0
and :(0. x) =u
0
(x h), then : is nothing but a translation
of u
: :(t. x) = u
(t. x h), with the result that

|u
(t ) u
(t. h)|
1
|u
0
u
0
( h)|
1
.
Dividing by h >0 and letting h tend to zero, we arrive at the decay of the total
variation of u
,
TV(u
(t )) TV(u
0
). (6.30)
We can now proceed with the proof of Theorem 6.4.1.
Proof From the entropy inequality for u we have for all (s. y) R
R
d
[u u
(s. y)[
t
div
x
{sgn(u u
(s. y))( f (u) f (u
(s. y)))] 0. (6.31)

In fact, it is necessary to see this inequality in its integral form, including the initial
condition which uses test functions. Similarly, again making use of the formulae
(6.28) and (6.29), we have for all (s. y) R
R
d
[u
u(s. y)[
t
div
x
(sgn(u
u(s. y))( f (u
) f (u(s. y))))
L[u
u(s. y)[. (6.32)

Let >0 and >0 be two parameters which we shall adjust in a moment. We
use a smoothing kernel
(z) =
1
(z,) where D
(R) is even and satises

_
R
dz =1. We also use the smoothing kernel O
(x) :=
(x
1
) . . .
(x
d
) on R
d
.
We put
g
(s. . x. y) =
(s )O
(x y).
Let us dene for every smooth function h D(R
d1
) and every a R
t
(h. u. a) :=
__
(0.t )R
d
_
h
s
(s. x)[u(s. x) a[

x
h sgn(u a)( f (u) f (a))
_
dx ds
_
R
d
h(0. x)[u
0
(x) a[ dx
_
R
d
h(t. x)[u(t. x) a[ dx.
Since u is an entropy solution of the Cauchy problem of the unperturbed equation,
we have
t
(h. u. a) 0, provided that h 0. Let us substitute in this inequality
g(. y. . ) for h and u
(. y) for a. Then let us integrate the resulting expression

with respect to and y in the strip (0. t )R
d
. Using the formulae g, = g,s
and
y
g =
x
g we nd that
t
(u. u
) 0 where
t
(u. u
) :=
____
0-s.-t
_
g
[u(s. x) u
(. y)[ sgn(u(s. x)
u
(. y))
y
g ( f (u(s. x)) f (u
(. y)))
_
dx dy ds d
___
0--t
g(. 0. x. y)[u
0
(x) u
(. y)[ dx dy d
___
0--t
g(. t. x. y)[u(t. x) u
(. y)[ dx dy d.
Now, making use of the inequality (6.32) we obtain
0
t
(u. :)
____
0-s.-t
y
g
y
[u(s. x) u
(. y)[ dx dy ds d
___
0--t
g(. 0. x. y)[u
0
(x) u
(. y)[ dx dy d
___
0--t
g(. t. x. y)[u(t. x) u
(. y)[ dx dy d
___
0-s-t
g(0. s. x. y)[u(s. x) u
0
(y)[ dx dy ds
___
0-s-t
g(t. s. x. y)[u(s. x) u
(t. y)[ dx dy ds.

Now, making tend to zero, we derive
___
0-s-t
y
O
(x y)
y
[u(s. x) u
(s. y)[ dx dy ds

__
O
(x y)[u
0
(x) u
0
(y)[ dx dy
__
O
(x y)[u(t. x) u
(t. y)[ dx dy. (6.33)

We nd an upper bound for the initial integral as follows:
__
O
(x y)[u
0
(x) u
0
(y)[ dx dy =
__
O
(z)[u
0
(x z) u
0
(x)[ dx dz
_
O
(z)|z| TV(u
0
) dz = C TV(u
0
).
Similarly, we have
__
O
(x y)[u(t. x) u
(t. y)[ dx dy
__
O
(x y)([u(t. y) u
(t. y)[ [u(t. x) u(t. y)[) dx dy

= |u(t ) u
(t )|
1
_
O
(x y)[u(t. x) u(t. y)[ dx dy

|u(t ) u
(t )|
1
C TV(u(t ))
|u(t ) u
(t )|
1
C TV(u
0
).
since t .TV(u(t )) is decreasing. Thus
|u(t ) u
(t )|
1
2C TV(u
0
)
___
0-s-t
y
O
(x y)
y
[u
(s. y)
u(s. x)[ dx dy ds.
Let us accept temporarily the following result.
Lemma 6.4.3 Let p: R
2d
R be a measurable function and j a positive measure
of nite mass on R
d
. We suppose on the one hand that y . p(x. y) is bounded and
smooth, and on the other hand that x . p(x. y) is of bounded variation and that
[
x
p(x. y)[ dj(x) in the sense of the measures.
Then
__
R
2d
y
O
(x y)
y
p(x. y) dx dy
_
R
d
dj(x).
Let us apply the lemma with p(x. y) :=[u(s. x) u
(s. y)[ and dj

x
:=[
x
u(x. s)[
to obtain
|u(t ) u
(t )|
1
2C TV(u
0
)
C
_
t
0
TV(u(s)) ds
2C TV(u
0
)
Ct
TV(u
0
). (6.34)
since TV(u(s)) TV(u
0
). Choosing =
(t ), we obtain the result sought:

|u
(t ) u(t )|
1
C
t TV(u
0
).
Proof of the lemma
If p is smooth with respect to both of its variables, we can carry out two integrations
by parts where we have made use of
2
x
O
=
2
y
O
to arrive at
__
R
2d
y
O
(x y)
y
p(x. y) dx dy =
__
R
2d
x
O
(x y)
x
p(x. y) dx dy.
We have an upper bound on the absolute value of this integral by
__
R
2d
[
x
O
(x y)[ dy dj(x) =
__
R
2d
[
z
O
(z)[ dz dj(x) =
C
_
R
d
dj(x).
In the general case, we approximate p by a sequence ( p
n
)
nN
of smooth functions
which satisfy the hypotheses uniformly with respect to n, then we pass to the limit
in the above inequality when n tends to innity. It remains to give the
We recall the inequality (6.34) and we make use of the asymptotic estimate of
Dafermos [15] (see Exercise 2.19):
TV(u(s)) C(u
0
)s
1,2
.
where C depends on inf
R
f
//
. Then
|u(t ) u
(t )|
1
C TV(u
0
)
C
_
t
0
ds
s
C TV(u
0
)
C
t .
Then we choose
2
=
t .
6.5 Exercises
6.1 For the following systems, show that if the sequences (u
)
>0
and ( f (u
))
>0
are bounded in L
1
() (where is a bounded open set in R
R
d
) and converge
in the sense of distributions to u and f (u) respectively, then
lim
0
_
|u
u| dx dt = 0.
The Burgers equation.
Isentropic gas dynamics. Here, we suppose that in addition the sequences
(
)
>0
and ((
)
1
)
>0
are bounded in L
() and also that the pressure

is of the form p() =
with >1.
Show that this property is false for the system u
t
((|u|)u)
x
=0 even when
/
,= 0 and
//
,= 0, as well as for the system of isothermal gas dynamics
( p() = c, where c is a constant).
6.2 We consider the scalar equation
u
t
= 0.
with its perturbation
u
t
= u
xx
.
We choose the initial condition
a(x) = sgn x =
_
1. x - 0.
1. x > 0.
6.5 Exercises 217
Show that the viscous solution is of the form u
(x. t ) = :(x,
t ) where we
shall make : explicit. Deduce that
_
R
[u
(t ) u(t )[ dx = C
t where C is
a constant. Thus, from the qualitative point of view, Kuznetsovs theorem is
optimal.
6.3 Some readers might nd the preceding exercise unconvincing since the initial
condition is not itself integrable. We recall therefore the equation u
t
= 0 and
its perturbation u
t
= u
xx
. The initial condition is now
a(x) = K
s
(x) =
1
s
K
_
x
s
_
.
where K is the kernel of the heat equation:
dK
s
ds
=
d
2
K
s
dx
2
.
Showthat u
(t ) = K
t s
. We choose s = t ; showthat |u(t )u
(t )|
1
depends
neither on nor on t , but that TV(u
0
) = c(t )
1,2
. Deduce that the best constant
C
V
in the upper bound |u(t ) u
(t )|
1
C
V
(. t ) TV(u
0
) is at least equal to
C
t . Kuznetsovs theorem is therefore optimal.

Similarly, calculate |a|
1
and conclude that the best constant C
1
(. t ) in the
inequality |u(t ) u
(t )|
1
C
1
(. t )|u
0
|
1
satises C
C
1
(. t ) 2 where
C
> 0 is independent of and of t .

6.4 We consider the Burgers equation,
u
t

_
1
2
u
2
_
x
= 0.
with its perturbation
u
t
u
x
= u
xx
.
We choose the same initial conditions as in Exercise 2.
(1) Calculate the entropy solution u.
(2) Show that the viscous solution is of the form u
(t. x) = u
1
(x,. t ,). We
write z = u
1
.
(3) Show that the restriction of z to the quarter-plane (R
)
2
is the solution of
the parabolic problem with Dirichlet condition,
z
t
zz
x
= z
xx
.
z(0. x) = 1.
z(t. 0) = 0.
_
_
(4) let x . Y be the solution of the differential equation Y
/
=
1
2
(Y
2
1)
satisfying Y(0) = 0. Also, let b(t ) [0. 1) be the solution of the equation
log[1 b[ b = t . Show that Y and b are dened on R
, that Y - 0,
Y
/
- 0, b
/
> 0. b(0) = 0. b() = 1, Y() = 1.
(5) We dene y(t. x) := Y(x,b(t )). Show that y
t
yy
x
y
xx
. y(t. 0) = 0
and y(0. x) = 1. Deduce from the maximum principle that
1 z(t. x) y(t. x).
(6) Show that
_
R
[u
(t ) u(t )[ dx 2
_
R
1 Y
_

b
_
t
_
_
d.
then that
_
R
[u
(t ) u(t )[ dx cb
_
t
_
where C is a constant.
(7) Compare this result with Kuznetsovs theorem, respectively for t = o()
and for t
1
= O(
1
) (it seems natural that the uniform (in time) estimate
_
R
[u
(t ) u(t )[ dx = O() is true for a genuinely non-linear conservation

law (that is with f
//
> 0) when lim
x
u
0
(x) - lim
x
u
0
(x)).
6.5 We consider the smooth solutions (u. :) of the isentropic NavierStokes equa-
tion in which the kinematic viscosity > 0 is chosen to be constant. The spatial
dimension is d = 1 and the equations are written in lagrangian coordinates:
:
t
= u
x
.
u
t
p(:)
x
= (u
x
,:)
x
.
_
t > 0. x (0. M).
The total mass M is nite. For simplicity, we assume that the uid spreads out
freely in R. The boundary conditions are thus
u
x
:
= p(:). x = 0. M.
The pressure is a given smooth function which satises p(0) = , p() =
0, p >0. We write e(:) :=
_
:
1
p(n) dn and we suppose that e(0) = ,
e() > .
(1) Establish the energy estimate
_
M
0
_
1
2
u
2
e(:)
_
dx
_
t
0
_
M
0
u
2
x
:
dx ds =
_
M
0
_
1
2
u
2
0
e(:
0
)
_
dx.
6.5 Exercises 219
(2) Let h(t. x) :=
_
x
0
u(t. ) d log :. Show that h
t
= p(:).
(3) Deduce that h(t. x) h(0. x), then calculate an explicit lower bound K of
:(t. x),:
0
(x).
(4) Deduce also that h(t. x) h(0. x) t q(K:
0
(x)) where q is a suitable
chosen function. Then calculate an explicit upper bound of :(x. t ).
(5) Are the above estimates uniformwith respect to ? Can we deduce a bound
for the sequence (u
. :
)
>0
?
6.6 We consider again the smooth solutions of the NavierStokes equations, but for
an isothermal uid: p(:) = :
1
. We write = u x. Verify that satises
a diffusion equation
t
= (
x
)
x
where will be identied. Deduce from the
maximum principle an explicit bound of u. Is this bound uniform with respect
to ?
7
Viscosity proles for shock waves
This chapter treats of an admissibility condition for discontinuous solutions of a
given hyperbolic system. This approach is restricted to a single space dimension
(d = 1).
We regard the hyperbolic system
u
t
f (u)
x
= 0 (7.1)
as the limit of the perturbed system
u
t
f (u)
x
= (B(u)u
x
)
x
(7.2)
when tends to zero. By the limit, we understand that weak solutions of (7.1) are
admissible if and only if they are pointwise limits almost everywhere of sequences
of solutions (u
)
>0
of (7.2) which are locally uniformly bounded. The aim of this
chapter is the study of the progressive waves for a system of the form (7.2) from
the point of view of existence and asymptotic stability. These waves are used as
criteria of admissibility for shock waves of the system (7.1).
7.1 Typical example of a limit of viscosity solutions
A simple case of a family of solutions (u
)
>0
of (7.2) is that of a progressive wave
of speed s independent of whose prole is the same for each value of , within a
change of scale:
u
(t. x) = U
_
x st
_
. (7.3)
The condition that (7.3) denes a solution of (7.2) is that U: R U R
n
is a solution of the differential-algebraic system (differential system if B(U) is
220
invertible) (B(U)U
/
)
/
= ( f (U))
/
sU
/
, or equivalently
B(U)U
/
= f (U) sU const. (7.4)
In another way, to say that u
(x. t ) converges almost everywhere and is locally

bounded when tends to zero means that U is bounded and has limits, which we
denote by u
L
and u
R
, at . The limit of u
is then a step function with two values:

u(t. x) =
_
u
L
. x - st.
u
R
. x > st.
_
(7.5)
where u
L
and u
R
satisfy the RankineHugoniot condition
[ f (u)] = s[u]. (7.6)
Finally the equation satised by U is
B(U)U
/
= f (U) f (u
L
) s(U u
L
) (= f (U) f (u
R
) s(U u
R
)). (7.7)
Denition 7.1.1 We say that a discontinuous solution of (7.1) of the form (7.5)
admits a viscosity prole U if U is a bounded solution of the system (7.7) (called
the prole equation) which tends to u
L
at and to u
R
at .
We note that this denition depends a priori on the viscosity tensor that we have
adopted.
Proles vs. Laxs entropy condition
As we have said above, a discontinuous solution, represented by (u
L
. u
R
. s) and
which admits a viscosity prole, will often be considered as admissible (in fact we
shall shortly impose a supplementary condition of stability which is frequently sat-
ised). The existence of a viscosity prole is thus seen here as a sufcient condition
of admissibility. On the other hand, if E is a strongly convex entropy (of ux F),
for which the diffusion B is dissipative, Laxs entropy condition [F(u)] s[E(u)]
is a necessary condition since it expresses the inequality E(u)
t
F(u)
x
0, itself
the consequence of the inequality
E(u
)
t
F(u
)
x

_
dE(u
) B(u
)u
x
_
x
.
Moreover we verify directly that the existence of a prole implies the entropy
condition since if u
R
,= u
L
and if (D
2
u
E [ B(u)) c(u)|B(u)|
2
, then
(F(U) s E(U))
/
= dE(U) ( f (U) sU)
/
= dE(U) (B(U)U
/
)
/
222 Viscosity proles for shock waves
and therefore
(F(U) s E(U) dE(U) B(U)U
/
)
/
= (D
2
E U
/
[ BU
/
) c(U)|BU
/
|
2
. (7.8)
In practice, the last termcannot be identically zero without U being stationary. Thus
. F(U) s E(U) dE(U) B(U)U
/
is strictly decreasing and its evaluation at
gives [F(U)] - s[E(U)]. The existence of a viscosityprole is thus a sufcient
condition of admissibility which is not necessary since a contact discontinuity
cannot have such a prole (the contact discontinuities satisfy [F(U)] = s[E(U)]
for every entropy). We shall see in 7.2 a subtler version of this remark, but right
now we can conclude that the truth concerning the admissibility of discontinuous
solutions of (7.1) lies somewhere between the existence of a viscosity prole and
Laxs entropy condition.
Prole vs. Laxs shock condition
Pushing ahead of the analysis we can ask if a discontinuous wave (u
L
. u
R
. s) admit-
ting a prole for a viscosity tensor, but whose prole does not persist under a small
perturbation of the data (for example B .

B, f .

f , or (u
L
. u
R
; s) .( u
L
. u
R
; s)
with the constraint [

f ( u)] = s[ u]), is admissible. Actually, the system itself, or
again the states and the speed of a wave, are never perfectly known and the impre-
cision of these data contributes to the instability of the prole, and always hinders
observing this in practice. In addition, we therefore shall impose on the viscosity
proles the condition that they persist when the prole equation is perturbed. This
is the structural stability of the prole.
In general, the system (7.7) is a differential-algebraic system since B(U) is not
necessarily invertible. It is correct in general to assume that p, the rank of B(u),
is constant. Then, we isolate n p algebraic equations, applying a projection
parallel to the image of B. In general, these dene a sub-manifold V(u
L
; s) in U of
dimension p, on which the prole equation consists of the dynamical system
:
/
= g(u
L
. s; :) (7.9)
provided that ker B(u) is supplementary to both Im B(u) and the tangent space
at u to V(u
L
; s). The fact that R
n
= ker B(u) Im B(u) follows for example
from the existence of strongly convex entropy E for which B is dissipative, in
the sense in which there exists a number c(u) >0 such that (D
2
u
E. B(u))
c(u)|B(u)|
2
. Indeed, if z ker B(u)
2
and y = Bz, then for all R, we have
(D
2
u
E(y z). y)
2
|y|
2
, which, in the limit 0, gives (D
2
u
Ey. y) =0,
hence y = 0: z ker B(u). Finally, ker B(u)
2
= ker B(u), which is the expected
property. Of course, u
L
and u
R
are in V(u
L
; s) and are stationary points of the
reduced system(7.9). Hence, the prole U is a trajectory of this system, which links
the critical points u
L
and u
R
. This is contained in the stable manifold of u
R
, denoted
by W
s
(u
R
), and in W
i
(u
L
), the unstable manifold of u
L
. It is structurally stable if
and only if W
s
(u
R
) and W
i
(u
L
) are transverse to each other, that is to say when at
a point U() of the trajectory their tangent spaces satisfy (in an obvious notation)
T
s
R
(U()) T
i
L
(U()) = T
U()
V(u
L
; s). (7.10)
This condition does not depend on the choice of the point U() on the trajectory,
but only on the trajectory itself. Since these two tangent spaces contain in common
the tangent to the trajectory, the condition of tranversality implies in particular an
inequality between dimensions,
dimW
s
(u
R
) dimW
i
(u
L
) p 1. (7.11)
Let us look, in more detail, at the case of an invertible diffusion ( p =n). We have
V(u
L
; s) = U. Let us suppose that, in addition, the system(7.1) possesses a strongly
convex entropy E for which B is dissipative. This system is therefore hyperbolic
and we denote by
1
(u). . . . .
n
(u) the eigenvalues of d f (u), arranged in increasing
order. Furthermore, we suppose them to be of constant multiplicities.
Let us re-write the prole equation in the form
u
/
= g(U) =: B(U)
1
( f (U) f (u
R
) s(U u
R
)).
First of all, we prove a lemma.
Lemma 7.1.2 We suppose that the speed s satises
k
(u
R
) -s -
k1
(u
R
) for a
certain index 1 k n. Then the endomorphism dg(u
R
) does not have an eigen-
value with real part zero. The sum of the multiplicities of eigenvalues with negative
real part is k.
Proof Let us write C = d f (u
R
)s I
n
which is invertible, and S = D
2
E(u
R
) which
is symmetric and positive denite. Since B is dissipative, we have
(S [ B(u
R
)) > 0. R
n
. ,= 0.
In particular,
+(S [ B(u
R
)) > 0. C
n
. ,= 0.
Let be an eigenvector of dg(u
R
) = B
1
C, associated with an eigenvalue . This
is not null and we have
(S [ B) = (S [ C).
The right-hand side of this formula is real because, E being an entropy of the system
(7.1), the matrix SC is symmetric. If + = 0 we therefore have 0 = +(S [ B)
which is false. Therefore + ,= 0.
This conclusion remains true when we replace B by I
n
B with R
since
this is again a dissipative tensor for E. By continuity, the number of eigenvalues n()
of (I
n
B)
1
C in the half-plane +z -0, counted with their orders of multiplicity,
does not depend on . Hence, it is equal to n(0) = k. Dividing by and letting
tend to innity we obtain the stated result.
When s is an eigenvalue of d f (u
R
), we obtain a similar result by applying the
lemma with s
1
,= s and letting s
1
tend to s: if
j
(u
R
) -s =
j 1
(u
R
) = =
k
(u
R
) -
k1
(u
R
) the number of eigenvalues of dg(u
R
) in the half-plane +(z) - 0
(respectively in the half-plane +(z) > 0) is equal to j (respectively n k). The
dimension of W
s
(u
R
) is therefore between j and k. Similarly, that of W
i
(u
L
) is
bounded above by n m where
m
(u
L
) - s
m1
(u
L
). Then, the inequality
(7.11) shows that k m 1. We deduce Laxs shock condition.
Theorem 7.1.3 We consider a hyperbolic system whose characteristic speeds are
of constant multiplicities, provided with a strongly convex entropy E. We consider
a diffusion tensor B, strictly dissipative for E. Let (u
L
. u
R
; s) be a discontinuity of
(7.1) for which there exists a structurally stable viscosity prole. Then there exists
an index 1 k n such that we have
k
(u
R
) s
k
(u
L
). (7.12)
Naturally, Laxs condition (7.12) is necessary but not sufcient for a viscosity
prole to be stable. However, the strict inequalities
k
(u
R
) -s -
k
(u
L
) constitute
a sufcient condition when u
R
is close enough to u
L
. In fact, in this case,
k
cannot
be linearly degenerate (as u
R
is on the kth Hugoniot curve which originates at u
L
,
(see Theorem4.2.1), and we have
k
(u
R
) ,=
k
(u
L
)) so it must be simple. Therefore,
we have
k1
(u
L
) -s -
k1
(u
R
). Thus, dimW
s
(u
R
) =k and dimW
i
(u
L
) = n
k1. W
s
(u
R
) being tangent to the invariant sub-space Y
R
of dg(u
R
) associated with
eigenvalues of strictly negative real part and W
i
(u
L
) being tangent to the invariant
sub-space Y
L
of dg(u
L
) associated with eigenvalues of strictly positive real part.
As u
R
is near to u
L
, s is also near to
k
(u
L
). Let us denote by X
. X
and X
0
the
invariant sub-spaces of B(u
L
)
1
(d f (u
L
)
k
(u
L
)I
n
) associated with eigenvalues
whose real parts are positive, negative and zero respectively. Then X
0
is a straight
line and we have R
n
= X
X
0
X
. In addition, Y
R
is near to X
X
0
and
Y
L
is near to X
X
0
. Since X
X
0
and X
X
0
are transverse to each other,
the same is true of Y
R
and Y
L
. At every point of the trajectory, the tangent spaces
T
s
R
(U()) and T
i
L
(U()) are close to Y
R
and Y
L
, therefore they too are transverse
and the prole is structurally stable.
It now remains to show that such viscosity proles exist. This we shall do in 7.2
under the non-linearity condition (d
k
r
k
)(u
L
) ,= 0.
7.2 Existence of the viscosity prole for a weak shock
Being given two distinct states u
L
and u
R
in U and a number s satisfying the
RankineHugoniot condition (we thus have s = (u
L
. u
R
)), we want to know if
there exists a trajectory of the system (7.7) going from u
L
to u
R
. We have seen that
if the tensor B is strictly dissipative for a strongly convex entropy E, of ux F, then
the existence of a viscosity prole from u
L
to u
R
implies the entropy inequality
F(u
R
) F(u
L
) - s(E(u
R
) E(u
L
)) and hence excludes the possibility of a prole
going from u
R
to u
L
. In what follows, we shall suppose that B is invertible,
that there exists a strongly convex entropy E and that B is strictly dissipative:
(D
2
E. B(u)) c(u)||
2
with c >0. Finally, we abandon the use of capital
letters in the notation of a prole.
We begin with the study of the scalar case, which is the simplest and the most
complete.
The scalar case
If n = 1. B is a numerical function, denoted by u . b(u), which satises b > 0.
The prole equation is here
u
/
= g(u) =:
f (u) f (u
L
) s(u u
L
)
b(u)
.
We have g(u
L
) = g(u
R
) = 0. The trajectories of the equation are strictly monotonic
and there exists one which links u
L
to u
R
if and only if (u
R
u
L
)g(u) is strictly
positive for all u lying between u
L
and u
R
. By this means we recover Oleniks
condition, where the inequalities in the broad sense have been replaced by the strict
inequalities:
u
L
- u
R
: there is a viscosity prole if and only if the graph of the restriction of
f to (u
L
. u
R
) is strictly above its chord.
u
L
> u
R
: there is a viscosity prole if and only if the graph of the restriction of
f to (u
R
. u
L
) is strictly below its chord.
We note that the existence of a viscosity prole does not depend on the choice of the
viscosity b. On the other hand, if f is not afne on any non-trivial interval, every
shock (u
L
. u
R
; s) satisfying Oleniks condition can be seen as the juxtaposition of
shocks for which there exist viscosity proles.
The case of weak shocks with B = b(u)I
n
Let us return to the general case of a system of the form (7.1), which we assume
to be strictly hyperbolic and to be provided with an eigenvalue
k
genuinely non-
linear at u
L
. The Hugoniot locus H(u
L
) is locally the union of sub-manifolds which
are tangent at u
L
to the eigenspaces of d f (u
L
). Since
k
is genuinely non-linear at
u
L
, it is a simple eigenvalue. We denote by I
k
the Hugoniot curve tangent to the
eigenvector r
k
(u
L
) at u
L
, which is normalised by d
k
r
k
1. We shall denote by
l
k
the differential eigenform normalised by l
k
r
k
1.
Let us recall that u
L
locally separates I
k
(u
L
) into two connected components on
which we have
if u I
k
,
k
(u
L
) - (u
L
. u) -
k
(u),
if u I
k
,
k
(u) - (u
L
. u) -
k
(u
L
).
For a scalar diffusion, we have the following result, which is due to Foy [23].
The proof which follows is that of Goodman [36].
Theorem 7.2.1 We suppose that
k
is genuinely non-linear at u
L
and that B(u) =
b(u)I
n
with b(u) >0. For every neighbourhood V of u
L
, there exists a neighbour-
hood W of u
L
such that if u
R
W I
k
(u
L
), the discontinuity (u
L
. u
R
. (u
L
. u
R
))
admits a viscosity prole with values in V if and only if this is a shock (that is to
say if and only if u
R
I
k
(u
L
)).
Proof Even if it entails a change of the parametrisation of the prole equation, we
can suppose that b 1. The existence of a prole for this discontinuity is equivalent
to the existence of a heteroclinic orbit joining (u
L
. ) to (u
R
. ) for the augmented
system
d
d
_
:
s
_
=
_
g(:. s)
0
_
=: G(:. s).
g(:. s) = f (:) f (u
L
) s(: u
L
). (7.13)
At the stationary point P = (u
L
.
k
(u
L
)), 0 is an eigenvalue of multiplicity 2 for
dG(P) =
_
d f (u
L
)
k
(u
L
)I
n
0
0 0
_
and ker dG(P) is of dimension 2, spanned by (r
k
(u
L
). 0) and (0. 1). In addition,
there is no other eigenvalue with real part zero, since they are all real. The theorem
of the centre manifold [108] ensures the existence of a sub-manifold M locally
invariant for (7.13), of dimension 2 and which contains all the orbits which remain
in a sufciently small neighbourhood V
1
V of u
L
. This manifold is tangent at
u
L
to the kernel of dG(P). Since (:. s) .(s. x =: l
k
(u
L
) (: u
L
)) is a system of
afne coordinates on dG(P), we can choose the same coordinates on M in V
1
. For
these the ow of (7.13), restricted to M, is vertical (s = const.). See Fig. 7.1.
Let us pass in review certain trajectories that M is bound to contain. First of
all, we must have the zeros of G in V
1
. There are two kinds, which form two
smooth curves according to Theorem 4.2.1; rstly those of the form (u
L
. s). s R,
then those of the form (u. (u
L
. u)) for u I
k
(u
L
). For the latter, we have the
formula (u
L
. u)
k
(u
L
)
1
2
l
k
(u
L
) (u u
L
), that is, s
k
(u
L
)
1
2
x. This
curve is therefore transverse on the one hand to the preceding curve ({u
L
] R)
and on the other hand to the ow. It follows that, in a neighbourhood of P,
each vertical line s = ,=
k
(u
L
) contains exactly two critical points of the
ow of (7.13), let us say (u
L
. ) and (u
R
. ) with = (u
L
. u
R
). The segment
whose extremities are these two points, invariant by the ow, is therefore a het-
eroclinic trajectory from one to the other, whose direction of motion remains to
be determined. We note that between these two points, the only heteroclinic tra-
jectories which remain in V
1
are obtained from the preceding by a shift of the
parameter.
To know the direction of the motion of this trajectory, it is enough to know if
the critical point (s =. x =0) is attractive or repulsive for the ow restricted to
the vertical s = (u
L
. u
R
) of M. The trajectory goes from (u
L
. ) to (u
R
. ) (and
hence corresponds to the prole sought) if and only if (s. 0) is repulsive. The ow
on this line can be described by the differential equation dx,d = h(. x) where
h(s. x) =: l
k
(u
L
) ( f (u) f (u
L
) s(u u
L
)). We have u u
L
= xr
k
(u
L
) O(x
2
)
since M contains the straight line {u
L
] R and is tangent to (r
k
(u
L
). 0). Thus
h(s. x) = (
k
(u
L
) s)x O(x
2
) and (dh,dx)(s. 0) =
k
(u
L
) s. Hence the point
(s. 0) is repulsive if and only if
k
(u
L
) (u
L
. u
R
) > 0, that is to say if and only
if u
R
I
k
.
Extensions of Theorem 7.2.1 (B ,=bI
n
)
Since u
R
is near to u
L
, the viscosity prole which we have constructed in the
case where B =b(u)I
n
is structurally stable (see 7.1). We deduce that if the vis-
cosity tensor at u
L
is nearly a strictly positive scalar matrix, then a weak shock
(u
L
. u
R
; (u
L
. u
R
)) again admits a viscosity prole, still structurally stable.
When B is not near to a scalar matrix, we use the dissipative hypothesis of B(u)
relatively to the strongly convex entropy E. Recall the proof of Theorem 7.2.1 with
Fig. 7.1: The ow of G on the centre manifold at (u
L
.
k
(u
L
)).
now
G
B
(:. s) =:
_
B(:)
1
g(:. s)
0
_
.
The critical points of G
B
are the same as those of G. We have
dG
B
(P) =
_
B
1
C 0
0 0
_
.
with C =d f (u
L
)
k
(u
L
)I
n
. The matrix B
1
C has only one eigenvalue whose
real part is zero, = 0, which is simple (see Lemma 7.1.2 and the subsequent
comments). Hence there is again a centre manifold M
B
of dimension 2, which has
the same tangent space as M at u
L
. Therefore, the ow is again transverse to the
two curves from critical points and there is always a trajectory which links (u
L
. )
and (u
R
. ), when u
R
is close to u
L
and = (u
L
. u
R
). As
[F(u()) E(u())]
=
=
- 0.
the trajectory goes from (u
L
. ) to (u
R
. ) if and only if (u
L
. u
R
. ) satises Laxs
entropy condition. Finally:
Theorem7.2.2 We suppose that the system(7.1) is provided with a strongly convex
entropy E for which the diffusion B is strictly dissipative. Let u .
k
(u) be a simple
eigenvalue of d f , genuinely non-linear at u
L
: d
k
(u
L
) r
k
(u
L
) ,= 0. Then for every
neighbourhood V of u
L
, there exists a neighbourhood W of u
L
such that if u
R

I
k
(u
L
) W , the discontinuity (u
L
. u
R
. (u
L
. u
R
)) admits a viscosity prole with
7.3 Proles for gas dynamics 229
values in V if and only if it satises Laxs entropy condition: F(u
R
) E(u
R
) -
F(u
L
) E(u
L
). In addition, this prole is unique to within a translation of the
parametrisation.
7.3 Proles for gas dynamics
The reader may verify by himself (Exercise 7.6) that the existence of a viscosity
prole does not depend on the choice of variables (eulerian or lagrangian), provided
that the diffusion is not carried by the equation of the conservation of mass. Hence,
we treat only the case of the equations in lagrangian coordinates.
Isentropic uid with viscosity
For an isentropic uid, the natural perturbation is the newtonian viscosity:
:
t
= z
x
.
z
t
p(:)
x
= (b(:)z
x
)
x
.
_
For a discontinuity(u
L
. u
R
. s) of the systemwithout viscosity, hence, whichsatises
the RankineHugoniot condition
[z] s[:] = 0. [ p(:)] = s[z].
the prole equation is
b(:)z
/
= p(:) p(:
L
) s(z z
L
).
z z
L
= s(: :
L
).
_
The existence of the viscosity prole is equivalent to that of a hetero-clinic orbit
linking :
L
to :
R
for the reduced equation (in which s ,= 0)
sb(:):
/
= p(:) p(:
L
) s
2
(: :
L
). (7.14)
The study of this equation is entirely analogous to that of the scalar case. We denote
by I the open interval whose extremities are :
L
and :
R
.
Theorem 7.3.1 We suppose that b >0 and p are smooth functions of :. Let
(u
L
. u
R
; (u
L
. u
R
)) be a discontinuity of isentropic gas dynamics.
Case (u
L
. u
R
)(u
L
u
R
) > 0 : There exists a viscosity prole if and only if the
graph of : . p(:) restricted to I is situated strictly above its chord.
Case (u
L
. u
R
)(u
L
u
R
) - 0 : There exists a viscosity prole if and only if the
graph of : . p(:) restricted to I is situated strictly below its chord.
Remark In the above statement we have not made the hypothesis p
/
- 0 (hyperbol-
icity in the inviscid model). The system without viscosity can be elliptic or simply
be able to change type according to the value of :. If p
/
takes positive values, the
inviscid Cauchy problem is ill-posed, in the sense of Hadamard, with the result that
the system is not a reasonable model for gas dynamics. The states : > 0 for which
p
/
(:) >0 must be excluded by a mathematical criterion which describes faithfully
the physics of the problem. As the preceding calculation allows the construction of
viscosity proles between two states u
L
and u
R
for which p
/
(u
L
) and p
/
(u
R
) are of
opposite signs, it seems that viscosity alone is unable to provide such a criterion. We
shall see in Exercise 7.3 a more complete approach which gives plausible results,
thanks to the introduction of a capillary force. When p has a local minimum at
and a local maximum at >, the model represents a uid able to occupy a liquid
phase and a gaseous phase; the typical equation of state is that of Van der Waals.
7.4 Asymptotic stability
Generalities on the stability of proles
Viscosity proles are of importance only inasmuch as we can observe them in ex-
periments or in numerical simulation. This is due to their stability in many different
contexts, stability which is general for scalar problems and frequent for systems.
For example, we have shown the structural stability of weak shocks associated with
genuinely non-linear characteristic elds, it was a matter of stability relatively to
a perturbation of the prole equation. In this section and the following one we
shall consider another type of stability, where the viscosity is denitively xed
(hence we can take =1) but where the viscosity prole is perturbed at the ini-
tial instant and where we make the time t tend to innity. Then we seek if this
prole is asymptotically stable when t tends to innity. This general problem has
principally been the object of two important studies, that of Sattinger [88] in the
scalar case and that of Liu [70] for systems.
1
Sattinger treats the scalar case by
a spectral analysis of the linearised problem and shows the exponential decay of
the error (that is of the difference between the solution u(t ) and the prole). In the
case of a uniformly convex ux f , this result had been obtained previously by Il
in and Olenik [47]. In general the decay is shown in spaces with weights (these
weights enable us, in the general procedure of Sattinger, to shift the spectrum of
the linearised operator to a convenient half-plane). The weights chosen are of the
1
See also the valuable recent work by R. Gardner and K. Zumbrun (Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 51 (1998), 797855).
form e
[x[
. With the spaces L
2
((1 x
2
)
dx), Kawashima and Matsumura have

also shown the algebraic decay of the error. However, Osher and Ralston [82] have
shown the convergence in L
1
(dx) by making use of the contraction properties of
the semi-group S(t ). In that which concerns the systems, Liu [70] uses the energy
estimates and a precise analysis of the waves associated with each characteristic
family and with the diffusion. Pego [83] has shown that a spectral analysis of the
linearised operator is again possible for certain shocks. But, in all the cases, the
stability of the viscosity proles has been shown only for shocks satisfying strictly
Laxs shock condition
k
(u
R
) - -
k
(u
L
).
At the present time, it seems that there is no known stability theoremfor viscosity
proles includingthe case s =
k
(u
L
) or s =
k
(u
R
). However, for a scalar equation,
Ming Mei [76] obtains a decay rate for small initial perturbation, supposing that
f
///
does not vanish between u
L
and u
R
. We give below a result concerning the
scalar case without a hypothesis concerning either the ux f or the perturbation.
Obviously, this does not contain an estimate of the speed of convergence towards
a prole since this convergence might be very slow.
In the next section, we shall give, without proof, a description of the results due
to Liu for systems.
The stability problem is posed in the following way. We consider a hyperbolic
system in space of one dimension,
u
t
f (u)
x
= 0.
augmented by a diffusion term of the second order:
u
t
f (u)
x
= (B(u)u
x
)
x
.
We suppose that a discontinuity (u
L
. u
R
. ) of the hyperbolic part admits a viscosity
prole, denotedby .U(). We thenconsider a perturbation L
1
(R) L
(R)
of the prole, that is to say that we solve the Cauchy problem with diffusion for the
initial condition
u
0
(x) = U(x) (x).
We ask if the solution (supposed to exist globally in time and to be unique) converges
in a suitable space, let us say L
p
(R), to the prole when t . Since the prole
is not unique (every shift gives rise to another one) and since L
p
is Hansdorff, the
answer is obviously no (it is enough to choose =: U( x
0
) U and to note that
we still have L
1
L
) and the stability sought is rather an orbital stability.

Therefore, we ask if there exists a phase shift x
0
such that the solution of the Cauchy
problem satises
lim
t
|u(t ) U( t x
0
)| = 0
for a suitable norm. We shall see, and it is essential in this study, that the phase
shift can be calculated explicitly as a function of
_
R
(x) dx, as a result of the
conservation laws when (u
L
. u
R
. ) is a Lax shock. In particular, it is for this
reason that the perturbation must be integrable.
The scalar case
The scalar case is the simplest one and we lay out for it the most complete results.
First of all, let us note that the theory of monotonic operators lets us construct a
semi-group (S(t ))
t 0
which solves the Cauchy problem for the equation
u
t
f (u)
x
= u
xx
(7.15)
when the initial datumu
0
is in L
(R). As the equation (7.15) satises the maximum

principle, this semi-group enjoys the following properties.
(SG1) (smoothness) For all L
(R), S(t ) a is innitely differentiable on R for

all t > 0.
(SG2) (maximum principle) If a b almost everywhere, then S(t ) a S(t ) b, for
all t > 0.
(SG3) (conservation of mass) If a b L
1
(R), then S(t ) a S(t ) b L
1
(R), and
we have for all t > 0
_
R
(S(t ) a S(t ) b) dx =
_
R
(a b) dx.
(SG4) (contraction) Under the same hypothesis as (SG3), the mapping t .
|S(t )a S(t )b| is decreasing.
It is not necessary for the understanding of this section to prove the above assertions.
They are classical.
We consider nowa viscosity prole U for the equation (7.15), joining two values
u
L
and u
R
. Denoting by c the speed of the shock wave between u
L
and u
R
, we are
provided with a one-parameter family of progressive waves
(x. t ) .u
h
(x. t ) =: U(x h ct ).
We consider the stability of u
0
. Let L
1
(R) L
(R) be a perturbation of the

initial condition which thus becomes u
0
(x) = U(x) (x). Throughout this section
we write u(t ) = S(t )u
0
. We ask if there exists a number h such that |u(t ) u
h
(t )|
1
tends to zero when t tends to innity. If such is the case, then the property (SG3)
shows that
_
R
(u
0
u
h
(0)) dx = 0, that is to say
_
R
(U(x) (x) U(x h)) dx = 0.
However, Lebesgues theorem shows that h
_
R
(U(x h) U(x)) dx is differ-
entiable with derivative
_
R
U
/
(x h) dx = u
R
u
L
. We therefore have
_
R
(U(x
h) U(x)) dx = h(u
R
u
L
) and the phase shift, if it exists, is determined by
h =
1
u
R
u
L
_
R
(x) dx. (7.16)
It remains to showthat for this value of h. u and u
h
are asymptotically equivalent for
the distance dened by | |
1
which we shall nowstate for a reasonable perturbation.
Theorem7.4.1 Let U be a viscosity prole which joins u
L
to u
R
. Let a perturbation
be a measurable function on R, such that U is contained between two
translates of U (there exist a. Rsuch that U(x ) U(x)(x) U(x )
almost everywhere). Then the solution u(t ) = S(t )(U ) of the Cauchy problem
for (7.15) satises
lim
t
|u(t ) U( h ct )|
1
= 0.
h being dened by the formula (7.16).
We notice that from the hypothesis of this theorem is integrable and bounded on
R. It is probable that this result remains true if L
1
L
, but no such result

exists at the moment.
2
In any case, we can report on the work of H. Weinberger
[111] in the case where the Riemann problem between u
L
and u
R
also involves
rarefaction waves.
Proof First of all, even if it means making the change of variables (t. x) .(t. x
ct ), we can suppose that the shock is stationary: c =0. Hence, the functions (t. x) .
U(x ) and (t. x) .U(x ) are stationary solutions of (7.15). Using the
maximum principle and the hypothesis concerning the perturbation (which ensures
that is bounded), we have U(x ) u(t. x) U(x ). Let us write :(t ) =
u(t ) U. Then :(t ) is included between two integrable functions which do not
depend on the time so remains within a bounded set of L
1
(R). In addition, the
contraction property yields the inequality |:(t. r) :(t )|
1
= |u(t. r)
2
H. Freist uhler and the author have succeeded in proving stability in L
1
for every initial perturbation L
1
(R).
This result has appeared in Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 51 (1998), 291301.
u(t )|
1
|u(0. r) u(0)|
1
= |( r) |
1
which tends to zero with r.
By the compactness theorem of Fr echet and Kolmogorov, the family (:(t ))
t 0
is
therefore relatively compact in L
1
(R). The -limit set A =: U
_
s0
B
s
where B
s
is the closure in L
1
(R) of {:(t ) : t >s] is non-empty since A U is the decreasing
intersection of non-empty compact sets. This set is that of all cluster points for the
distance d(z. n) = |z n|
1
of sub-sequences (u(t
n
))
nN
where t
n
..
The -limit set is invariant under the semi-group S since if a A, with a =
lim
n
u(t
n
), then S(t ) a = lim
n
u(t t
n
). For the same reason, S(t ): A
A is onto as we also have a =S(t ) b where b is a cluster point of the sequence
(u(t
n
t ))
nN
. The smoothness property (SG1) therefore implies that A is included
in C
.
Now, let k R. The decreasing function t .|u(t ) U( k)|
1
admits a limit
denoted by c(k) when t . If a A, we deduce that |a U( k)|
1
= c(k).
However, S(t ) a againbelongs to A, sothat it follows that the functiont .|S(t ) a
U( k)|
1
is constant. Let us write provisionally n(t ) = S(t ) a and z(t ) = S(t ) a
U( k). We have
0 =
d
dt
|z(t )|
1
=
_
R
z
t
sgn z dx.
Now z
t
( f (n) f (U( k)))
x
= z
xx
/ were we have used the prole equation
for U: U
xx
= f (U)
x
. Multiplying this by sgn z, we deduce that
[z[
t
(( f (n) f (U( k))) sgn z)
x
= z
xx
sgn z.
which after an integration over R gives
d
dt
_
R
[z[ dx =
_
R
z
xx
sgn z dx.
Finally,
0 =
_
R
z
xx
sgn z dx. (7.17)
However, the a priori estimates made at the time of the construction of the semi-
group S show that n
xx
is integrable over R and hence so also is z
xx
. Therefore,
using the theorem of dominated convergence, we have
0 = lim
0
_
R
z
xx
j
/
(z) dx
where j
() =
_
(
2
2
). Integrating by parts, we have
0 = lim
0
_
R
z
2
x
j
//
(z) dx.
Let x
0
be a point where z vanishes and let > [z
x
(x
0
)[. For > 0, sufciently
small, we have |z| - on(x
0
. x
0
) since z is differentiable. Now j
//
() =
1
J(,) with J() = (1
2
)
3,2
. Thus
_
R
z
2
x
j
//
(z) dx
1
_
x
0

x
0

J(1)z
2
x
dx.
of whichthe right-handside tends to2 J(1)z
x
(x
0
)
2
when tends tozero. We deduce
that z
x
(x
0
) =0. Finally we have proved (taking t =0 in the preceding calculation)
that
a A. k R. (a(x) = U(x k)) (a
/
(x) = U
/
(x k)). (7.18)
To conclude, we note rst of all that a lies between U( ) and U( ) as limit
of such functions, hence a takes its values strictly between u
L
and u
R
. Thus the
function x .k(x) =: x U
1
a(x) is well-dened and smooth (recall that U is
strictly monotonic). By construction, a(x) = U(x k(x)), which on differentiation
gives a
/
(x) = U
/
(x k(x))(1 k
/
(x)). Using (7.18) we nd that
U
/
(x k(x))k
/
(x) = 0
and hence that k
/
(x) =0 since U
/
does not vanish. Finally, k is a constant and
a = U( k). However, the elements of A satisfy
_
R
(a U ) dx = 0.
which, as we have seen, xes the value of k: we have k = h.
Hence, we have proved that the -limit set is reduced to a single-element
U( h). Since the family (:(t ))
t 0
is relatively compact in L
1
(R) and as it has
only a single limiting value when t , it is convergent, that is
lim
t
|u(t ) U( h)|
1
= 0.
7.5 Stability of the prole for a Lax shock
We consider now a system with a parabolic conservation law
u
t
f (u)
x
= u
xx
. (7.19)
for which the rst order part is strictly hyperbolic. To simplify the notation, we
suppose that all the eigenvalues of d f (u) = A(u) are simple (that is, including those
of the linearly degenerate elds). We denote them by
1
(u) - -
n
(u). The
eigenvectors to the right and left are denoted respectively by r
j
(u) and l
j
(u) with
l
j
r
k
=
k
j
and with the normalisation d
j
r
j
1 for all the genuinely non-linear
elds. It is solely for the simplicity of the exposition, related to concentrating our
attention on a single concept at a time, that we have chosen the matrix B(u) I
n
.
In the last sub-section of this section we shall consider other diffusion tensors.
Transport vs. diffusion
Let p be the index of a genuinely non-linear characteristic eld. We consider a
Lax p-shock (u
L
. u
R
; c) which admits a viscosity prole (for example a weak
shock, according to Theorem 7.2.1), denoted by U. For a perturbed initial con-
dition u(0. ) = U where is given in (L
1
L
(R))
n
we seek again the
asymptotic behaviour, when t , of the solution u(t ) of the Cauchy problem
for (7.19). In particular, one stage of the argument consists of proving that this
solution is dened for all time t > 0. But as the asymptotic description makes use
of the a priori estimates of u(t ) U in L
1
L
and of the fact that the estimate

in L
is sufcient for showing that the solution remains dened, the two stages
(existence, asymptotic behaviour) are done together.
The description cannot be as simple as in the scalar case. In fact, if there exists
a phase shift h R such that lim
t
|u(t ) U( h ct )|
1
= 0, then the
conservation of mass, expressed as
_
R
(u(t. x) U(x h ct )) dx = const.,
entails that
_
R
(U(x h) U(x)) dx =
_
R
(x) dx.
that is, that h(u
R
u
L
) =
_
R
(x) dx. Now the mass m =
_
R
dx is a vector in R
n
which has no reason to be collinear with [u] = u
R
u
L
.
Therefore, it is necessary to introduce waves of another type which carry a
constant and calculable mass. These waves, called diffusion waves, are of small
amplitude, of the order of t
1,2
, with the result that we shall have, despite all,
lim
t
|u(t ) U( h ct )|
= 0, for an appropriate phase shift. They will

be (asymptotically) localised in one of two sectors x ct 1 and x ct _ 1,
in which U(x ct ) is approximately constant. Let us look at the case of the sector
x ct 1, where U and hence u has a value very close to u
R
. The hyperbolic
part of the system (7.19) allows waves of speeds
j
(u
R
) to propagate. If j - p,
these waves merge with the viscosity prole, where u is no longer nearer to u
R
;
these waves cannot therefore be present in an asymptotic description. It is the same
for j = p because of Laxs shock inequality
p
(u
R
) -c. Finally, for j > p, these
waves lengthen the zone occupied by the prole and do not interact with it; hence,
we shall observe them for all times large enough. Of course, the diffusion dampens
down these waves (which explains their amplitude being O(t
1,2
)) at the same
time as they spread out. But this spreading out is a very slow process, of the same
nature as the brownian motion in which the location of a particle has expectation
(
j
(u
R
) c)t which is linear in time, whereas its standard deviation is only of order
t
1,2
. Similarly, these waves will become asymptotically uncoupled from each other
since they get farther apart with non-zero speeds
j
(u
R
)
k
(u
R
). Finally, we shall
observe asymptotically n uncoupled waves, of which none is small in L
1
(R) though
n 1 are in L
(R):
the viscosity prole of the shock (u
L
. u
R
; c), which has a phase shift h to be
determined,
the diffusion waves of speed
k
(u
R
) for k > p, which lengthen the shock zone to
the right,
the diffusion waves of speed
k
(u
L
) for k - p, which lengthen the shock zone to
the left.
The asymptotic behaviour will then be able to be predicted if each one of these
waves depends on a real parameter and if the principle of the conservation of mass
leads to their calculation. We shall see in a later sub-section (Lius theorem) under
what condition, of a geometrical nature, that is possible.
Non-linear diffusion waves
We now construct the diffusion waves. As we anticipate that these will be of small
amplitude and localised in a domain where the solution is nearly constant we
begin by linearising (7.19), for example, around u
R
(we shall see however that the
linearisation is not precise enough):
:
t
A(u
R
):
x
= :
xx
. (7.20)
Using the eigenvectors of the matrix A(u
R
), we decouple this systemof n transport
diffusion equations. We express : in terms of the basis of eigenvectors, :(t. x) =
i
n
i
(t. x)r
i
(u
R
), and we obtain
t
n
i

i
(u
R
)
x
n
i
=
2
x
n
i
. 1 i n. (7.21)
The change of variables (t. x) .(t. x
i
(u
R
)t ) transforms this equation into the
heat equation n
t
= n
xx
, for which we know the asymptotic behaviour in L
1
(R),
governed by the total mass m(n). If m(n) =
_
R
ndy then n(t ) m(n)k(t ) where
k(t ) is the fundamental solution
k(t. y) =
1
t
K
_
y
t
_
. K() =
1
2
exp
_
2
4
_
.
Let us now see why the linearisation is not satisfactory. The error due to the
linearisation of (7.19) is of the order of
x
(D
2
f (u
R
): :) which, in particular,
includes
x
(n
2
i
)X
i
where X
i
is the vector D
2
f (u
R
)r
i
(u
R
) r
i
(u
R
). Now
x
(n
2
i
)
is a function of the form t
3,2
F(t
1,2
(x
i
(u
R
)t )), of the same order as the two
terms (
t

i
x
)n and
2
x
n
i
of (7.21). Hence, we cannot neglect the quadratic
term (on the other hand, the terms of higher order are of negligible amplitude
and mass owing to these). Therefore, we must consider a priori the quadratic
system
:
t
A(u
R
):
x

1
2
D
2
f (u
R
)(: :)
x
= :
xx
. (7.22)
We observe that there do not exist explicit solutions of this equation because of
the coupling due to the quadratic term. Indeed, we have to solve equations of the
form
(
t

i
x
)n
i

1
2
n
j.k=1
c
i j k
x
(n
j
n
k
) =
2
x
n
i
. 1 i n.
where c
i j k
=: l
i
(u
R
) D
2
f (u
R
)r
j
(u
R
) r
k
(u
R
). However, if n
j
behaves, as we
expect, as t
1,2
F
j
(t
1,2
(x
j
t )), with
j
,=
k
, where F
j
decreases rapidly (as
does its rst derivative), then the terms
x
(n
j
n
k
) are exponentially small for j ,= k,
simultaneously in L
and in L
1
when t . There remains for us to examine
the r ole of square terms
x
(n
2
j
).
The r ole of the terms
x
(n
2
j
). j ,=i
To understand the effect of such a termin the i th equation when n
j
is asymptotically
equivalent to t
1,2
F
j
(t
1,2
(x
j
t )) with
j
,=
i
. F
j
being rapidly decreasing,
we are led, by x . x
i
t and the elimination of the terms of the equation which
are not essential to our understanding, to the case of a heat equation with a source
term:
n
t
n
xx
= g(t. x).
Here, g = t
1,2
x
g, g = G(t
1,2
(xt )) with ,= 0, G being rapidly descreasing.
A rather tiresome calculation shows that the right-hand side of this equation is
responsible for a contribution to n of the form t
1
h(t. x) where h is bounded,
rapidly decreasing and |t
1
h|
1
= O(t
1,2
). Finally, the term
x
(n
2
j
) ought not to
be taken into account for the calculation of the dominant terms of the asymptotic
expansion which we seek. We are then led to a list of uncoupled equations of
BurgersHopf type:
(
t

i
(u
R
)
x
)n
i

b
i
2

x
_
n
2
i
_
=
2
x
n
i
. 1 i n. (7.23)
where b
i
=c
i i i
=(d
i
r
i
)(u
R
) takes the value 1 if the i th eld is genuinely non-
linear, and the value 0 if it is linearly degenerate.
Calculation of the diffusion waves
Equation (7.23), although non-linear, again possesses self-similar solutions of the
form
n
i
(t. x) =
1
t
W
_
x
i
t
t
_
.
The proles W are the integrable solutions of the differential equation W
//
=
b
i
WW
/
1
2
( W
/
W) which has a rst integral
2W
/
= b
i
W
2
W. (7.24)
The constant of integration is zero, as otherwise, W with a behaviour at innity of
the order of
1
would not be integrable. The solutions of (7.24) are written
W() =
e
2
,4
C
b
i
2
_
e
s
2
,4
ds
=
e
2
,4
1
b
i
2

_
e
s
2
,4
ds
(7.25)
where C =
1
, the constant of integration, belongs to R[0. b
i
]. We link C
with the mass m of W by the following calculation (if b
i
,= 0):
m =
_
R
e
2
,4
d
C
b
i
2
_
e
s
2
,4
ds
=
_
2
0
de
C
b
i
2
e
=
2
b
i
log
_
C
C b
i
_
.
Finally, the mass being given, we nd the value of the parameter
=
1 e
b
i
m,2
b
i
(b
i
,= 0) or =
m
2
(b
i
= 0). (7.26)
We denote by W
i
(. ) the prole dened in (7.25).
Remarks (1) As for the viscosity proles, we can envisage composing a diffusion
wave for a translation of the space variable (or of the time). However, such an
operation does not change the asymptotic expansion since if n
i
=t
1,2
W
i
(. ),
we have |n
i
( h) n
i
|
1
= O(t
1,2
) and |n
i
( h) n
i
|
= O(t
1,2
).
(2) The asymptotic behaviour for the system (7.19) is extremely different from
that of a hyperbolic system since the diffusion waves are of constant sign and
depend on only a single parameter, their mass. Tai-Ping Liu has shown ([71] and
[68]) that the solution of a hyperbolic system whose initial function has compact
support and is small enough behaves for large times as a superposition of N-waves.
The N-waves, thus called because of their form in the scalar case,
3
take opposite
signs on opposite sides of their mean position and depend on two scalar parameters.
Also, the N-waves represent only the effect of genuinely non-linear elds and the
situation is even worse for linearly degenerate elds. For these, their oscillations
are not damped in the absence of dissipation and their proles are arbitrary instead
of depending on a nite number of parameters.
Lius theorem
Now, we are able to calculate the terms of the asymptotic expansion by supposing
that its main terms are of the form
U( h ct )
j -p
n
L
j
(t )r
j
(u
L
)
j >p
n
R
j
(t )r
j
(u
R
).
with
n
L
j
(t. x) =
1
t
W
j
_
x
j
(u
L
)t
t
;
j
_
. n
R
j
(t. x) =
1
t
W
j
_
x
j
(u
R
)t
t
;
j
_
.
The parameters to be determined are the phase shift h and the numbers
j
linked
to the masses of the terms n
L
j
and n
R
j
. Let us suppose that this expansion is valid
in L
1
(R), that is to say that
lim
t
|u(t ) U( h ct )
j -p
n
L
j
(t )r
j
(u
L
)
j >p
n
R
j
(t )r
j
(u
R
)|
1
= 0.
(7.27)
Then the conservation of mass, expressed by
_
R
(u(t. x) U(x ct )) dx = const.,
implies
_
R
(x) dx =
_
R
(u(t. x) U(x ct )) dx (t > 0)
= lim
t
_
R
(u(t. x) U(x ct )) dx
3
However, for the Burgers equation, this form is rather that of a cyrillic vowel
N
than an N.
=
_
R
_
U(y h) U(y)
j -p
W
j
(y;
j
)r
j
(u
L
)
j >p
W
j
(y;
j
)r
j
(u
R
)
_
dy
= h(u
R
u
L
)
j -p
m
j
r
j
(u
L
)
j >p
m
j
r
j
(u
R
).
where the relation between m
j
and
j
is given by the formula (7.26).
The above equality enables us to calculate the n-tuple (m
1
. . . . . m
p1
. h.
m
p1
. . . . . m
n
) when the family of vectors B
p
(u
L
. u
R
) =(r
1
(u
L
). . . . . r
p1
(u
L
).
u
R
u
L
. r
p1
(u
R
). . . . . r
n
(u
R
)) is a basis of R
n
. Finally, knowing the m
j
, we can
deduce the
j
by the formula (7.26).
The geometrical condition which we are about to state generalises in a certain
way the hyperbolicity hypothesis. In fact, if the shock (u
L
. u
R
; c) is weak, then the
direction of u
R
u
L
is close to that of r
p
(u
L
) while the vectors r
j
(u
R
) are close to
r
j
(u
L
) respectively. Therefore, we have
det(B
p
(u
L
. u
R
)) l
p
(u
L
) (u
R
u
L
) det(r
1
(u
L
). . . . . r
n
(u
L
)) ,= 0
and B
p
(u
L
. u
R
) is really a basis. On the other hand, for a shock of large amplitude,
this condition is not necessarily satised and can be used to eliminate the shocks
which are not stable for generic perturbations: A. Majda has shown that this con-
dition plays a r ole in the stability (local in time, without diffusion) of shock waves
for hyperbolic systems [73, 74]. It expresses Lopatinskis condition for a mixed
problem which is equivalent to the linearisation of the system which governs the
evolution of the shock front (see Chapter 14).
Although the property (7.27) has not yet been proved (in fact Tai-Ping Liu asserts
that it is false in general as it lacks a termof zero mass), it provides a good method of
calculating the parameters, at least that which concerns the phase shift. The result,
obtained by Liu [70] and completed by Szepessy and Xin [99], is
Theorem 7.5.1 (Liu) We suppose that the eigenvalues of d f (u) are simple, and
that d
p
(u
L
) r
p
(u
L
) ,= 0. There exist a neighbourhood V of u
L
in Uand a number
c
1
> 0 such that if (u
L
. u
R
; c) is a p-shock with u
R
V , then
(1) there exists a viscosity prole U of equation (7.19) linking u
L
to u
R
,
(2) for all L
1
(R)
n
, there exists one and only one n-tuple (m
1
. . . . . m
p1
.
h. m
p1
. . . . . m
n
) such that
_
R
(x) dx = h(u
R
u
L
)
j -p
m
j
r
j
(u
L
)
j >p
m
j
r
j
(u
R
).
(3) if inaddition H
1
(R),
j ,=p
[m
j
[ c
1
|u
R
u
L
|and
_
R
(1 (x h)
2
)|(x)
U(x) U(x h)|
2
dx c
1
, then the Cauchy problem for (7.19), provided
with the initial condition u(0) = U , has one and only one smooth solution,
global in time, which satises in addition
lim
t
|u(t ) U( h ct )|
2
= 0.
lim
t
|u(t ) U( h ct )|
= 0.
We note that no estimate of the decay of the norms of the error in L
2
or in L
is
known. However, Pego [83] has shown that the viscosity prole is linearly stable
in that which concerns the 1-shocks or the n-shocks provided that the perturbation
decreases exponentially at innity. The limitation of this study to the shocks of
the fastest characteristic elds is not troublesome in applications, such as in gas
dynamics or in the elasticity of an elastic string. However, a family of shocks in
magnetohydrodynamics is not covered by this study.
7.6 Inuence of the diffusion tensor
We now consider the Cauchy problem for a general diffusion,
u
t
f (u)
x
= (B(u)u
x
)
x
. (7.28)
We are given a Lax shock (u
L
. u
R
; c) which we suppose to have a viscosity prole
U:
B(U)U
/
= f (U) f (u
L
) c(U u
L
).
U() = u
L
.
U() = u
R
.
The perturbation of the initial condition (u(0) = U ) is given, smooth and
sufciently small, at least as in Theorem 7.5.1. However, we shall not give here a
precise statement, leaving the reader to consult [70]. We again look for a description
of u(t ) in the form
U( h ct )
j -p
n
L
j
(t )r
j
(u
L
)
j >p
n
R
j
(t )r
j
(u
R
)
with
n
L.R
j
=
1
t
W
j
_
x
j
(u
L.R
)t
t
_
.
W
j
being a rapidly decreasing function which has to be determined.
7.6 Inuence of the diffusion tensor 243
Owing to the conservation of mass, the phase shift and the masses of the diffusion
waves are again determined by the formula
_
R
(x) dx = h(u
R
u
L
)
j -p
m
j
r
j
(u
L
)
j >p
m
j
r
j
(u
R
).
Hence, they do not depend on the diffusion chosen. However, to justify the con-
struction, it is necessary to be able to calculate the terms (!), here the diffusion
waves W
j
. For j > p, they are essentially supported by the zone x ct , located to
the right of the prole, where the value of u is very close to u
R
. The same argument
as that of the 7.5 leads to the retention, on the left-hand side of (7.28), only of the
terms (
t

j
(u
R
)
x
)n
j
and
1
2
b
j
x
(n
2
j
). As for the right-hand side, it develops in
the following way:
l
j
(u
R
)
x
(B(u
R
)
x
u) = l
j
(u
R
) B(u
R
)
2
x
u O(t
2
)
= (l
j
B)(u
R
)
2
x
U
k,=p
l
j
(u
R
)B(u
R
)r
k
(u
R
)
2
x
n
k
O(t
2
).
The remaining terms are O(t
2
) in uniform norm and in L
1
-norm. They have
a negligible inuence on the correction to the asymptotic expansion; for exam-
ple, they are negligible owing to the term (l
j
Br
j
)
2
x
n
j
. Concerning the terms of
the sum for which k ,= j. p, they are of the form t
3,2
W
k
(t
1,2
(x
k
t )) with
k
,=
j
. Hence they have an inuence of the same order as those of the terms
x
(n
j
n
k
) which we have already neglected in 7.2. It is the same for the term
(l
i
B)
2
x
U since it is transported with speed c ,=
j
. In the two cases (k ,= j. p
and k = p), it is essential that the terms considered should have a zero mean with
respect to x; this is the case since these are derivatives of functions vanishing at
innity.
Hence, there only remains the term corresponding to k = j and we again have
a system of uncoupled BurgersHopf equations:
(
t

j
(u
L
)
x
)n
j

1
2
b
j
x
_
n
2
j
_
=
j
2
x
n
j
.
j
= (l
j
Br
j
)(u
L
). j - p.
(
t

j
(u
R
)
x
)n
j

1
2
b
j
x
_
n
2
j
_
=
j
2
x
n
j
.
j
= (l
j
Br
j
)(u
R
). j > p.
This equation has integrable diffusion waves if and only
j
> 0, that is if and only
if these equations are well-posed for increasing time. Hence, we require that the
diffusion satisfy the general condition
(l
j
Br
j
)(u) > 0. u U. 1 j n. (7.29)
We notice that this condition is satised when the diffusion is strictly dissipative
for a strongly convex E, or simply when it is dissipative and, in addition, satises
Br
j
,= 0 (this allows us to apply the theory to the case of gas dynamics [50]).
In fact, the eigenvector basis (r
j
)
1j n
is orthogonal for the quadratic form D
2
E,
that is, there exist numbers e
j
(u) such that D
2
Er
j
= e
j
l
j
. These numbers are
strictly positive since D
2
E(r
j
. r
j
) >0. In addition, if D
2
E(B. ) c(u)|B|
2
(dissipation hypothesis) we have
0 - c(u)|Br
j
|
2
e
j
l
j
Br
j
.
Finally, l
j
Br
j
> 0.
Example: gas dynamics
Let us consider the system of gas dynamics in lagrangian coordinates, with vis-
cosity and heat conduction (we shall also envisage the case where the viscosity is
negligible):
:
t
= z
x
.
z
t
p(:. e)
x
= (b(:)z
x
)
x
.
_
e
1
2
z
2
_
t
( pz)
x
= (bzz
x
k(:. e)T
x
)
x
.
Denoting by c =
( pp
e
p
:
) the speed of sound, the eigenvectors of d f are
r
1
=
_
_
_
1
c
zc p
_
_
_
. r
2
=
_
_
_
p
e
0
p
:
_
_
_
. r
3
=
_
_
_
1
c
zc p
_
_
_
.
while the eigenforms are
l
1
=
1
2c
2
(p
:
. c zp
e
. p
e
).
l
2
=
1
c
2
( p. z. 1).
l
3
=
1
2c
2
(p
:
. c zp
e
. p
e
).
Finally,
Br
2
=
_
_
_
0
0
kT
e
p
:
_
_
_
. Br
1.3
=
_
_
_
0
bc
k(T
:
pT
e
) czb
_
_
_
.
We have seen that the hyperbolicity of the system of gas dynamics is equivalent to
the convexity of the entropy (opposite to the physical entropy), which from now on
we shall suppose realised, and also that the tensor of viscous and thermal diffusion
is dissipative for this case. We deduce that the condition l
j
Br
j
>0 holds if and only
if Br
j
,= 0. For j = 2, this is satised by all real gases as T
e
> 0 and p
:
- 0. For
j = 1 or j = 3, this is again true when the viscosity is present (b ,= 0). If it is
not (b 0), it will be enough that pT
e
T
:
is not zero. In this case, we shall have
pT
e
T
:
> 0 since
1
=
3
=
1
2
c
2
kp
e
( pT
e
T
:
) and p
e
> 0 for all real gases.
This inequality is generally satised. For example, for a polytropic gas, T
:
= 0,
and T
e
> 0. Again, other ways of writing this inequality are
S
:
T=const.
> 0. or
T
p
S=const.
> 0.
7.7 Case of over-compressive shocks
Denition 7.7.1 We call an over-compressive shock of a strictly hyperbolic system
u
t
f (u)
x
=0 every triplet (u
L
. u
R
; c) which satises the RankineHugoniot con-
dition and is such that
j 1
(u
L
) - c -
j
(u
L
),
k
(u
R
) - c -
k1
(u
R
) with j - k
(we recall that if j = k, (u
L
. u
R
; c) is a Lax shock).
Let us consider an over-compressive shock (u
L
. u
R
; c) with the xed perturbation
u
xx
and prole equation U
/
= f (U) f (u
L
) c(U u
L
). The stable manifold
W
s
(u
R
) and the unstable manifold W
i
(u
L
) have dimensions k and n j 1
respectively. Their intersection V is thus in general a sub-manifold of dimension
k j 1 2, for example in the structurally stable case where these manifolds are
transverse to each other. The set of viscosity proles for this shock is identied with
V by the mapping U . b(U) := U(0). Concerning the diffusion waves which
lengthen the zone of the shock (and hence which are able to be superposed on a
prole in an asymptotic expansion) they have speeds
i
(u
L
) for i j 1 or
i
(u
R
)
for i k 1. Hence there are n j k 1 families of diffusion waves, each
being parametrised by m
i
, m
i
r
i
(u
L.R
) being the mass of the wave. The asymptotic
expansions which we use to express the behaviour of a solution u(t ) when t ,
when the initial condition is a perturbation U(; b
0
) of a viscosity prole, are
therefore of the form
U(; b)
i j 1
1
t
W
i
_
x
i
(u
L
)t
t
;
i
_
r
i
(u
L
)
i k1
1
t
W
i
_
x
i
(u
R
)t
t
;
i
_
r
i
(u
R
) o(1).
In this formula, the remainder is small in L
1
L
and there are n parameters

to be determined by making use of the conservation of mass. If we denote by
(b; b
0
) =
_
R
(U(; b) U(. b
0
)) d the difference of mass between two proles,
the equation we have to solve to determine b and the
i
(or equivalently the masses
m
i
) is
(b; b
0
)
i j 1
m
i
r
i
(u
L
)
i k1
m
i
r
i
(u
R
) =
_
R
(x) dx. (7.30)
The mapping b .(b; b
0
) is differentiable at b
0
and the range (b
0
) of its dif-
ferential contains the straight line generated by u
R
u
L
since
_
R
(U( h; b
0
)
U(; b
0
))d = h(u
R
u
L
). When the spaces (b
0
),
i j 1
Rr
i
(u
L
), and
i k1
Rr
i
(u
R
), the sum of whose dimensions equals n, are in direct sum, equation (7.30)
has a solution
(m
1
. . . . . m
j 1
. b. m
k1
. . . . . m
n
)
when the mass m =
_
R
(x) dx is small enough. More generally, this equation
has a solution for all m belonging to a cylinder C = X, where X =R(u
R

u
L
)
i j 1
Rr
i
(u
L
)
i k1
Rr
i
(u
R
). When (b
0
) X = R
n
(which held for
a Lax shock with weak amplitude because X = R
n
), C is a neighbourhood of the
origin.
When the equation (7.30) has a solution, we can hope that lim
t
|u(t )
U( ct ; b)|
= 0. Such a result is obviously as difcult to prove as for a Lax

shock and must necessitate supplementary hypotheses concerning the perturba-
tion .
The essential difference with the case of a Lax shock is that the cylinder C is not,
in general, the whole of R
n
. Hence, there are perturbations of the initial condition
for which the equation (7.30) does not have a solution. For these, the asymptotic
behaviour of u(t ) cannot be described by a viscosity prole. We shall illustrate this
by an example.
Example 7.7.2
The simplest system which possesses super-compressive shocks is that which has
been popularised by Keytz and Kranzer (which has n = 2):
u
t
(r
2
u)
x
= 0. r = |u|. (7.31)
The study which follows draws its inspiration from the work of T.-P. Liu and H.
Freist uhler [25, 72].
Over-compressive shocks
The characteristic speeds of the system (7.31) are (u) = r
2
and j(u) = 3r
2
.
The rst corresponds to a linearly degenerate eld. Being given a state u
L
,= 0,
u
L
= r
L
e
L
, the shocks (here, we exclude contact discontinuities) (u
L
. u
R
; c) are of
two kinds:
Regular shocks: u
R
= r
R
e
L
and c = r
2
L
r
L
r
R
r
2
R
,
Irregular shocks: u
R
= r
R
e
L
and c = r
2
L
r
L
r
R
r
2
R
.
Also, we require that the shocks have a viscosity prole for the parabolic perturba-
tion u
xx
.
Now, let us x r
L
>0 and the unit vector e
L
and choose a shock speed c
(
3
4
r
2
L
. r
2
L
). For such a choice, there is no shock such that u
R
= r
R
e
L
. On the other
hand, there are two states u
1
and u
2
of the form r
R
e
L
with 0 - r
1
- r
2
. We have
r
2
- r
L
. The eigenvalues of the system, calculated with the states u
1
, u
2
, u
L
, have
the following properties:
(u
1
). (u
2
). j(u
1
) - c - j(u
2
). (u
L
). j(u
L
).
Thus, (u
L
. u
2
; c) is a Lax shock and (u
L
. u
1
; c) is an over-compressive shock.
The prole equation
The prole equation is written
u
/
= G(u) =: (r
2
c)u
_
r
2
L
c
_
r
L
e
L
. (7.32)
Its critical points are u
1
, u
2
and u
L
, respectively attractive focus, saddle point and
repulsive focus. None among these is degenerate.
As the vector eld G is emerging from the disk D(0; r
L
), every trajectory which
passes into this disk at an instant
0
remains there for the times -
0
. As this disk
is compact, the Poincar eBendixson theorem ensures that trajectories tend to a sta-
tionary point or are wound round a limit cycle (which can contain critical points)
when t . We are going to show that this latter eventuality is impossible.
Let L be the axis Re
L
. Let us consider a limit cycle , which is a piece-wise
C
1
curve, invariant for the ow of G. Since the axis L is invariant for the ow,
is contained in one of the half-planes delimited by L. Since encircles a simply
connected invariant compact set, this must contain a stationary point of the ow,
that is u
1
, u
2
or u
L
. As these points are on L, we deduce that in fact passes through
one of these points. Since is oriented by the ow, this stationary point cannot
be either attractive or repulsive, this is therefore the saddle point u
2
. But then
contains one of the two trajectories of W
i
(u
2
), which must be bounded. Now of
these two trajectories, contained in L, one goes off to innity while the other ends
in u
1
. Finally, contains u
1
, which is absurd since u
1
is attractive.
Fig. 7.2: The set, open but bounded, of the proles between u
L
and u
1
, over-compressive
shock.
Every trajectory which passes into D(0; r
L
) has therefore issued from one of the
stationary points of G. There are only four cases, of which the last is generic:
The trajectory u u
1
.
The trajectory u u
2
.
The two trajectories contained in L and issuing from u
2
.
The other trajectories, which have issued from u
L
.
An important application of this result is that the two trajectories which end in u
2
(they are symmetric with respect to L and their union forms W
s
(u
2
)) have issued
from u
L
. They encircle a compact set K (see Fig. 7.2) with non-empty interior,
invariant by the ow. In the interior of K, all the trajectories leave u
L
and end up
in u
1
, with the exception of the trajectories u u
i
and of that which goes from
u
2
to u
1
following the axis. Since K is a neighbourhood of u
1
, invariant by the
ow, there is no other trajectory going from u
L
to u
1
. Finally, the image V of the
viscosity proles for the shock (u
L
. u
1
; c) is the interior of K, without the segment
[u
1
. u
2
].
Here, the cylinder C has Re
L
for direction. Let us take, for example, b
0
on the
segment [u
L
. u
1
]. The prole that we are going to disturb is thus that which follows
the axis L. Without loss of generality, we can put e
L
=(1. 0). The cylinder C is
dened by a relation y
2
J, y
2
being the coordinate along to the vector (0. 1). The
interval J is the set of values taken by
2
(b; b
0
) =
_
R
(U
2
(; b) U
2
(; b
0
)) d =
_
R
U
2
(; b) d.
Let us write the prole equation in polar coordinates (U = r exp i):
r
/
= (r
2
c)r
_
r
2
L
c
_
r
L
cos .
r
/
=
_
r
2
L
c
_
r
L
sin .
As each prole lies wholly in a half-plane U
2
> 0 or U
2
- 0, we have J = J
and we can treat only the case U
2
> 0. Hence, the range of the angle is [0. ].
Thus
/
> 0, and we can parametrise the trajectory by . It turns out that
U
2
d = r sin d =
r
2
/
d
_
r
2
L
c
_
r
L
=
r
2
_
r
2
L
c
_
r
L
d.
Thus,
2
(b; b
0
) =
1
_
r
2
L
c
_
r
L
_

0
r
2
d.
This expression does not depend on b but only on the trajectory on which b occurs.
We can parametrise the trajectories by . r(. ) where (0. ) is a point on
the vertical axis. By the CauchyLipschitz theorem, the mapping . r(. )
is continuous and strictly increasing. It follows that J =[Y. Y] where Y is the
integral of U
2
when U is the viscosity prole which links u
L
to u
2
(and not to u
1
)
situated in the upper half-plane (it is the upper boundary of K). As K D(0; r
L
),
we have r - r
L
in the integral and so Y - r
L
,(r
2
L
c). Similarly the vector eld
G is entering into the disk D(0. r
2
) (verify that r
2
2
- c). Hence, the trajectory is
wholly outside of this disk and we again have Y > r
2
,(c r
2
2
). Finally, we have
shown the following result.
Theorem 7.7.3 Being given an over-compressive shock (u
L
. u
1
; c) of the system
(7.31) (see the above construction) and an initial condition such that
_
(a(x)
u
L
) dx and
_
(a(x) u
1
) dx converge, the following conditions are equivalent:
(1) There exists a viscosity prole U between u
L
and u
1
such that
_
R
(U(x)
a(x)) dx = 0;
(2)

_
R
a
2
(x) dx
- Y.
The number Y satises
r
2
c r
2
2
- Y -
r
L
r
2
L
c
.
The asymptotic behaviour of the solution of the parabolic Cauchy problem for
the initial condition a can therefore be described by a viscosity prole when the
inequality (2) is satised (a necessary but not a sufcient condition).
Instability of the over-compressive shock
As T.-P. Liu notes, the useful notion of stability is that of uniform stability with
respect to the coefcient > 0 of the parabolic perturbation of a hyperbolic system
of a conservation law. In other words, being given an initial condition a C
b
(R),
such that
_
(a(x) u
L
) dx
_
(a(x) u
R
) dx converge, we ask if the solution
u
of the Cauchy problem for the parabolic system

u
t
f (u)
x
= (B(u)u
x
)
x
.
u(0. x) = a(x)
has the under-noted properties:
(1) u
is dened on R
R,
(2) u
(t ) is asymptotic, in L
1
(R) L
(R), to a progressive wave U(

1
[x ct
x
0
()]; ) when t ,
(3) the prole y .U(y x
0
(); )) possesses a uniform limit when 0.
In the example presented above, Theorem7.7.3 shows that the condition (2) does
not hold when
_
R
a
2
(x) dx ,= 0. Indeed, the condition for the existence of a prole
U between u
L
and u
R
having the desired mass defect is that [
_
R
a
2
(x) dx[ -Y,
this is obtained by making the change of variables (t. x) . (t. x) to lead to the
case where = 1. It is this instability of the shock, when the velocity is sufciently
small, which leads T.-P. Liu to reject this. He notes nally that by excluding the
over-compressive shocks, we can solve the Riemann problem for the system (7.31)
uniquely.
7.8 Exercises
7.1 We consider again the proof of Theorem7.2.1 in the case where (d
k
r
k
)(u
L
) =
0. But as contact discontinuities are not able to admit proles, we exclude the
case where d
k
r
k
is constant on an integral curve of r
k
. More precisely, we
suppose that
k
:= (d(d
k
r
k
) r
k
) (u
L
) ,= 0.
(1) Show that the curve of the critical points of G of the form (u
R
. (u
L
. u
R
))
for u
R
I
k
(u
L
), u
R
,= u
L
, is locally situated on one side of the straight
line s =
k
(u
L
), this side depending on the sign of
k
.
(2) Depending on this sign, deduce that there exist viscosity proles for all
the triplets (u
L
. u
R
. (u
L
. u
R
)) or none, as we stay in a neighbourhood of
(u
L
. u
L
.
k
(u
L
)).
7.8 Exercises 251
7.2 We consider the p-system
:
t
= z
x
.
z
t
p(:)
x
= 0.
_
with p C
3
(R), sup
:R
p
/
(:) - 0. We suppose that the points where p
//
is
zero satisfy p
///
,= 0. We adopt the admissibility condition of shock waves such
as is stated in Theorem 7.3.1.
(1) A simple 2-wave is by denition a self-similar solution
(x. t ) .(:(x,t ). z(x,t )).
piecewise smooth, where we have connected two constant states u
and u
by 2-rarefaction-waves (x,t =

p
/
(:) ) and 2-admissible-shock-waves
(s > 0).
Let u
L
= (:
L
. z
L
) R
2
. Show that the states u
R
= (:
R
. z
R
) to which
u
L
can be linked by a simple 2-wave form a curve parametrised by : and
dened in the following way. Denoting by I the interval with extremities
u
L
and u
R
, we denote by p
I
the envelope of the restriction of p to I , lower
convex (if u
R
- u
L
) or upper concave (if u
R
> u
L
). Then
z
R
= z
L
_
:
R
:
L
_
dp
I
d:
d: =: (:
R
; :
L
).
Show that : .(:; :
L
) is continuous.
(2) Similarly, study the curves of the simple 1-wave and showthat the Riemann
problem admits one and only one solution made up of one 1-wave and one
2-wave separated by a constant state.
7.3 We consider the isentropic gas dynamics with viscosity and capillarity. This
latter is expressed by a perturbation of the law of conservation of momentum
(a is a positive constant):
:
t
= z
x
.
z
t
p(:)
x
= (b(:)z
x
)
x
a
2
:
xxx
.
_
After the elimination of the speed, the prole equation becomes
a:
//
sb(:):
/
p(:) p(:
L
) s
2
(: :
L
) = 0. (7.33)
So far as the question (5) inclusive, we assume that b > 0.
(1) We suppose that (u
L
. u
R
. (u
L
. u
R
)) admits a visco-capillary prole (we
must properly call it thus!). Show that the expression
_
:
R
:
L
( p(:) p(:
L
)
2
(: :
L
)) d:
is of opposite sign to that of and that it is identically zero if and only if
= 0. Deduce that if ,= 0, one at least of the discontinuities (u
L
. u
R
; )
and (u
R
. u
L
; ) does not admit a visco-capillary prole.
(2) Show that this inequality is always satised be an entropy shock when p
//
is of constant sign (we can take Laxs entropy condition or Laxs shock
condition since, here, they are equivalent).
(3) We suppose that p
/
is of the sign of ( :)(: ) where - -
- . We consider the stationary discontinuities ((:
L
. 0). (:
R
. 0); 0),
that is the couples (non-ordered) (:
L
. :
R
) for which p(:
L
) = p(:
R
). Show
that there exists one and only one which satises the condition
_
:
R
:
L
( p(:) p(:
L
)) d: = 0.
(4) For this couple, show that (u
L
. u
R
; 0) and (u
R
. u
L
; 0) each admit a visco-
capillary prole.
(5) We denote this couple by (:
. :
) with :
- :
. Show that :
- -
- :
.
(6) We consider the case without viscosity (b 0). Show that for all :
L
in the neighbourhood of :
, there exists a single couple (:

R
. ) in the
neighbourhood of (:
. 0) satisfying
p(:
R
) p(:
L
)
2
(:
R
:
L
) = 0.
_
:
R
:
L
( p(:) p(:
L
)
2
(: :
L
)) d: = 0.
_
_
Show that for all z
L
R, there exists a capillary prole in each direction
between (:
L
. z
L
) and (:
R
. z
L
z) where z = (:
L
:
R
).
7.4 We consider the dynamics of a perfect gas withstate equation p: = ( 1)e and
for sole perturbation a thermal diffusion obeying Fouriers law (k = k(:. e) >
0). As here the temperature can be taken equal to e, the equations are equivalent
to
:
t
= z
x
.
z
t
p
x
= 0.
_
e
1
2
z
2
_
t
( pz)
x
= (k(:. e)e
x
)
x
.
_
_
7.8 Exercises 253
(1) Show that the prole equation leads to a single differential equation of the
form f (:)
/
=g(:) where g(:
l.r
) = 0 and f
/
(:) -0 for : >:
and f
/
(:) > 0
for : - :
, :
being dened by
:
=
1
2
2
( p
L
2
:
L
) =
1
2
2
( p
R
2
:
R
).
(2) Verify that g is quadratic, hence of constant sign between :
L
and :
R
. Deduce
that if :
L
and :
R
are on opposite sides of :
, then those singular points of

the reduced equation f (:)
/
= g(:) are of the same nature (attractive or
repulsive) and hence that there is not a thermal prole for the discontinuity
(u
L
. u
R
; (u
L
. u
R
)) in this case.
(3) On the other hand, showthat if :
L
and :
R
are situated on the same side with
respect to :
, there is a thermal prole from one state towards the other, in

the direction which respects Laxs entropy condition.
7.5 We consider once again gas dynamics in lagrangian variables with the perfect
gas equation of state p: = ( 1)e with > 1, but with viscosity (b = b(:. e))
and without thermal conduction. Hence the equations are
:
t
= z
x
.
z
t
p
x
= (b(:. e)z
x
)
x
.
_
e
1
2
z
2
_
t
( pz)
x
= (b(:. e)zz
x
)
x
.
_
_
(1) Show that for this perturbation, the contact discontinuities (z
R
= z
L
, p
R
=
p
L
, s = 0) have viscosity proles.
(2) Let (u
L
. u
R
; (u
L
. u
R
)) be a discontinuity for which ,= 0. Show that the
existence of a viscosity prole is equivalent to the existence of a heteroclinic
trajectory from z
L
to z
R
for a differential equation
:b(:. e)z
/
= q(z)
where q is a quadratic polynomial which depends on , is zero at z
L
and
at z
R
and where :, e are expressed as functions of z.
(3) Deduce that there exists a viscosity prole between u
L
and u
R
but only in
a single sense, that which respects Laxs entropy condition.
7.6 Let us consider non-isentropic gas dynamics with diffusion, whose general
form in eulerian variables is
u
t
f (u)
x
= (B(u)u
x
)
x
.
The rst of these equations is, on supposing that there is no diffusion for the
mass,
t
(z)
x
= 0. (7.34)
where we have denoted the density by and the velocity by z. We recall that the
lagrangian coordinates (t. y) are dened by the formula dy = z dt dx,
justied by the equation (7.34).
(1) Show that outside of the vacuum, the equations of motion are written, in
lagrangian coordinates, in the form
_
u
_
t
( f (u) zu)
y
= (B(u)u
y
)
y
.
which contains a trivial equation 1
t
0
y
= 0, which we replace by the
equation :
t
= z
y
which itself comes from the trivial equation 1
t
0
x
= 0
(we denote by : =
1
the specic volume).
(2) Let (u
L
. u
R
; s) be a discontinuity satisfying the RankineHugoniot condi-
tion for the eulerian system:
[ f ] = s[u].
We suppose that z
R
,= z
L
(we thus exclude contact discontinuities). Show
that there corresponds a discontinuity ((:
L
. z
L
). (:
R
. z
R
); ) of the eulerian
system, whose speed of propagation is given by the formula
=
s z
L
:
L
=
s z
R
:
R
.
(3) Write the prole equations for the lagrangian system and for the eulerian
system. Showthat the existence of aneulerianviscosityprole for (u
L
. u
R
; s)
is equivalent to that of a lagrangian viscosity prole for (:
L
. u
L
. :
R
. u
R
; )
and that we pass from one to the other by a change of parameter.
Bibliography
[1] Bergh, J. and L ofstr om, J. Interpolation spaces, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1976.
[2] Boillat, G. La Propagation des ondes, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1965.
[3] Boillat, G. Chocs caract eristiques C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, S erie I 274 (1972),
101821.
[4] Brenner, P. The Cauchy problem for the symmetric hyperbolic systems in L
p
.
Math. Scand 19 (1966), 2737.
[5] Carasso, C., Rascle, M., and Serre, D. Etude dun mod` ele hyperbolique en
dynamique des c ables Mod. Math. Anal. Numer. 19 (1985), 57399.
[6] Chen, Gui-Qiang. Convergence of the LaxFriedrichs scheme for isentropic gas
dynamics (i) Acta Math. Scientia 6 (1986), 75120.
[7] Chen, Gui-Qiang, Lu, Y.-G. Convergence of the approximate solutions to
isentropic gas dynamics Acta Math. Scientia 10 (1990), 3945.
[8] Ciarlet, P. Mathematical elasticity: vol. I, three-dimensional elasticity, North
Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.
[9] Coleman, B. D. and Dill, E. H. Thermodynamic restrictions on the constitutive
equations of electromagnetic theory Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 22 (1971), 691702.
[10] Collela, P. Glimms method for gas dynamics SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comp., 3
(1982), 76109.
[11] Courant, R. and Friedrichs, K. O. Supersonic ow and shock waves, John Wiley &
Sons Interscience, New York, 1948.
[12] Courant, R. and Hilbert, D. Methods of mathematical physics, vol. II, John Wiley &
Sons Interscience, New York, 1962.
[13] Crandall, M. and Ligett, T. M. Generation of semi-groups of nonlinear
transformations on general Banach spaces Amer. J. Math. 93 (1971), 26598.
[14] Crandall, M. The semi-group approach to rst order quasilinear equations in
several space variables Israel J. Math. 12 (1972), 10832.
[15] Dafermos, C. Characteristics in hyperbolic conservation laws, a study of the
structure and asymptotic behaviour of solutions In R. J. Knops (editor), Nonlinear
analysis and mechanics, vol. 39, Research Notes in Mathematics, Pitman, London,
1977, pp. 158.
[16] Dafermos, C. and Ling Hsiao Development of singularities in solutions of the
equations of nonlinear thermoelasticity Quart. Appl. Math. 44 (1986), 46374.
[17] DiPerna, R. J. Convergence of approximate solutions to conservation laws Arch.
Rat. Mech. Anal. 82 (1983), 2770.
255
256 Bibliography
[18] DiPerna, R. J. Convergence of the viscosity method for isentropic gas dynamics
Comm. Math. Phys. 91 (1983), 130.
[19] Ekeland, I. and Temam, R. Analyse convexe et probl` emes variationnels, Dunod,
Paris, 1974.
[20] Evans, L. C. Weak convergence methods for nonlinear partial differential
equations. vol. 74, CBMS Regional Conference Series in Math., Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, R.I., 1990.
[21] Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M. Feynman lectures on physics,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1963.
[22] Fife, P. Mathematical aspects of electrophoresis in R. J. Knops (editor),
Reactiondiffusion equations, Oxford University Press, 1988.
[23] Foy, L. Steady state solutions of hyperbolic systems of conservation laws with
viscosity terms Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 17 (1964), 17788.
[24] Freist uhler, H. Rotational degeneracy of hyperbolic systems of conservation laws
Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 113 (1991), 3964.
[25] Freist uhler, H. and Liu, Tai-Ping. Nonlinear stability of overcompressive shock
waves in a rotationally invariant system of viscous conservation laws Comm.
Math. Phys. 153 (1993), 14758.
[26] Friedrichs, K. O. and Lax, P. D. Systems of conservation laws with a convex
extension Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 68 (1971), 16868.
[27] Garcke, H. Travelling wave solutions as dynamic phase transitions in shape
memory alloys J. Diff. Eqns. 121 (1995), 20331.
[28] G arding, L. Probl` emes de Cauchy pour les syst` emes quasi-lin eaires dordre un
strictement hyperboliques Les EdPs. Colloques Internationaux du CNRS 117
(1963), 3340.
[29] Gilquin, H. Une famille de sch emas num eriques TVD pour les lois de
conservation hyperboliques Math. Mod. Numer. Anal. 20 (1986), 42960.
[30] Gisclon, M. Etude des conditions aux limites pour un syst` eme strictement
hyperbolique, via 1approximation parabolique J. Math Pures Appl. 75 (1996),
485508.
[31] Gisclon, M. and Serre, D. Etude des conditions aux limites pour un syst` eme
strictement hyperbolique via 1approximation parabolique C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris,
S erie I 319 (1994), 37782.
[32] Glimm, J. Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of equations
Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 18 (1965), 697715.
[33] Glimm, J. and Lax, P. D. Decay of solutions of systems of nonlinear hyperbolic
conservation laws, Memoir 101, A.M.S., Providence, R.I., 1970.
[34] Godlewski, E. and Raviart, P. -A. Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws,
Ellipses, Paris, 1991.
[35] Godunov, S. K. Lois de conservation et int egrales d energie des equations
hyperboliques In C. Carasso, P.-A. Raviart, and D. Serre (editors), Nonlinear
hyperbolic problems, St Etienne, vol. 1270, Springer Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, Berlin, 1987, pp. 13549.
[36] Goodman, J. Nonlinear asymptotic stability of viscous shock proles for
conservation laws Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 95 (1986), 32544.
[37] Hagan, R. and Slemrod, M. The viscositycapillarity condition for shocks and
phase transitions Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 83 (1983), 33361.
[38] Hammersley, J. M. and Handscomb, D. C. Monte Carlo methods, Methuen,
London, 1965.
[39] Heibig, A. R egularit e des solutions du probl` eme de Riemann Comm. Partial Diff.
Eqns. 15 (1990), 693709.
Bibliography 257
[40] Heibig, A. Unicit e des solutions du probl` eme de Riemann C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris,
S erie I 312 (1991), 7937.
[41] Heibig, A. and Serre, D. Une approche alg ebrique du probl` eme de Riemann C.R.
Acad. Sci. Paris, S erie I 309 (1989), 15762.
[42] Hoff, D. Invariant regions for systems of conservation laws Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 289 (1985), 591610.
[43] Hoff, D. and Smoller, J. Solutions in the large for certain nonlinear parabolic
systems Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar e 3 (1985), 21335.
[44] Hoff, D. and Smoller, J. Global existence for systems of parabolic conservation
laws in several space variables J. Diff. Eqns. 68 (1987), 21020.
[45] H ormander, L. Lectures on nonlinear hyperbolic differential equations,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
[46] Hsiao, Ling and Tong Zhang. The Riemann Problem and interaction of waves in
gas dynamics, Longman, London, 1989.
[47] Ilin, A. M. and Olenik, O. A. Behaviour of the solutions of the Cauchy problem
for certain quasilinear equations for unbounded increase of time AMS Translations
42 (1964), 1923.
[48] Ivrii, V. Ya. Linear hyperbolic equations, vol. 33, Encyclopedia of mathematical
sciences, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1993.
[49] Joly, J.-L., M etivier, G., and Rauch, J. A nonlinear instability for 3 3 systems of
conservation laws Comm. Math. Phys. 162 (1994), 4759.
[50] Kawashima, S. and Matsumura, A. Asymptotic stability of travelling wave
solutions of systems for one-dimensional gas
motion Comm. Math. Phys. 101 (1985), 97127.
[51] Kazhikhov, A. V. Cauchy problem for viscous gas equations Sibirsk. Mat. Zh. 23
(1982), 604.
[52] Keytz, B. L. and Kranzer, H. C. A system of non-strictly hyperbolic
conservation laws arising in elasticity theory Arch. Rat Mech. Anal. 72 (1980),
21941.
[53] Klainerman, S. Global existence for nonlinear wave equations Comm. Pure Appl.
Math. 33 (1980), 43101.
[54] Klainerman, S. Uniform decay estimates and the Lorentz invariance of the
classical wave equation. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 38 (1995), 32132.
[55] Kreiss, H.-O. and Lorenz, J. Initialboundary value problems and the
NavierStokes equations, Academic Press, San Diego, 1989.
[56] Kru zkov, S. N. Generalized solutions of the Cauchy problem in the large for
nonlinear equations of rst order Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 187 (1969), 2932.
[57] Kunik, M. A solution formula for a non-convex scalar hyperbolic conservation law
with monotone initial data Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 16 (1993), 895902.
[58] Kuznetsov, N. N. Accuracy of some approximate methods for computing the weak
solution of a rst order quasi-linear equation USSR Comp. Math. Math. Phys. 16
(1976), 10519.
[59] Lax, P. D. Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws II Comm. Pure Appl. Math.
10 (1957), 53766.
[60] Lax, P. D. Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws and the mathematical theory of
shock waves vol. 11, CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied
Mathematics, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1973.
[61] Lax, P. D. and Levermore, D. The small dispersion limit for the KdeV equation
Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 36 (1983), I 25390, II 57193, III 80930.
[62] Leveque, R. Numerical methods for conservation laws, Lectures in Mathematics,
Birkh auser, Basle, 1990.
258 Bibliography
[63] Levermore, C. D. The hyperbolic nature of the zero dispersion KdeV limit Comm.
Partial Diff. Eqns. 13 (1988), 495514.
[64] Li Ta-Tsien. Solutions r eguli` eres globales des syst` emes hyperboliques
quasi-lin eaires dordre 1 J. Math. Pures Appl. 4 (1982), 4019.
[65] Li Ta-Tsien and Yu Wen-Ci. Boundary value problems for quasilinear hyperbolic
systems, vol. V, Math. Series, Duke University, Durham, N.C., 1985.
[66] Liu, Tai-Ping. The Riemann problem for general 2 2 conservation laws Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 199 (1974), 89112.
[67] Liu, Tai-Ping. The Riemann problem for general systems of conservation laws J.
Diff. Eqns. 18 (1975), 21834.
[68] Liu, Tai-Ping. Decay to N-waves of solutions of general systems of nonlinear
hyperbolic conservation laws Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 30 (1977), 585610.
[69] Liu, Tai-Ping. The deterministic version of Glimms scheme Comm. Math. Phys.
57 (1977), 13548.
[70] Liu, Tai-Ping. Nonlinear stability of shock waves for viscous conservation laws,
Memoir 328, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1985.
[71] Liu, Tai-Ping. Pointwise convergence to N-waves for solutions of hyperbolic
conservation laws Bull. Inst. Math. Acad. Sinica 15 (1987), 117.
[72] Liu, Tai-Ping. On the viscosity criterion for hyperbolic conservation laws In M.
Shearer (editor), Viscous proles and numerical methods for shock waves, SIAM,
Philadelphia, 1991, pp. 10514.
[73] Majda, A. The existence of multi-dimensional shock fronts, Memoir 281, Amer.
Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1983.
[74] Majda, A. The stability of multi-dimensional shock fronts, Memoir 275, Amer.
Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1983.
[75] Majda, A. Compressible uid ow and systems of conservation laws in several
space variables, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
[76] Mei, Ming. Stability of shock proles for nonconvex scalar viscous conservation
laws Math. Mod. Methods Appl. Sci. 5 (1995), 27996.
[77] Mih ailescu, M. and Suliciu, I. Riemann and Goursat step data problems for
extensible strings with non-convex stressstrain relation Rev. Roum. Math. Pures
et Appl. 20 (1975), 5519.
[78] Mih ailescu, M. and Suliciu, I. Riemann and Goursat step data problems for
extensible strings J. Math. Anal. Appl. 52 (1975), 1024.
[79] Morawetz, C. S. Notes on time decay and scattering for some hyperbolic problems,
vol. 19, Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, SIAM, Providence,
R.I., 1975.
[80] Nishida, T. Global solutions for an initial boundary value problem of a quasilinear
hyperbolic system Proc. Jap. Acad. 44 (1968), 6426.
[81] Olenik, O. A. Uniqueness and stability of the generalized solution of the Cauchy
problem for a quasi-linear equation Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 14 (1959), 16570.
[82] Osher, S. and Ralston, J. L
1
stability of travelling waves with application to
convective porous media ow Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 35 (1982), 73751.
[83] Pego, R. L. Linearized stability of extreme shock proles in systems of
conservation laws with viscosity Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 280 (1983), 43161.
[84] Poupaud, F., Rascle, M. and Vila, J.-P. Global solution to the isothermal
EulerPoisson system with arbitrarily large data J. Diff. Eqns. 123 (1995), 93121.
[85] Rauch, J. BV estimates fail for most quasilinear hyperbolic systems in dimension
greater than one Comm. Math. Phys. 106 (1986), 4814.
[86] Richtmyer, R. D. and Morton, K. Difference methods for initial value problems,
WileyInterscience, New York, 1967.
Bibliography 259
[87] Sakamoto, R. Hyperbolic boundary value problems, Cambridge University Press,
1982.
[88] Sattinger, D. H. On the stability of waves of nonlinear parabolic systems
Advances in Math. 22 (1976), 31255.
[89] Schatzman, M. Fonctionnelle de Glimm continue C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, S erie I
291 (1980), 51922.
[90] Schatzman, M. Continuous Glimm functionals and uniqueness of the solution of
the Riemann problem Indiana Univ. Math. J. 34 (1985), 53389.
[91] Schecter, S. and Shearer, M. Transversality for undercompressive shocks in
Riemann problems In M. Shearer (editor), Viscous proles and numerical methods
for shock waves, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1991, pp. 14254.
[92] Serre, D. Temples elds and integrability of hyperbolic systems of conservation
laws In Guangchang Dong and Fanghua Lin (editors), International conference
on nonlinear PDEs, International Academic Publishers, New York, 1993, pp.
23351.
[93] S evennec, B. G eom etrie des syst` emes de lois de conservation, vol. 56, M emoires,
Soc. Math. de France, Marseille, 1994.
[94] Shearer, M. The Riemann problem for the planar motion of an elastic string J.
Diff. Eqns. 61 (1986), 14963.
[95] Slemrod, M. Global existence, uniqueness and asymptotic stability of classical
smooth solutions in one-dimensional, non-linear thermoelasticity Arch. Rat. Mech.
Anal. 76 (1981), 97133.
[96] Slemrod, M. Dynamic phase transitions in a Van der Waals uid. J. Diff. Eqns. 52
(1984), 123.
[97] Smoller, J. Shock waves and reaction diffusion equations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1983.
[98] Sod, G. A. Numerical methods in uid dynamics, Cambridge University Press,
1985.
[99] Szepessy, A. and Zhouping Xin. Nonlinear stability of viscous shock waves Arch.
Rat. Mech. Anal. 122 (1993), 53103.
[100] Tadmor, E. Local error estimates for discontinuous solutions of nonlinear
hyperbolic equations SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 28 (1991), 891906.
[101] Tartar, L. Compensated compactness and applications to partial differential
equations In R. J. Knops (editor), Nonlinear analysis and mechanics, vol. 39,
Research Notes in Mathematics, Pitman, London, 1979, pp. 13692.
[102] Taub, A. H. Relativistic RankineHugoniot equations Phys. Rev. 74 (1948)
32834.
[103] Temple, B. Systems of conservation laws with invariant manifolds Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 280 (1983), 78195.
[104] Temple, B. No L
1
-contractive metrics for systems of conservation laws Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 288 (1985), 47180.
[105] Temple, B. and Young, R. The large time stability of sound waves Comm. Math.
Phys. 179 (1996), 41766.
[106] Tsarev, S. P. On Poisson brackets and one-dimensional systems of hydrodynamic
type Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 282 (1985), 53437.
[107] Tsarev, S. P. The geometry of hamiltonian systems of hydrodynamic type. The
generalized hodograph method. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR 54 (1990), 104868.
[108] Vanderbauwhede, A. Centre manifolds, normal forms and elementary
bifurcations. Dynamics Reported 2 (1989), 89169.
[109] Vichnevetsky, R. and Bowles, J. B. Fourier analysis of numerical approximations
of hyperbolic equations, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1982.
260 Bibliography
[110] Wagner, D. H. Equivalence of the Euler and Lagrangian equations of gas dynamics
for weak solutions J. Diff. Eqns. 68 (1987), 11836.
[111] Weinberger, H. F. Long-time behaviour for a regularized scalar conservation law in
the absence of general nonlinearity Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar e 7 (1990), 40725.
[112] Whitham, J. Linear and nonlinear waves, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1974.
Index
absolute temperature, 136
accretive operator, 48
adiabatic exponent, 3
admissible discontinuity, 40
admissible solution, 34
Alfv en waves, 16
Amp` eres law, 11
asymptotic stability, 230
barotropic model, 6
Boillats theorem, 81
bounded variation, 37, 146
Burgers equation, 30, 61, 66, 216, 217
BurgersHopf equations, 239, 243
BV-space, 37
capillarity, 251
Cauchy problem: scalar equations in d =1,
2543
approximate solutions, 32
blow-up in nite time, 27
classical solutions, 25
discontinuous solutions, 30
entropy solutions, 34; piecewise smooth, 40
existence and uniqueness of solution,
36
irreversibility, 36
linear, 25
maximum principle, 37
non-linear, 26
non-uniqueness of solutions, 31
weak solutions, 27
characteristic curve, 26
characteristic eld, 80
genuinely non-linear, 113
linearly degenerate, 81
characteristic foliation, 81
chromatography, 24
compression waves, 139
conservation law, xiii
contact discontinuity, xvii, 43, 116
contraction semi-group, 38
CourantFriedrichLevy (CFL) condition, 149
differential form, xiv
differential eigenform, 81
diffusion tensor, 191, 220, 242
diffusion waves, 236
non-linear, 237
discontinuities, 40
dispersive equation, 19
singular limit, 19
dissipation by viscosity, 187
dissipative tensor, 190
domain
of dependence, 38
of inuence, 38
duality method, 58
elastic string, 119
electric current, 11
electric induction, 11
electric permittivity, 13
electromagnetism, 11
Maxwells equations, 12
plane waves, 13
Poyntings formula, 12
entropy, xx, 5, 82
convex, 82
dissipation of, 188
physical, xx, 82
specic, 5
entropy balance, 111
entropy ux, xx, 36, 82
entropy inequalities, 33, 160
entropy production, 139, 182
entropy solution, xx, 34
piecewise smooth, 40
equidistributed sequence, 154
Euler equations, 4
EulerDarbouxPoisson equation,
102
Faradays law, 11
ow in a shallow basin, 8
Fouriers law, 4
frame indifference, 18
261
262 Index
GardingLeray theorem, 91
gas dynamics
in eulerian variables, 1, 119
isentropic, 7, 216
isothermal, 7, 216
in lagrangian variables, 9, 85, 119, 245
generic explosion by a cusp, 61
Glimm functional
continuous, 182
linear, 162
quadratic, 164
Glimm scheme, 14960
compactness, 156
consistency, 153
convergence, 156
description of scheme, 149
stability, 174
Glimms theorem, 151
Godunovs scheme, 180
heat ux, 11
Hellys theorem, 247
Hugoniot locus, 108
local description, 107
Huygens principle, 101
hyperbolic system, 71
linear, 69
partially, 192
quasi-linear, 74
symmetrisable, 73
hyperelastic materials, 17
inadmissible discontinuities, 42
incompressible uid, 8
interaction potential, 153
internal energy, 2
irreversibility, 36
isentropic model, 7
isothermal model, 7
j-discontinuities, 110
Joule effect, 13
jump, xix, 25
Keytz and Kranzer system, 119, 246
kinetic energy, 2
Kortewegde Vries (KdV) equation, 19
Kreiss matrix theorem, 72, 79
Kru zkovs theorem, 36
existence proof by semi-group method,
47
uniqueness, 51
Kuniks formula, 47
Kuznetsovs theorem, 210, 216
Lax entropy condition, 87, 111, 116
Lax formula, 45
Lax shock condition, 41, 114, 116, 224
Lax theorem, 124
LaxFriedrichs scheme, 180
LegendreHadamard condition, 19, 189
Leroux system, 183
Lius theorems, 155, 241
magnetic induction, 11
magnetic permittivity, 133
magnetohydrodynamics (M.H.D.), 14
plane waves, 15; simplied model of, 16
maximum principle, 37, 50, 232
Maxwells equations, xiv, 75
membrane, 19
method of characteristics, 26, 42
mixed problem, xv
model
barotropic, 6
isentropic, 7
isothermal, 7
N-wave, 63, 240
NavierStokes equations, 4
isentropic, 218
isothermal, 219
Neumann condition, 6
Nishidas example, 167
Nishidas theorem, 173
numerical scheme
Glimm, 149
Godunov, 180
LaxFriedrichs, 180
Oleniks condition, 41
Oleniks inequality, 41, 45, 57
perfect gas, 2, 3
physical system, 83, 89
polytropic gas, 7
prole
for isentropic uid with viscosity, 229
for KeytzKranzer system, 247
for Lax shock, 235
prole equation, 221
RankineHugoniot condition, xvii, 28, 88, 90,
107, 109
rarefaction, 43
rarefaction wave, 119, 134
relativistic model of a gas, 8
rich system, 181
Riemann invariant, 117
weak, 118
Riemann problem for d =1, 10645
gas dynamics 13243; rarefaction waves, 133;
shocks, 135; wave curves, 140
p-system, 12731; rarefaction waves, 127; shocks,
128; wave curves, 129
road trafc, xv, 10
St VenantKirchhoff law, 19
Schr odinger equation, 19
second order perturbations, 186219
semi-groups, 48
contraction, 48
Index 263
S evennecs theorem, 118
shock
characteristic shock, 43
Lax j-shock, 114
over-compressive, 245
semi-characteristic, 43, 62; weak, 62
state law, xiv
perfect gas, 2
polytropic gas, 7
stress tensor, 4
string, 19
system
conservative, 80
hyperbolic, xx; with constant coefcients,
71; linear, 69; quasi-linear, 79; strictly, 73;
symmetrisable, 73
Keytz and Kranzer, 119, 246
p-system, 107
physical, 83
rich, 131
Temple system, xvi
Tokamak, 14
total variation, 37
viscosity prole for shock waves, 22064
vs. Lax entropy condition, 221
vs. Lax shock condition, 222
wave
plane wave, 74
pressure wave, 76
shear wave, 76
simple, 107
wave curve
direct, 120
reverse, 120
wave equation, 101

Denis Serre Systems of Conservation Laws 1 - Hyperbolicity, Entropies, Shock Waves 1999 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Denis Serre Systems of Conservation Laws 1 - Hyperbolicity, Entropies, Shock Waves 1999 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Denis Serre Systems of Conservation Laws 1 - Hyperbolicity, Entropies, Shock Waves 1999 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Systems of

and with compact support in OR

(x. t ) on one side and

(x. t ) on the other, the integral formulation expresses a transmission condition,

of the relative velocity is responsible for the same fraction e

is great compared with , these

R is a given smooth function.

with respect to each of its ve variables. The modulated solutions which

> 0, for t [0. T

. Let us now show that that

- , there exist values of y for which

. We assume that (u. q) is of class C

(x. t ) the limit of u(y. s) when (y. s) tends to (x. t ) I

. In the same way we dene q

(x. t ), the jump across I of each

, we see that (u. q) is a

. In the same way we have the result for

denote the boundaries of the domains

are null. On the other hand, the border of

along I, with the result that

(X(t ). t ). In particular, when

). Indeed, u satises the equation trivially

(x. t ) u(x. t ) almost everywhere

is a classical solution, with the result that all the

, for example functions E

(R (0. T)), we lose the property of uniqueness (see

satises (2.6). Let belong to D

(s) E(s) for s [a. b],

is convex, piecewise afne: E

converge uniformly to E and

(Q) C ([0. T);

(R), with respect to the L

(R). We do not know of a

(Q) C ([0. T); L

() and if E is a convex entropy of class C

. Let I be the interval with extremities u

, a [0. 1]. Then

), with the result that

) 0. a [0. 1]. (2.11)

then a discontinuity is admissible if and only if the graph of f ,

], is situated above its chord.

then a discontinuity is admissible if and only if the graph of f ,

], is situated below its chord.

, dened, if need be, up to I , usually cannot emerge fromI. Aborderline case

) ,= 0. We can then construct a Cauchy problem and its entropy solution of

, we shall speak of a contact discontinuity.

on this side, if I is of class C

) ,= dX,dt , then this continuous extension is of class C

, and being linked by the RankineHugoniot condition and satisfying

. As they cannot be tangent to a shock curve,

and let us choose a characteristic . X() which ends on

(R), then the

(t ) converges in X, uniformly on every compact

(R). Making use of the differential equation, we see

(R). The solution, limit of u

then the solution of : A: = h satises |:|

(R) and f is an arbitrary function of class C

. We choose a function g of class C

(R). For that, we make use of the properties