Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:21:49.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weak asymptotic solution of phase-field system in the case of confluence of free boundaries in the Stefan problem with underheating

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2007

V. G. DANILOV
V. G. DANILOV*
Affiliation:
Moscow Technical University of Communication and Informatics email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We assume that the Stefan problem with underheating has a classical solution until the moment of contact of two distinct free boundaries and the free boundaries have continuous velocities until the moment of contact. Under these assumptions, we construct a smooth approximation of the global solution of the Stefan problem with underheating, which, until the contact, gives the classical solution mentioned above and, after the contact, gives a solution that is the solution of the heat equation.

Type
Papers
Information
European Journal of Applied Mathematics , Volume 18 , Issue 5 , October 2007 , pp. 537 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Caginalp, G. (1989) Stefan and Hele–Shaw type models as asymptotic limits of the phase-field equations. Phys. Rev. 39, 5887–5896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[2]Chen, X. (1994) Spectrum for the Allen–Cahn, Cahn–Hilliard and phase-field equations for generic interfaces. Commun. Partial Differential Equation 19 (7), 1371–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Danilov, V. G. & Shelkovich, V. M. (2001) Propagation and interaction of shock waves of quasilinear equation. Nonlinear Stud. 8 (no. 1), 211–245.Google Scholar
[4]Danilov, V. G. (2002) Generalized solutions describing singularity interaction. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 29 (no. 8), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Danilov, V. G., Omel'yanov, G. A. & Radkevich, E. V. (1995) Asymptotic solution of a phase field system and the modified Stefan problem. Differential'nie Uravneniya 31 (3), 483–491 (in Russian) (English translation in Differential Equations 31(3), 1995).Google Scholar
[6]Danilov, V. G., Omel'yanov, G. A. & Radkevich, E. V. (1999) Hugoniot-type conditions and weak solutions to the phase-field system. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 10, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Danilov, V. G., Omel'yanov, G. A. & Shelkovich, V. M. (2003) Weak asy-mptotics method and interaction of nonlinear waves. Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. 208 (2), 33–164.Google Scholar
[8]Danilov, V. G. & Shelkovich, V. M. (2000) Propagation and interaction of nonlinear waves. In: Eighth International Conference on Hyperbolic Problems, Theory-Numerics-Applications, Abstracts, Magdeburg, Germany, February 28–March 3, pp. 326–328.Google Scholar
[9]Friedman, A. (1964) Partial Differential Equations of Parabolic Type, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
[10]Meirmanov, A. M. (1986) The Stefan problem. ‘Nauka’, Novosibirsk (English translation, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Meirmanov, A. (1994) The Stefan problem with surface tension in the three-dimensional case with spherical symmetry: Nonexistence of the classical solution. Eur. J. Appl. Math., 5, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Meirmanov, A. & Zaltzman, B. (2002) Global in time solution to the Hele–Shaw problem with a change of topology. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 13, 431–447.Google Scholar
[13]Omel'yanov, G. A. (2001) Dynamics and interaction of nonlinear waves: Multidimensional case. In: Int. Conf. “Differential Equations and Related Topics”, dedicated to the Centenary Anniversary of Petrovskii, I. G., Book of Abstracts, Moscow Univ. Press, 305–306.Google Scholar
[14]Radkevich, E. V. (1991) The Gibbs-Thomson correction and conditions for a classical solution of the modified Stefan problem. Soviet Math. Doklady 43 (1), 274–278.Google Scholar