Skip to main content

On optimality conditions for optimal control problem in coefficients for Δ p -Laplacian

Abstract

In this paper we study an optimal control problem for a nonlinear monotone Dirichlet problem where the control is taken as L (Ω)-coefficient of Δ p -Laplacian. Given a cost function, the objective is to derive first-order optimality conditions and provide their substantiation. We propose some ideas and new results concerning the differentiability properties of the Lagrange functional associated with the considered control problem. The obtained adjoint boundary value problem is not coercive and, hence, it may admit infinitely many solutions. That is why we concentrate not only on deriving the adjoint system, but also, following the well-known Hardy-Poincaré Inequality, on a formulation of sufficient conditions which would guarantee the uniqueness of the adjoint state to the optimal pair.

MSC:35J70, 49J20, 49J45, 93C73.

1 Introduction

The aim of this paper is to derive a first-order optimality system for a nonlinear Dirichlet optimal control problem where the control is taken as an L -coefficient in a nonlinear state equation. The optimal control problem we consider in this paper is to minimize the discrepancy y y d W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) p , where p2, Ω is an open bounded Lipschitz domain in R N with N2, y d W 0 1 , p (Ω) is a given distribution, and y is the solution of a nonlinear Dirichlet problem by choosing an appropriate coefficient u L (Ω) of Δ p -Laplacian. Namely, we consider the following minimization problem:

Minimize  { I ( u , y ) = Ω | y ( x ) y d ( x ) | p d x }
(1.1)

subject to the constraints

u A ad L (Ω)BV(Ω),y W 0 1 , p (Ω),
(1.2)
div ( u | y | p 2 y ) =fin Ω,
(1.3)
y=0on Ω,
(1.4)

where A ad is a class of admissible controls and f W 1 , q (Ω), q=p/(p1).

Optimal control in coefficients for partial differential equations is a classical subject initiated by Lurie [1, 2], Lions [3], Zolezzi [4]. Tartar and Murat [57] showed examples of the non-existence for such problems (see e.g. [8] also for the historical development). Since the range of OCPs in coefficients is very wide, including as well optimal shape design problems, optimization of certain evolution systems, some problems originating in mechanics and others, this topic has been widely studied by many authors. In particular, it leads to the possibility to optimize material properties what is extremely important for material sciences. The crucial point is to give the right interpretation of the optimal coefficients in the context of applications (see, for instance, [9, 10]). Usually this aspect is closely related with the structural assumptions that have to be considered during the optimization process in terms of constraints. One way of doing so is via proper parametrization of the material, respectively, the coefficients, using mixtures, represented by characteristic functions. This has been pursued by Allaire [11] and many other authors in recent years. Another restriction can be realized via regularity of the coefficients and hard constraints. This procedure has been followed first by Casas [12] for a scalar problem, as one of the first papers in that direction, and later by Haslinger et al. [13] in the context of what has come to be known as Free Material Optimization (FMO). However, most of the results and methods rely on linear PDEs, while only very few articles deal with nonlinear problems, see Kogut [14] and Kogut and Leugering [15]. Another point of interest is degeneration in the coefficients which is typically avoided by assuming lower bounds on the coefficients. However, degeneration occurs genuinely in topology optimization, damage and crack problems. In Kogut and Leugering [1618] and in Kupenko and Manzo [19] this problem has been considered in the context of linear problems (see also [20]). The nonlinear case was considered in [2124]. In this article, we extend our results to scalar nonlinear problems, where degeneration occurs already with respect to the states.

Another important point, arising after the solvability of the optimization problem had been proved, is the question as regards optimality conditions. The classical approach to deriving such conditions is based on the Lagrange principle. However, in the case when the control is considered in the coefficients of the main part of the state equation, the classical adjoint system often cannot be directly constructed due to the lack of differential properties of the solution to the boundary value problem with respect to control variables. It was the main reason why Serovajskiy has proposed the concept of the so-called quasi-adjoint system [25] and showed that optimality conditions for the linear elliptic control problem in coefficients can be derived, provided the mapping u ψ ε (u) possesses the weakened continuity property. However, the verification of this property is not easy matter even for linear systems. In the case of quasi-linear or nonlinear state equations, we are faced with another problem - the Lagrange functional to the indicated problem is not Gâteaux differentiable at the origin. To overcome this difficulty, Casas and Fernández introduced the special family of perturbed optimal control problems and derived the optimality conditions passing to the limit in optimality conditions for approximating control problems. In order to apply this approach to optimal control problem (1.1)-(1.4) it would suffice to assume the following extra conditions: p>N/2 and A ad C 1 (Ω) that look rather restrictive from physical point of view. The second option coming from the approach of Casas and Fernández is the fact that the linear elliptic equation for the adjoint state is not coercive in general and, hence, the adjoint boundary value problem may admit infinitely many solutions. As a result, the attainability of some solutions is rather a questionable matter. That is why in this paper we concentrate not only on deriving of the adjoint system, but also on formulation of sufficient conditions which would guarantee the uniqueness of the adjoint state to the optimal pair.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we give some preliminaries and prescribe the class of admissible controls to problem (1.1)-(1.4). In Section 3 we analyze the solvability properties of optimal control problem (1.1)-(1.4), using the monotonicity of generalized Δ p -Laplacian (see for comparison [26, 27]). The aim of Section 4 is to give a collection of preliminary results concerning the differentiability properties of the Lagrange functional associated with problem (1.1)-(1.4)

Λ(u,y,λ)=I(u,y)+ a u (y,λ) f , λ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ,

where

a u (y,λ)= Ω u(x) | y | p 2 ( y , λ ) R N dx

and show that it admits the Gâteaux derivative with respect to the so-called non-degenerate directions h W 0 1 , p (Ω) at the point y.

In Section 5 we discuss the formal approach in deriving first-order optimality conditions for optimal control problem (1.1)-(1.4). In order to derive an optimality system, we apply the Lagrange principle. It is well known that the proof of this principle is different for different classes of optimal control problem (see, for instance, [10, 12, 23, 2830]). The complexity of this procedure significantly depends on the form of the extremal problem under consideration. The procedure is rather simple if the controllable system is described by a linear well-posed controllable boundary value problem, but it becomes much more complicated if the controllable system is either ill-posed or nonlinear and singular.

With that in mind, we introduce the notion of a quasi-adjoint state ψ ε to an optimal solution y 0 W 0 1 , p (Ω) as a solution of the following Dirichlet boundary value problem for degenerate linear elliptic equation:

div ( u θ | y θ | p 2 [ I + ( p 2 ) y θ | y θ | y θ | y θ | ] ψ θ ) = p div ( | y θ y d | p 2 ( y θ y d ) ) in  Ω , ψ θ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ,
(1.5)

where the degeneration occurs in a natural way with respect to the states.

This concept was proposed for linear problems by Serovajskiy [25], where it was shown that an optimality system for the optimal control problems in coefficients can be recovered in an explicit form if the mapping A ad u ψ ε (u) possesses the so-called weakened continuity property. However, it should be stressed that the fulfilment of this property is not proved for the case of Δ p -Laplacian with p>2 and, thus, should be considered as some extra hypothesis. Moreover, from a practical point of view, the verification of the weakened continuity property for quasi-adjoint states is not an easy matter, in general. That is why, in order to derive optimality conditions in the framework of more appropriate assumptions, we provide in Section 6 the analysis of the well-posedness of variational problem (1.5) and describe the asymptotic behavior of its solutions as parameter θ tends to zero. However, in contrast to Casas and Fernandez [29], we do not apply a perturbation of the differential operator that removes the singularity at the origin.

In particular, following the well-known Hardy-Poincaré Inequality, we show that the sequence of quasi-adjoint states { ψ ε θ , θ } θ 0 to y 0 W 0 1 , p (Ω) can be defined in a unique way (as unique solutions for (1.5)) and is bounded in W 0 1 , p (Ω) provided, for given distributions f W 1 , q (Ω) and y d W 0 1 , p (Ω) with q= p p 1 and p2, an optimal solution y 0 =y( u 0 ) to the nonlinear Dirichlet boundary value problem (1.3)-(1.4) satisfies the properties

ln | y 0 | L 2 ( Ω ; R N ) , ( | y 0 | ) L p ( Ω ; R N ) and | y d | | y 0 | L ( Ω ) , C ˆ ( Ω ) V ( x ) 2 λ L i = 1 L 1 | x x i | 2 a.e. in  Ω ,

where

V ( x ) = ( 2 p ) div ( A ( u 0 , y 0 ) ln | y 0 | ) ( p 2 ) 2 2 ( ln | y 0 | , A ( u 0 , y 0 ) ln | y 0 | ) R N , A ( u 0 , y 0 ) = u 0 [ I + ( p 2 ) y 0 | y 0 | y 0 | y 0 | ] ,

for some positive constants C ˆ (Ω)>0, λ< λ := ( N 2 ) 2 /4, and some collection of points { x 1 , x 2 ,, x L }Ω.

Note that the fulfilment of this assumption is feasible if the matrix | y | p 2 A(u,y) has a non-degenerate spectrum for each U U ad (for the details, we refer to [17]). The main argument given in Sections 6-7 is to look for the solutions ψ θ W 0 1 , p (Ω) of the quasi-adjoint problem (1.5) in the form ψ θ = | y θ | ( 2 p ) / 2 z θ , where z θ H 0 1 (Ω). As a result, we show that each of the variational problems for the corresponding quasi-adjoint states has a unique solution, and these solutions form a weakly convergent sequence { ψ θ } θ 0 in W 0 1 , p (Ω). This property suffices in order to establish that the optimality system for problem (1.1)-(1.4) remains valid even if the matrix | y | p 2 A(u,y) has a degenerate spectrum.

2 Notation and preliminaries

Throughout the paper Ω is a bounded open subset of R N , N2. The space D (Ω) of distributions in Ω is the dual of the space C 0 (Ω). For real numbers 2p<+, and 1<q<+ such that 1/p+1/q=1, the space W 0 1 , p (Ω) is the closure of C 0 (Ω) in the Sobolev space W 1 , p (Ω), while W 1 , q (Ω) is the space of distributions of the form f= f 0 + j D j f j , with f 0 , f 1 ,, f n L q (Ω) (i.e. W 1 , q (Ω) is the dual space of W 0 1 , p (Ω)). As a norm in the space W 0 1 , p (Ω) we can take the following one:

y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = ( Ω | y | R N p ) 1 / p .

Let χ E be the characteristic function of a set E R N and let |E| be its N-dimensional Lebesgue measure.

For any vector field v L q (Ω; R N ), the divergence is an element of the space W 1 , q (Ω) defined by the formula

div v , φ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = Ω ( v , φ ) R N dx,φ W 0 1 , p (Ω),
(2.1)

where , W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) denotes the duality pairing between W 1 , q (Ω) and W 0 1 , p (Ω), and ( , ) R N denotes the scalar product of two vectors in R N .

Functions with bounded variations. Let f:ΩR be a function of L 1 (Ω). Define

TV(f):= Ω |Df|=sup { Ω f ( , φ ) R N d x : φ C 0 1 ( Ω ; R N ) , | φ ( x ) | 1  for  x Ω } ,

where ( , φ ) R N = i = 1 N φ i x i .

According to the Radon-Nikodym Theorem, if TV(f)<+ then the distribution Df is a measure and there exist a vector-valued function f L 1 (Ω; R N ) and a measure D s f, singular with respect to the N-dimensional Lebesgue measure L N Ω restricted to Ω, such that Df=f L N Ω+ D s f.

Definition 2.1 A function f L 1 (Ω) is said to have a bounded variation in Ω if TV(f)<+. By BV(Ω) we denote the space of all functions in L 1 (Ω) with bounded variation, i.e. BV(Ω)={f L 1 (Ω):TV(f)<+}.

Under the norm f B V ( Ω ) = f L 1 ( Ω ) +TV(f), BV(Ω) is a Banach space. For our further analysis, we need the following properties of BV-functions (see [31]).

Proposition 2.2

  1. (i)

    Let { f k } k = 1 be a sequence in BV(Ω) strongly converging to some f in L 1 (Ω) and satisfying condition sup k N TV( f k )<+. Then

    fBV(Ω)andTV(f) lim inf k TV( f k );
  2. (ii)

    for every fBV(Ω) L r (Ω), r[1,+), there exists a sequence { f k } k = 1 C (Ω) such that

    lim k Ω | f f k | r dx=0and lim k TV( f k )=TV(f);
  3. (iii)

    for every bounded sequence { f k } k = 1 BV(Ω) there exist a subsequence, still denoted by f k , and a function fBV(Ω) such that f k f in L 1 (Ω).

Admissible Controls and Generalized p-Laplacian. Let α, β, γ, and m be given positive constants such that 0<αβ<+ and α|Ω|mβ|Ω|. We define the class of admissible controls A ad as follows:

A ad = { u B V ( Ω ) L ( Ω ) | T V ( u ) γ , u L 1 ( Ω ) = m , α u ( x ) β  a.e. in  Ω } .
(2.2)

It is clear that A ad is a nonempty convex subset of L 1 (Ω) with empty topological interior.

We say that a nonlinear operator Δ p : A ad × W 0 1 , p (Ω) W 1 , q (Ω) is the generalized p-Laplacian if it has a representation

Δ p (u,y)=div ( u ( x ) | y | p 2 y ) ,where  | y | p 2 := | y | R N p 2 = ( i = 1 N | y x j | 2 ) p 2 2 ,

or via the pairing

Δ p ( u , y ) , v W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = Ω u(x) | y | p 2 ( y , v ) R N dx,v W 0 1 , p (Ω).

It is easy to see that for every admissible control u A ad , the operator Δ p (u,) turns out to be coercive, i.e.

Δ p ( u , y ) , y W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) α y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) p ,

and demi-continuous, where by the demi-continuity property we mean the fulfilment of the implication: y k y 0 strongly in W 0 1 , p (Ω) implies that Δ p (u, y k ) Δ p (u, y 0 ) weakly in W 1 , q (Ω) (see [26, 32]). Moreover, p-Laplacian Δ p (u,y) is a strictly monotone operator for each u A ad . Indeed, having applied the trick

Ω | y | p 1 | v | u ( x ) d x ( Ω ( | y | p 1 u p 1 p ) p p 1 d x ) ( p 1 ) / p ( Ω ( | v | u 1 p ) p d x ) 1 / p = ( Ω | y | p u d x ) ( p 1 ) / p ( Ω | v | p u d x ) 1 / p = : y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) p 1 v W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) ,

it is easy to check the validity of the following estimate:

Δ p ( u , y ) Δ p ( u , v ) , y v W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = Ω u ( x ) ( | y | p 2 y | v | p 2 v , y v ) R N d x ( by the Cauchy Inequality ) Ω | y | p 2 ( | y | 2 | v | | y | ) u ( x ) d x Ω | v | p 2 ( | v | | y | | v | 2 ) u ( x ) d x ( by the Hölder Inequality ) y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) p + v W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) p y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) p 1 v W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) v W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) p 1 y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) = ( y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) p 1 v W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) p 1 ) ( y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) v W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) ) 2 2 p | y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) v W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) | p , y , v W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) .

As a result, since β 1 y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) p y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) p α 1 y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ; u d x ) p , it follows that

Δ p ( u , y ) Δ p ( u , v ) , y v W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) >0for all y,v W 0 1 , p (Ω),yv.

Then by well-known existence results for nonlinear elliptic equations with strictly monotone demi-continuous coercive operators (see [32, 33]), one can conclude: for every u A ad and f W 1 , q (Ω), the nonlinear Dirichlet boundary value problem

Δ p (u,y)=fin Ω,y W 0 1 , p (Ω),
(2.3)

admits a unique weak solution in W 0 1 , p (Ω). Let us recall that a function y is the weak solution of (2.3) if

y W 0 1 , p (Ω),
(2.4)
Ω u(x) | y | p 2 ( y , v ) R N dx= f , v W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ,v W 0 1 , p (Ω).
(2.5)

3 Setting of the optimal control problem

We consider the following optimal control problem:

Minimize  { I ( u , y ) = Ω | y ( x ) y d ( x ) | p d x } ,
(3.1)

subject to the constraints

Ω u(x) | y | p 2 ( y , v ) R N dx= f , v W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ,v W 0 1 , p (Ω),
(3.2)
u A ad L (Ω),y W 0 1 , p (Ω),
(3.3)

where f W 1 , q (Ω) and y d W 0 1 , p (Ω) are given distributions.

Hereinafter, Ξ L (Ω)× W 0 1 , p (Ω) denotes the set of all admissible pairs (u,y) to optimal control problem (3.1)-(3.3).

Remark 3.1 As was mentioned in the previous section, the characteristic feature of optimal control problem (3.1)-(3.3) is the fact that the set of admissible controls A ad is a convex set with an empty topological interior. As we will see later on, this circumstance entails some technical difficulties in the substantiation of optimality conditions for the given problem.

Let τ be the topology on the set L 1 (Ω)× W 0 1 , p (Ω) which we define as a product of the strong topology of L 1 (Ω) and the weak topology of W 0 1 , p (Ω). Further we make use of the following results, which play a key role for the solvability of optimal control problem (3.1)-(3.3) (see [26, 32] and [15, 21] for comparison).

Proposition 3.1 For any u A ad and f W 1 , q (Ω), a weak solution y W 0 1 , p (Ω) to the variational problem (3.2)-(3.3) satisfies the estimate

y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) α 1 / ( p 1 ) f W 1 , q ( Ω ) 1 / ( p 1 ) .
(3.4)

Proof To prove the proposition it is enough to put in equality (3.2) as a test function the element y and then use the properties of the class A ad on the left-hand side of the relation and the Cauchy-Bunjakowsky Inequality on the right-hand side. Indeed, we get

α y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) p Ω u ( x ) | y | p 2 ( y , y ) R N d x = f , y W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) f W 1 , q ( Ω ) y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) .

Now to get the desired estimate we divide each part of the obtain relation into y W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) and raise each side to the power 1/(p1). □

Proposition 3.2 If { u k } k N A ad and u k u in L 1 (Ω), then u k u in L r (Ω) for any r[1,+) and u k u in L (Ω).

Proof Since u k u in L 1 (Ω) and

Ω u k dx=m,TV( u k )γ, and α u k β a.e. in Ω,kN,

by Proposition 2.2(i) it follows that

TV(u)γ, Ω udx=m, and αuβ a.e. in Ω.

Hence, u A ad . Moreover, for any r[1,+), the estimate

u k u L r ( Ω ) r vrai sup x Ω | u k ( x ) u ( x ) | r 1 u k u L 1 ( Ω ) ( β α ) r 1 u k u L 1 ( Ω )

implies that u k u in L r (Ω).

To end the proof, it is enough to note that strong convergence u k u in L 1 (Ω) implies, up to a subsequence, convergence u k (x)u(x) almost everywhere in Ω. Hence, by the Lebesgue Theorem, we have

Ω ( u k u)φdx0,φ L 1 (Ω),

that is u k u in L (Ω). Since this conclusion is true for any weakly- convergent subsequence of { u k } k N , it follows that u is the weak- limit for the whole sequence { u k } k N . □

Proposition 3.3 A ad is a sequentially compact subset of L r (Ω) for any r[1,+), and it is a sequentially weakly- compact subset of L (Ω).

Proof Let { u k } k N be any sequence of A ad . Then { u k } k N is bounded in BV(Ω) L (Ω). As a result, the statement immediately follows from Propositions 3.2 and 2.2(iii). □

Proposition 3.4 For every f W 1 , q (Ω) the set Ξ is sequentially compact, i.e. for each sequence { ( u k , y k ) Ξ } k N it can be found a subsequence { ( u k n , y k n ) Ξ } n N such that u k n u 0 in L 1 (Ω), y k n y 0 in W 0 1 , p (Ω), where ( u 0 , y 0 )Ξ, that is, y 0 is a weak solution to the Dirichlet boundary value problem (3.2) with u= u 0 .

Proof Let { ( u k , y k ) } k N Ξ be an arbitrary sequence of admissible pairs. Then Proposition 3.3 and a priori estimate (3.4) lead to the existence of a subsequence, still denoted by { ( u k , y k ) } k N and a pair (u,y) A ad × W 0 1 , p (Ω) such that

y k y weakly in  W 0 1 , p (Ω),
(3.5)
u k u strongly in  L r (Ω),r[1,+) and weakly- in  L (Ω).
(3.6)

Taking into account the inequality (see [34])

( | ξ | p 2 ξ | η | p 2 η , ξ η ) R N 2 2 p | ξ η | p ξ,η R N ,

and definition of the class of admissible controls A ad , we conclude: there exists a constant C>0 independent of kN such that

C Ω | y k y | p d x Ω u k ( | y k | p 2 y k | y | p 2 y , y k y ) R N d x = f , y k y W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) + Ω ( u u k ) ( | y | p 2 y , y k y ) R N d x Ω u ( | y | p 2 y , y k y ) R N d x = I 1 + I 2 I 3 .
(3.7)

Since uβ, u | y | p 2 y L q (Ω; R N ), and y k y in L p (Ω; R N ), it follows that

I 1 : = f , y k y W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) by (3.5) 0 as  k , I 2 : = Ω u ( | y | p 2 y , y k y ) R N d x by (3.5) 0 as  k , ( u u k ) | y | p 2 y by (3.6) 0  strongly in  L q ( Ω ; R N ) , and, therefore , I 2 : = Ω ( u u k ) ( | y | p 2 y , y k y ) R N d x by (3.5) 0 as  k .

Hence, passing to the limit in (3.7) as k, we arrive at a conclusion (see [26]):

y k y strongly in  W 0 1 , p (Ω), and  | y k | p 2 y k | y | p 2 y in  L q ( Ω ; R N ) .

As a result, we finally have

f , v W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = lim k Ω u k ( x ) | y k | p 2 ( y k , v ) R N d x = Ω u ( x ) | y | p 2 ( y , v ) R N d x , v W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ,

that is, the limit pair (u,y) is an admissible to optimal control problem (3.1)-(3.3). The proof is complete. □

Taking into account Propositions 3.1-3.3, in a similar manner to [15, 21], it is easy to conclude the following existence result.

Theorem 3.5 The optimal control problem (3.1)-(3.3) admits at least one solution

( u opt , y opt ) Ξ [ B V ( Ω ) L ( Ω ) ] × W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) , I ( u opt , y opt ) = inf ( u , y ) Ξ I ( u , y ) .

4 Auxiliary results

The main goal of this paper is to derive the optimality conditions for optimal control problem (3.1)-(3.3). However, we deal with the case when we cannot apply the well-known classical approach (see, for instance, [35, 36]), since for a given distribution f W 1 , q (Ω) the mapping uy(u) is not Fréchet differentiable on the class of admissible controls, in general, and the class A ad has an empty topological interior. With that in mind, we apply the so-called differentiation concept on convex sets and introduce the notion of a quasi-adjoint state ψ ε to an optimal solution y 0 W 0 1 , p (Ω) that was proposed for linear problems by Serovajskiy [25].

To begin with, we discuss the differentiable properties of the Lagrange functional associated with problem (3.1)-(3.3). Since (3.3) can be seen as a constraint, we define the Lagrangian as follows:

Λ(u,y,μ)=I(u,y)+ a u (y,μ) f , μ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ,
(4.1)

where μ W 0 1 , p (Ω) is a Lagrange multiplier and

a u (y,μ)= Δ p ( u , y ) , μ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = Ω u(x) ( | y | p 2 y , μ ) R N dx.

For given h W 0 1 , p (Ω) and θ[0,1], let us consider the following sets:

Ω 0 = { x Ω : | y | > 0 } , Ω 0 , θ = { x Ω : | y + θ h | > 0 } .

Clearly, we cannot claim that χ Ω 0 , θ χ Ω 0 in L r (Ω) for some 1r<, because convergence of the sequence { y + θ h } θ + 0 to y does not imply, in general, the χ-convergence of subsets { Ω 0 , θ } θ + 0 to Ω 0 as θ+0 [[15], p.218]. Indeed, let h W 0 1 , p (Ω) be such that |h(x)|>0 almost everywhere in Ω and y=0. Then Ω 0 = whereas Ω 0 , θ =Ω for all positive θ small enough. Hence, in this case the convergence χ Ω 0 , θ χ Ω 0 fails. In view of this, we make use of the following notion (see [23]).

Definition 4.1 We say that an element y W 0 1 , p (Ω) is a regular point for the Lagrangian (4.1) if for each v W 0 1 , p (Ω) the direction h=vy is non-degenerate in the following sense:

χ Ω 0 , θ χ Ω 0 in  L 1 (Ω).
(4.2)

We have the following result.

Proposition 4.2 Assume that y is an element of W 0 1 , p (Ω) such that the set

S 0 = { x Ω : | y ( x ) | = 0 }
(4.3)

has zero Lebesgue measure. Then y W 0 1 , p (Ω) is a regular point of the Lagrangian (4.1) in the sense of Definition  4.1.

Proof Let h be a given element of W 0 1 , p (Ω). If x Ω 0 , then, by definition, |y(x)|>0. Thus, there is a value θ 0 (0,1] such that |y(x)+θh(x)|>0 for all θ[0, θ 0 ]. It is worth to note that this pointwise inequality makes a sense if only xΩ is a Lebesgue point of both y and h. However, the Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem states that, given any g L 1 (Ω), almost every xΩ is a Lebesgue point. Hence, almost all Lebesgue points of y are the Lebesgue points of y+θh for θ small enough, and χ Ω 0 , θ (x)= χ Ω 0 (x)=1 for all θ[0, θ 0 ]. Since the set S 0 has zero Lebesgue measure, it follows that |Ω Ω 0 |=0 and |Ω Ω 0 , θ |=0 for θ[0,1] small enough. Therefore, χ Ω 0 , θ χ Ω 0 almost everywhere in Ω and hence, χ Ω 0 , θ χ Ω 0 strongly in L 1 (Ω). □

Remark 4.1 It is worth noting that due to the results of Manfredi (see [37]), the assumptions of Proposition 4.2 appears natural and it is not a restrictive supposition in practice. Indeed, following [37], we can ensure that the set S 0 :={xΩ:y=0} for non-constant solutions of the p-Laplace equation (a p-harmonic function) has zero Lebesgue measure. Moreover, it is also easy to observe that if y and v in W 0 1 , p (Ω) are two regular points of the functional Λ(u,y,λ), then there exists a positive number αR (α0) such that each point of the segment [y,αv]={y+t(αvy):t[0,1]} W 0 1 , p (Ω) is also regular for Λ(u,y,λ).

We are now ready to study the differentiability properties of the Lagrangian Λ(u,y,λ). We begin with the following result.

Lemma 4.3 Let u A ad be a given element, and let y W 0 1 , p (Ω) be a regular point of the Lagrangian (4.1). Then the mapping

W 0 1 , p (Ω)y Δ p (u,y)=div ( u ( x ) | y | p 2 y ) W 1 , q (Ω),p2

is Gâteaux differentiable at y and its Gâteaux derivative

( Δ p ( u , y ) ) G L ( W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) , W 1 , q ( Ω ) )

exists and takes the form

( Δ p ( u , y ) ) G [ h ] = div ( u ( x ) | y | p 2 h ) ( p 2 ) div ( u ( x ) | y | p 4 ( y , h ) R N y ) .
(4.4)

Proof Let y W 0 1 , p (Ω) be a regular point for the Lagrangian (4.1) and let h W 0 1 , p (Ω) be an arbitrary distribution. Following the definition of the Gâteaux derivative, we have to deduce the following equality:

lim λ + 0 Δ p ( u , y + λ h ) Δ p ( u , y ) λ ( p 2 ) div ( u ( x ) | y | p 4 ( y , h ) R N y ) div ( u | y | p 2 h ) L q ( Ω ; R N ) = 0 .

With that in mind, let us consider the vector-valued function

g(λ):= | y + λ h | p 2 (y+λh)

for which the Taylor expansion with the remainder term in the Lagrange form leads to the relation

| g ( λ ) g ( 0 ) | λ | g ( θ ) | ,θ(0,λ),

where g(0)= | y | p 2 y and

g ( θ ) = | y + θ h | p 2 h + ( p 2 ) | y + θ h | p 2 ( θ | h | 2 + ( y , h ) R N ) ( y + θ h ) 1 | y + θ h | 2 = | y + θ h | p 2 h + ( p 2 ) | y + θ h | p 2 ( y + θ h , h ) R N | y + θ h | y + θ h | y + θ h | .

Let δ>0 be an arbitrary value. Let us consider the following decomposition:

Ω= S 0 Ω δ Ω δ ′′ ,

where the set S 0 is defined by (4.3), and Ω δ and Ω δ ′′ are measurable subsets of Ω such that

Ω δ = { x Ω : | y ( x ) | δ } , Ω δ ′′ = { x Ω : 0 < | y ( x ) | < δ } .

Following [[34], p.598] (see also [38]), we have: for any ε>0 there exists a positive value δ 0 >0 such that

g ( θ ) λ ( p 2 ) | y | p 4 ( y , h ) R N y | y | p 2 h L q ( Ω δ ; R N ) < ε 2 ,
(4.5)
g ( θ ) λ ( p 2 ) | y | p 4 ( y , h ) R N y | y | p 2 h L q ( Ω δ ′′ ; R N ) < ε 2
(4.6)

for all δ(0, δ 0 ), θ(0,λ), and λ>0 small enough. Since | S 0 |=0 by the initial assumptions, it follows from (4.5)-(4.6) that the vector-valued function | y | p 2 y is Gâteaux differentiable. Hence, the operator Δ p (u,y)=div(u(x) | y | p 2 y) is Gâteaux differentiable for any regular point y W 0 1 , p (Ω) and for any admissible control u A ad , and its Gâteaux derivative takes the form (4.4). □

Since Gâteaux differentiability of the operator y Δ p (u,y) implies the existence of Gâteaux derivative for the functional

φ ( y ) = Δ p ( u , y ) , μ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = Ω u ( x ) ( | y | p 2 y , μ ) R N d x , φ : W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) R

such that

φ G ( y ) , h W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = ( Δ p ( u , y ) ) G [ h ] , μ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ,μ W 0 1 , p (Ω),

we arrive at the following obvious consequence of Lemma 4.3.

Corollary 4.4 Let u A ad and λ W 0 1 , p (Ω) be given elements, and let y W 0 1 , p (Ω) be a regular point of the Lagrangian (4.1). Then the mapping

W 0 1 , p (Ω)yΛ(u,y,μ)=I(u,y)+ a u (y,μ) f , μ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) R

is Gâteaux differentiable at y and its Gâteaux derivative,

Λ G (u,y,μ) W 1 , q (Ω),

exists and takes the form

Λ G ( u , y , μ ) , h W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = p Ω | y y d | p 2 ( y y d , h ) R N d x + Ω ( u ( x ) | y | p 2 μ , h ) R N d x + ( p 2 ) Ω u ( x ) | y | p 4 ( y , μ ) R N ( y , h ) R N d x .
(4.7)

Remark 4.2 In view of the equality

( y , μ ) R N y=[yy]μ,

the last term in (4.7) can be rewritten as follows:

(p2) Ω u(x) | y | p 4 ( [ y y ] μ , h ) R N dx.

Before deriving the optimality conditions, we need the following auxiliary result.

Lemma 4.5 Let u A ad , y W 0 1 , p (Ω), and v W 0 1 , p (Ω) be given distributions. Assume that each point of the segment [y,v]={y+α(vy):α[0,1]} W 0 1 , p (Ω) is regular for the mapping vΛ(u,v,μ). Then there exists a positive value ε(0,1) such that

Λ ( u , v , μ ) Λ ( u , y , μ ) = Λ G ( u , y + ε h , μ ) , h W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = p Ω | y + ε h y d | p 2 ( y + ε h y d , h ) R N d x + Ω u ( x ) | y + ε h | p 2 ( μ , h ) R N d x + ( p 2 ) Ω u ( x ) | y + ε h | p 4 × ( [ ( y + ε h ) ( y + ε h ) ] μ , h ) R N d x
(4.8)

with h=vy.

Proof For given u, μ, y d , y, and v, let us consider the scalar function φ(t)=Λ(u,y+t(vy),μ). Since by Corollary 4.4, the functional Λ(u,,μ) is Gâteaux differentiable at each point of the segment [y,v], it follows that the function φ=φ(t) is differentiable on (0,1) and

φ (t)= Λ G ( u , y + t ( v y ) , λ ) , v y W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ,t(0,1).

To conclude the proof, it remains to take into account (4.7) and apply the Mean Value Theorem:

φ(1)φ(0)= φ (ε)for some ε(0,1).

 □

5 Formalism of the quasi-adjoint technique

We begin with the following assumption:

(H1) The distribution f W 1 , q (Ω) is such that, for each admissible control u A ad , the corresponding weak solution y=y(u) of the nonlinear Dirichlet boundary value problem (2.3) is a regular point of the mapping yΛ(u,y,λ).

Let ( u 0 , y 0 )Ξ be an optimal pair for problem (3.1)-(3.3). Then

ΔΛ=Λ(u,y,λ)Λ( u 0 , y 0 ,λ)0,(u,y)Ξ,λ W 0 1 , p (Ω).
(5.1)

Hence, splitting it in two terms, we obtain

Λ ( u , y , λ ) Λ ( u 0 , y 0 , λ ) = Λ ( u , y , λ ) Λ ( u , y 0 , λ ) + Λ ( u , y 0 , λ ) Λ ( u 0 , y 0 , λ ) = Δ y Λ ( u , y 0 , λ ) + Λ ( u u 0 , y 0 , λ ) 0 ,
(5.2)

for all λ W 0 1 , p (Ω) and u A ad such that (u u 0 ) A ad .

Since the set of admissible controls A ad L 1 (Ω) has an empty topological interior, we justify the choice of perturbation for an optimal control as follows:

u θ := u 0 +θ( u ˆ u 0 ),

where ( u ˆ , y ˆ )Ξ is an arbitrary admissible pair, and θ[0,1]. Then due to Hypothesis (H1) and Remark 4.1, we can suppose that each point of the segment [ y 0 , y θ ] W 0 1 , p (Ω) is regular for the mapping vΛ(u,v,λ), where y θ :=y( u θ )=y( u 0 +θ( u ˆ u 0 )) is the corresponding solution of boundary value problem (3.2)-(3.3). Hence, by Lemma 4.5, there exists a value ε θ (0,1) such that condition (5.1) can be represented as follows:

Δ Λ = Λ ( u θ , y θ , λ ) Λ ( u 0 , y 0 , λ ) = Λ G ( u θ , y 0 + ε θ ( y θ y 0 ) , λ ) , y θ y 0 W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) + Λ ( u θ u 0 , y 0 , λ ) = Λ G ( u θ , y 0 + ε θ ( y θ y 0 ) , λ ) , y θ y 0 W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) + Λ ( θ ( u ˆ u 0 ) , y 0 , λ ) 0 .
(5.3)

Using (4.7), we obtain

Δ Λ = p Ω | y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d , y θ y 0 ) R N d x + Ω u θ | y ε θ , θ | p 2 ( λ , y θ y 0 ) R N d x + ( p 2 ) Ω u θ | y ε θ , θ | p 4 ( [ y ε θ , θ y ε θ , θ ] λ , y θ y 0 ) R N d x + θ Ω ( u ˆ u 0 ) ( | y 0 | p 2 y 0 , λ ) R N d x 0 , u ˆ A ad ,
(5.4)

where y ε θ , θ = y 0 + ε θ ( y θ y 0 ).

Now we introduce the concept of quasi-adjoint states that was first considered for linear problems by Serovajskiy [25].

Definition 5.1 We say that, for given θ[0,1] and u ˆ A ad , a distribution ψ ε θ , θ is the quasi-adjoint state to y 0 W 0 1 , p (Ω) if ψ ε θ , θ satisfies the following integral identity:

Ω u θ | y ε θ , θ | p 2 ( [ I + ( p 2 ) y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | ] ψ ε θ , θ , φ ) R N d x + p Ω | y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d , φ ) R N d x = 0 , φ W 0 1 , p ( Ω )
(5.5)

or in the operator form

div ( u θ | y ε θ , θ | p 2 [ I + ( p 2 ) y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | ] ψ ε θ , θ ) = p div ( | y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d ) ) in  D ( Ω ) .
(5.6)

Here, IL( R N ; R N ) is the identity matrix, y θ :=y( u θ )=y( u 0 +θ( u ˆ u 0 )) is the solution of problem (3.2)-(3.3), y ε θ , θ = y 0 + ε θ ( y θ y 0 ), and ε θ =ε( u θ )(0,1) is a constant coming from equality (5.3).

Let us assume, for a moment, that quasi-adjoint state ψ ε θ , θ to y 0 W 0 1 , p (Ω) is a distribution of W 0 1 , p (Ω). Then we can define the element λ in (5.4) as the quasi-adjoint state, that is, we can set λ= ψ ε θ , θ . As a result, the increment of Lagrangian (5.4) can be simplified to the form

Ω ( u ˆ u 0 ) ( | y 0 | p 2 y 0 , ψ ε θ , θ ) R N dx0, u ˆ A ad .
(5.7)

Thus, in order to derive the necessary optimality conditions and provide their substantial analysis, it remains to pass to the limit in (5.5)-(5.7) as θ+0, and to show that the sequence of quasi-adjoint states { ψ ε , θ } θ 0 is defined in a unique way through relation (5.5) and it is compact with respect to the weak topology of W 0 1 , p (Ω).

6 The Hardy Inequality and asymptotic behavior of quasi-adjoint states

The main goal of this section is to study the well-posedness of variational problem (5.5) and describe the asymptotic behavior of its solutions as parameter θ tends to zero.

We begin with the following evident consequence of Proposition 3.4.

Lemma 6.1 Assume that u k ,u A ad and u k u strongly in L (Ω). Then, for the corresponding solutions of boundary value problem (3.2)-(3.3), we have strong convergence y k =y( u k )y=y(u) in W 0 1 , p (Ω).

Since, by the initial suppositions, u θ u 0 in L (Ω) as θ0, we immediately arrive at the following consequence of Lemma 6.1.

Corollary 6.2

  1. (i)

    y θ y 0 in W 0 1 , p (Ω) as θ0;

  2. (ii)

    y ε θ , θ y 0 in W 0 1 , p (Ω) as θ0.

Further, we note that

(A1) if r(1,p], where p2, and f,g L p (Ω), then

| | f ( x ) | r | g ( x ) | r |r ( | f ( x ) | + | g ( x ) | ) r 1 |f(x)g(x)|,a.e. in Ω,
(6.1)

and, hence, by the Hölder Inequality,

| f L r ( Ω ) r g L r ( Ω ) r | = | Ω | f | r d x Ω | g | r d x | Ω | | f | r | g | r | d x f g L p ( Ω ) ( Ω ( | f | + | g | ) ( r 1 ) p / ( p 1 ) d x ) ( p 1 ) / p f g L p ( Ω ) | f | + | g | L p ( Ω ) r 1 | Ω | ( p r ) / p .
(6.2)

(A2) If r[0,1] and f,g L p (Ω) then

| | f ( x ) | r | g ( x ) | r | | f ( x ) g ( x ) | r ,a.e. in Ω,
(6.3)

and, therefore,

| f L r ( Ω ) r g L r ( Ω ) r | Ω | f g | r dx f g L p ( Ω ) r |Ω | ( p r ) / p .
(6.4)

Then, in view of Corollary 6.2 and estimates (6.2) and (6.4), we can give the following obvious conclusion.

Corollary 6.3 For any r[0,p] with p2, we have | y ε θ , θ | r | y 0 | r in L 1 (Ω) as θ0.

Our next intention is to study the variational problem (5.5). With that in mind, we rewrite it in the form

div( ρ θ A θ ψ ε θ , θ )= f θ in Ω,
(6.5)

where

ρ θ := | y ε θ , θ | p 2 ,
(6.6)
A θ := u θ [I+ C θ ]= u θ [ I + ( p 2 ) y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | ] ,
(6.7)
f θ :=pdiv ( | y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d ) ) .
(6.8)

To begin with, we make use of the following observation.

Proposition 6.4 Let ( u 0 , y 0 )Ξ be an optimal pair for problem (3.1)-(3.3). Then, for any θ[0,1] and u ˆ A ad , we have:

  1. (1)

    A θ L (Ω; S sym N ), where S sym N denotes the set of all N×N symmetric matrices, which are obviously determined by N(N+1)/2 scalars.

  2. (2)

    α | ξ | 2 ( ξ , A θ ξ ) R N β[1+(p2) 2 N 1 ] | ξ | 2 for all ξ R N .

Proof The first property is obvious. To prove the second one, it enough to take into account the definition of the class of admissible controls A ad and the following chain of estimates:

α | ξ | 2 ( ξ , u θ I ξ ) R N ( ξ , u θ I ξ ) R N + ( ξ , u θ C θ ξ ) R N = ( ξ , u θ I ξ ) R N + ( p 2 ) u θ ( y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | , ξ ) R N 2 β | ξ | 2 + ( p 2 ) β ( ξ 1 + + ξ N ) 2 β [ 1 + ( p 2 ) 2 N 1 ] | ξ | 2 .

 □

Proposition 6.5

  1. (a)

    ρ θ := | y ε θ , θ | p 2 | y 0 | p 2 =: ρ 0 in L 1 (Ω) as θ0;

  2. (b)

    A θ A 0 in L r (Ω; S sym N ) for any r[1,+) and A θ A 0 in L (Ω; S sym N ) as θ0;

  3. (c)

    ρ θ A θ ρ 0 A 0 = u 0 [I+(p2) y 0 | y 0 | y 0 | y 0 | ] in L 1 (Ω; R N ) as θ0.

Proof Validity of assertions (a)-(b) immediately follows from Corollary 6.3 and Propositions 3.2 and 6.4. The strong convergence property in (c) is a direct consequence of the Lebesgue Convergence Theorem. □

The following results are crucial for our further analysis.

Lemma 6.6 Assume that, for given θ[0,1] and u ˆ A ad , ln| y ε θ , θ | L 2 (Ω; R N ). Then each element ψ of W 0 1 , p (Ω) can be represented in a unique way as follows:

ψ= | y ε θ , θ | ( 2 p ) / 2 z θ ,where  z θ W 0 1 , 1 (Ω) L 2 (Ω).
(6.9)

Proof Let us fix an element ψ W 0 1 , p (Ω). Then for z θ := | y ε θ , θ | ( p 2 ) / 2 ψ, by the Hölder Inequality with p =p/2 and q =p/(p2), we have

z θ L 2 ( Ω ) 2 = Ω | y ε θ , θ | p 2 ψ 2 d x y ε θ , θ L p ( Ω ; R N ) p 2 ψ L p ( Ω ) 2 C y ε θ , θ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) p 2 ψ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) 2 < ,

where the constant C comes from the Poincaré Inequality. Using the evident equality

z θ = ( 1 2 ρ ψ ln ρ + ρ ψ ) | ρ = | y ε θ , θ | p 2 ,

and applying the Hölder Inequality with exponents p =2(p1)/(p2) and q =2(p1)/p for the first term and with p =p/2 and q =p/(p2) for the second one, we get

z θ L 1 ( Ω ; R N ) p 2 2 Ω | y ε θ , θ | ( p 2 ) / 2 | ψ | | ln | y ε θ , θ | | d x + | Ω | 1 / 2 ( Ω | y ε θ , θ | p 2 | ψ | 2 d x ) 1 / 2 p 2 2 ψ L p ( Ω ) ( Ω | y ε θ , θ | ( p 2 ) p 2 ( p 1 ) | ln | y ε θ , θ | | p p 1 d x ) ( p 1 ) / p + | Ω | 1 / 2 y ε θ , θ L p ( Ω ; R N ) ( p 2 ) / 2 ψ L p ( Ω ; R N ) p 2 2 ψ L p ( Ω ) y ε θ , θ L p ( Ω ; R N ) ( p 2 ) / 2 ln | y ε θ , θ | L 2 ( Ω ; R N ) + | Ω | 1 / 2 y ε θ , θ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ( p 2 ) / 2 ψ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ( p 2 2 C ln | y ε θ , θ | L 2 ( Ω ; R N ) + | Ω | 1 / 2 ) y ε θ , θ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ( p 2 ) / 2 ψ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) < .

Thus, z θ W 1 , 1 (Ω) L 2 (Ω). Since the element z θ := | y ε θ , θ | ( p 2 ) / 2 ψ inherits the trace properties along Ω from its parent element ψ, we finally obtain z θ W 0 1 , 1 (Ω) L 2 (Ω). The proof is complete. □

As an obvious consequence of this result and continuity of the embedding of Sobolev spaces H 0 1 (Ω) W 0 1 , 1 (Ω), we can give the following conclusion.

Corollary 6.7 If, for given θ[0,1] and u ˆ A ad , ln| y ε θ , θ | L 2 (Ω; R N ), then there exists a dense subset D( y ε θ , θ ) of H 0 1 (Ω) such that

| y ε θ , θ | ( 2 p ) / 2 z W 0 1 , p (Ω),zD( y ε θ , θ ).
(6.10)

Taking this fact into account, it is plausible to introduce the following linear mapping:

F:D( y ε θ , θ ) H 0 1 (Ω) W 0 1 , p (Ω),where Fz= | y ε θ , θ | ( 2 p ) / 2 z.
(6.11)

Since domain D( y ε θ , θ ) of is dense in Banach space H 0 1 (Ω), it follows that for , as for a densely defined operator, there exists an adjoint operator

F :D ( F ) W 1 , q (Ω) H 1 (Ω)

such that

F v , z H 1 ( Ω ) , H 0 1 ( Ω ) = v , F z W 1 , q ( Ω ) , W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) ,zD( y ε θ , θ ) and vD ( F ) ,

where

D ( F ) = { v W 1 , q ( Ω ) |  there exists  C > 0  such that for all  z D ( y ε θ , θ ) | v , F z W 1 , q ( Ω ) , W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) | C z H 0 1 ( Ω ) } .

Notice that, in general, the adjoint operator F is not densely defined.

Let us consider the following linear operator:

A θ ψ:=div( ρ θ A θ ψ),ψ W 0 1 , p (Ω),

where ρ θ and A θ are defined by (6.6)-(6.7). By Proposition 6.4, we have

ρ θ A θ ψ L q ( Ω ; R N ) q A θ L ( Ω ; S sym N ) q Ω | y ε θ , θ | ( p 2 ) p / ( p 1 ) | ψ | p / ( p 1 ) d x ( p = p 1 p 2 q = p 1 ) A θ L ( Ω ; S sym N ) q y ε θ , θ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) p ( p 2 ) / ( p 1 ) ψ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) p / ( p 1 ) .

Hence, A θ ψ: W 0 1 , p (Ω) W 1 , q (Ω) and this operator is obviously monotone,

A θ ( ψ ϕ ) , ψ ϕ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = Ω | y ε θ , θ | p 2 ( A θ ( ψ ϕ ) , ψ ϕ ) R N 0 ,

and demi-continuous. However, because of the multiplier ρ θ = | y ε θ , θ | p 2 , this operator can lose the coercivity property.

Let λ be a positive constant such that λ< λ := ( N 2 ) 2 /4. Let { x 1 , x 2 ,, x L }Ω be a given collection of points. Let u A ad be a given control. We define a nonempty subset M ( Ω ) u W 0 1 , p (Ω) as follows: y M u (Ω) if and only if

C ˆ (Ω) V u , y (x) 2 λ L i = 1 L 1 | x x i | 2 a.e. in Ω,
(6.12)

for some positive constant C ˆ (Ω)>0, where

V u , y (x)=(2p)div ( A ( u , y ) ln | y | ) ( p 2 ) 2 2 ( ln | y | , A ( u , y ) ln | y | ) R N ,
(6.13)
A(u,y)=u [ I + ( p 2 ) y | y | y | y | ] .
(6.14)

We are now in a position to give an important property of the operator A θ ψ: W 0 1 , p (Ω) W 1 , q (Ω).

Lemma 6.8 Assume that, for given u ˆ A ad , θ[0,1], and ε θ (0,1), the distribution y ε θ , θ W 0 1 , p (Ω) is such that

ln| y ε θ , θ | L 2 ( Ω ; R N ) and y ε θ , θ M u θ (Ω) W 0 1 , p (Ω).

Then

A θ ( F z ) , F v W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = B θ ( z ) , v H 1 ( Ω ) , H 0 1 ( Ω ) ,
(6.15)

where

B θ (z)=div( A θ z) 1 2 V θ (x)z,
(6.16)
V θ ( x ) = ( 2 p ) div ( A θ ln | y ε θ , θ | ) ( p 2 ) 2 2 ( ln | y ε θ , θ | , A θ ln | y ε θ , θ | ) R N ,
(6.17)

and the linear operator B θ defines an isomorphism from H 0 1 (Ω) into its dual H 1 (Ω).

Proof Let v and z be arbitrary elements of D( y ε θ , θ ) H 0 1 (Ω). Then by Corollary 6.7, we have Fz,Fv W 0 1 , p (Ω). Further, following the definition of the operator , we can provide the following chain of transformations:

A θ ( F z ) = div ( ρ θ A θ ( F z ) ) = div ( ρ θ A θ ( z ρ θ ) ) = div ( 1 2 ρ θ 1 / 2 z A θ ρ θ + ρ θ 1 / 2 A θ z ) = 1 4 ρ θ 3 / 2 z ( ρ θ , A θ ρ θ ) R N + 1 2 ρ 1 / 2 ( z , A θ ρ θ ) R N + 1 2 ρ θ 1 / 2 z div ( A θ ρ θ ) 1 2 ρ θ 1 / 2 ( ρ θ , A θ z ) R N ρ θ 1 / 2 div ( A θ z ) = ρ θ 1 / 2 div ( A θ z ) 1 2 ρ θ 1 / 2 [ 1 2 ( ρ θ ρ θ , A θ ρ θ ρ θ ) R N 1 ρ θ div ( A θ ρ θ ) ] z = ρ θ 1 / 2 ( div ( A θ z ) 1 2 [ 1 2 ( ln ρ θ , A θ ln ρ θ ) R N 1 ρ θ div ( ρ θ A θ ln ρ θ ) ] z ) = ρ θ 1 / 2 ( div ( A θ z ) 1 2 V θ ( x ) z ) .

Hence,

A θ ( F z ) , F v W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = div ( ρ θ A θ ( z ρ θ ) ) , v ρ θ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = ρ θ 1 / 2 ( div ( A θ z ) 1 2 V θ ( x ) z ) , v ρ θ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = div ( A θ z ) 1 2 V θ ( x ) z , v H 1 ( Ω ) ; H 0 1 ( Ω ) = B θ ( z ) , v H 1 ( Ω ) , H 0 1 ( Ω ) .

To conclude the proof it remains to show that operator B θ :=div( A θ ) 1 2 V θ (x) defines an isomorphism from H 0 1 (Ω) into its dual H 1 (Ω). With that in mind, we make use of the following version of the Hardy-Poincaré Inequality: for a given internal point x Ω there exists a constant C ˆ (Ω)>0 such that for every v H 0 1 (Ω)

Ω [ | v | R N 2 λ v 2 | x x | R N 2 ] dx C ˆ (Ω) Ω v 2 dx,

where λ := ( N 2 ) 2 /4 and N2.

According to this result and the fact that y ε θ , θ M u θ (Ω), we have

C ˆ (Ω) V θ (x) 2 λ L i = 1 L 1 | x x i | 2 < ( N 2 ) 2 2 L i = 1 L 1 | x x i | 2 a.e. in Ω
(6.18)

and, therefore,

( 1 + C ˆ ( Ω ) 2 C ) v H 0 1 ( Ω ) 2 Ω [ | v | 2 + C ˆ ( Ω ) 2 v 2 ] d x Ω [ | v | 2 λ L ( i = 1 L 1 | x x i | ) v 2 ] d x = ( 1 λ λ ) Ω | v | 2 d x + λ λ Ω [ | v | 2 λ L ( i = 1 L 1 | x x i | ) v 2 ] d x ( 1 λ λ ) Ω | v | 2 d x + λ C ˆ ( Ω ) λ Ω v 2 d x ( 1 λ λ ) v H 0 1 ( Ω ) 2 .
(6.19)

Thus, in view of (6.18)-(6.19),

[ v ] θ 2 := Ω [ | v | 2 1 2 V θ ( x ) v 2 ] dx= Ω [ ( v , v ) R N 1 2 V θ ( x ) v 2 ] dx

is equivalent to the standard norm of H 0 1 (Ω), and therefore, the operator B θ given by (6.16) defines an isomorphism from H 0 1 (Ω) into its dual H 1 (Ω). □

The next step of our analysis is to show that, for every u ˆ A ad , θ[0,1], and ε θ (0,1), the quasi-adjoint state ψ ε θ , θ to y 0 W 0 1 , p (Ω) can be defined as a unique solution to the Dirichlet boundary value problem (6.5). With that in mind, we make use of the following hypothesis.

(H2) For a given distribution f W 1 , q (Ω) with q= p p 1 and p2, the weak solutions y(u) of the nonlinear Dirichlet boundary value problem (2.3) satisfy the property: y(u) M w (Ω) and ln|y(u)| L 2 (Ω; R N ) for every pair of admissible controls u,w A ad .

Lemma 6.9 Assume that the Hypothesis (H2) is valid. Then the Dirichlet boundary value problem (6.5) has a unique solution ψ ε θ , θ W 0 1 , p (Ω) for every u ˆ A ad , θ[0,1], and ε θ (0,1).

Proof Let ( u 0 , y 0 )Ξ be an optimal pair to problem (3.1)-(3.3). Let y θ :=y( u θ )=y( u 0 +θ( u ˆ u 0 )) be the solution of problem (3.2)-(3.3) for given u ˆ A ad , θ[0,1], and let y ε θ , θ = y 0 + ε θ ( y θ y 0 ), where ε θ takes an arbitrary value in (0,1). Since, by the initial assumptions, f θ :=pdiv( | y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d )) W 1 , q (Ω), it follows that

div ( | y ε θ , θ | p 2 A θ ψ ) f θ , ϕ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) =0,

for all ϕF(D( y ε θ , θ ))= W 0 1 , p (Ω). Then Lemma 6.8 implies that

div ( | y ε θ , θ | p 2 A θ ψ ) , ϕ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = A θ ( F z ) , F v W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = div ( A θ z ) 1 2 V θ ( x ) z , v H 1 ( Ω ) ; H 0 1 ( Ω ) = B θ ( z ) , v H 1 ( Ω ) , H 0 1 ( Ω ) , f θ , ϕ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = p Ω | y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d , ϕ ) R N d x = p div ( | y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d ) ) , ϕ W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = f θ , F v W 1 , q ( Ω ) ; W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = F f θ , v H 1 ( Ω ) , H 0 1 ( Ω )

provided ϕF(D( y ε θ , θ )). By the Hardy-Poincaré Inequality (see (6.19)), the expression

Ω [ ( v , z ) R N 1 2 V θ ( x ) v z ] dx

can be considered as a scalar product in H 0 1 (Ω). Then, in view of the Riesz Representation Theorem, we conclude to the existence of a unique element z θ H 0 1 (Ω) such that

B θ ( z θ ) , v H 1 ( Ω ) , H 0 1 ( Ω ) = F f θ , v H 1 ( Ω ) , H 0 1 ( Ω ) ,v H 0 1 (Ω).

As a result, we have: ψ ε θ , θ :=F z θ = | y ε θ , θ | ( p 2 ) / 2 z θ is a unique solution to the Dirichlet boundary value problem (2.3). Moreover, by Corollary 6.7, we finally get ψ ε θ , θ W 0 1 , p (Ω). □

In view of Lemma 6.9, it makes a sense to accept the following hypothesis.

(H3) For given distributions f W 1 , q (Ω) and y d W 0 1 , p (Ω) with q= p p 1 and p2, the weak solution y(u) to the nonlinear Dirichlet boundary value problem (2.3) satisfies the properties

( | y ( u ) | ) L p ( Ω ; R N ) and | y d | | y ( u ) | L (Ω),u A ad .

Lemma 6.10 Assume that Hypotheses (H2)-(H3) are valid. Then there exists a constant C >0 independent of θ such that sup θ 0 ψ ε θ , θ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) C , i.e. the sequence of quasi-adjoint states { ψ ε θ , θ } θ 0 to y 0 W 0 1 , p (Ω) is relatively compact with respect to the weak convergence of W 0 1 , p (Ω).

Proof Due to Hypothesis (H2) and Lemma 6.9, the sequence of quasi-adjoint states { ψ ε θ , θ } θ 0 to y 0 W 0 1 , p (Ω) can be defined in a unique way ψ ε θ , θ = | y ε θ , θ | ( 2 p ) / 2 z θ for all θ[0,1], where z θ is the solution of the following Dirichlet problem:

B θ z θ =p F [ div ( | y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d ) ) ] , z θ H 0 1 (Ω).
(6.20)

Therefore, in order to prove this lemma, it is enough to show that the sequence { z θ } θ 0 is uniformly bounded in H 0 1 (Ω). To this end, we note that the integral identity (6.20) leads to the corresponding energy equality

Ω [ | z θ | 2 1 2 V θ ( x ) z θ 2 ] dx= F f θ , z θ H 1 ( Ω ) , H 0 1 ( Ω ) .
(6.21)

Since

| F f θ , z θ H 1 ( Ω ) , H 0 1 ( Ω ) | p Ω | y ε θ , θ y d | p 1 | ( z θ | y ε θ , θ | ( 2 p ) / 2 ) | d x p Ω | y ε θ , θ y d | p 1 | y ε θ , θ | ( p 1 ) ( p 2 2 | z θ | | ln | y ε θ , θ | | + | z θ | ) | y ε θ , θ | p 1 | y ε θ , θ | ( p 2 ) / 2 d x b y ( H 3 ) p ( vrai sup x Ω | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y d | y ε θ , θ | | ) p 1 × Ω ( p 2 2 | z θ | | y ε θ , θ | p / 2 | ln | y ε θ , θ | | + | y ε θ , θ | p / 2 | z θ | ) d x p ( p 2 ) 2 ( 1 + | y d | | y ε θ , θ | L ( Ω ) ) p z θ L 2 ( Ω ) ( Ω | y ε θ , θ | p | ln | y ε θ , θ | | 2 d x ) 1 / 2 + p ( 1 + | y d | | y ε θ , θ | L ( Ω ) ) p y ε θ , θ L p ( Ω ; R N ) z θ L 2 ( Ω ; R N ) ,

and

z θ L 2 ( Ω ) C z θ L 2 ( Ω ; R N ) by the Poincaré Inequality , | y d | | y ε θ , θ | L ( Ω ) < + by Hypothesis (H3) , 2 Ω | y ε θ , θ | p | ln | y ε θ , θ | | 2 d x = Ω | y ε θ , θ | p 2 | ( | y ε θ , θ | ) | 2 d x ( by Hypothesis (H3) ) 1 y ε θ , θ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) p 2 ( | y ε θ , θ | ) L p ( Ω ; R N ) 2 < + ,

it follows that there exists a constant C 0 independent of θ such that

| F f θ , z θ H 1 ( Ω ) , H 0 1 ( Ω ) | C 0 z θ H 0 1 ( Ω ) .

As a result, in view of (6.19), the energy equality (6.21) immediately leads to the estimate.

( 1 λ λ ) z θ H 0 1 ( Ω ) C 1 + C 2 ,θ[0,1].

This concludes the proof. □

7 Optimality conditions

We are now in a position to derive the first-order optimality conditions for optimal control problem (3.1)-(3.3).

Theorem 7.1 Let us suppose that f W 1 , q (Ω), y d W 0 1 , p (Ω), and A ad are given with p2. Let ( u 0 , y 0 ) L (Ω)× W 0 1 , p (Ω) be an optimal pair to problem (3.1)-(3.3). Let ψ ε θ , θ be a quasi-adjoint state to y 0 W 0 1 , p (Ω) defined for each ε θ (0,1) and θ[0,1] by (5.5). Then Hypotheses (H1)-(H3) imply the existence of an element ψ W 0 1 , p (Ω) such that (within a subsequence) ψ ε θ , θ ψ in W 0 1 , p (Ω) as θ0, and

Ω (u u 0 ) ( | y 0 | p 2 y 0 , ψ ) R N dx0,u A ad ,
(7.1)
div ( u 0 ( x ) | y 0 | p 2 y 0 ) =fin  D (Ω),
(7.2)
div ( u 0 | y 0 | p 2 [ I + ( p 2 ) y 0 | y 0 | y 0 | y 0 | ] ψ ) = p div ( | y 0 y d | p 2 ( y 0 y d ) ) in  D ( Ω ) .
(7.3)

Proof Let ( U ˆ , y ˆ )Ξ be an admissible pair. Let y θ :=y( u θ )=y( u 0 +θ( u ˆ u 0 )) be the solution of problem (3.2)-(3.3) for given u ˆ A ad and θ[0,1]. Then, as was shown at the end of Section 5, there exists a value ε θ [0,1] such that the increment of Lagrangian ΔΛ=Λ( u θ , y θ ,λ)Λ( u 0 , y 0 ,λ) can be simplified to the form (5.7), provided the element λ has been defined as the quasi-adjoint state, that is, λ= ψ ε θ , θ . By Lemmas 6.9-6.10, the sequence of quasi-adjoint states { ψ ε θ , θ } θ 0 to y 0 W 0 1 , p (Ω) can be defined in a unique way and is bounded in W 0 1 , p (Ω). Hence, there exists an element ψ W 0 1 , p (Ω) such that, up to a subsequence of { ψ ε θ , θ } θ 0 , we have ψ ε θ , θ ψ in W 0 1 , p (Ω) as θ0. It remains to pass to the limit in (5.5), (5.7) as θ+0 and to show that in the limit we will arrive at the relations (7.3) and (7.1), respectively. To this end, we note that

(A1) by the initial suppositions, u θ u 0 in L (Ω) as θ0;

(A2) by Corollary 6.2, y θ y 0 in W 0 1 , p (Ω) as θ0, and, hence, y ε θ , θ := y 0 + ε θ ( y θ y 0 ) y 0 in W 0 1 , p (Ω) as θ0;

(A3) up to a subsequence

A θ : = u θ ( I + ( p 2 ) y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | ) u 0 ( I + ( p 2 ) y 0 | y 0 | y 0 | y 0 | ) = : A 0 in  L ( Ω ; S sym N )

by the strong convergence of u θ u 0 in L (Ω) and convergence y ε θ , θ y 0 almost everywhere in Ω;

(A4) if p>3, then

| | a | p 2 | b | p 2 |(p2) ( | a | + | b | ) p 3 |ab|,a,bR;
(7.4)

(A5) if 2p3, then

| | a | p 2 | b | p 2 | | a b | p 2 ,a,bR.
(7.5)

Then the limit passage in (5.7) immediately leads to (7.1). Therefore, in order to end the proof, it remains to establish the validity of relation (7.3). With that in mind, we rewrite (5.5) as follows:

I 1 θ +p I 2 θ =0,

where

I 1 θ = Ω | y ε θ , θ | p 2 ( u θ [ I + ( p 2 ) y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | y ε θ , θ | ] ψ ε θ , θ , φ ) R N d x = Ω | y ε θ , θ | p 2 ( A θ ψ ε θ , θ , φ ) R N d x , I 2 θ = Ω | y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d , φ ) R N d x ,

and φ is an arbitrary element of W 0 1 , p (Ω).

Since

I 1 θ = Ω ( | y ε θ , θ | p 2 | y 0 | p 2 ) ( A θ ψ ε θ , θ , φ ) R N d x + Ω | y 0 | p 2 ( ( A θ A 0 ) ψ ε θ , θ , φ ) R N d x + Ω | y 0 | p 2 ( A 0 ( ψ ε θ , θ ψ ) , φ ) R N d x + Ω | y 0 | p 2 ( A 0 ψ , φ ) R N d x = J 1 , 1 θ + J 1 , 2 θ + J 1 , 3 θ + J 1 , 4 ,

let us show that lim θ 0 J 1 , j θ =0 (j=1,2,3), and, hence, I 1 θ J 1 , 4 as θ+0.

Using the Hölder Inequality and estimate (2) in Proposition 6.4, we have

| J 1 , 1 θ | Ω | | y ε θ , θ | p 2 | y 0 | p 2 | A θ S sym N | ψ ε θ , θ | | φ | d x β [ 1 + ( p 2 ) 2 N 1 ] Ω | | y ε θ , θ | p 2 | y 0 | p 2 | | ψ ε θ , θ | | φ | d x .
(7.6)

Therefore, if p>3, then, by (A4) and Hölder’s Inequality with Hölder conjugates p = p p 2 >1 and q = p 2 , we can estimate (7.6) as follows:

| J 1 , 1 θ | β [ 1 + ( p 2 ) 2 N 1 ] ( p 2 ) × Ω ( | y ε θ , θ | + | y 0 | ) p 3 | y ε θ , θ y 0 | | ψ ε θ , θ | | φ | d x c 1 ( Ω ( | y ε θ , θ | + | y 0 | ) p ( p 3 ) p 2 | y ε θ , θ y 0 | p p 2 d x ) p 2 p × ( Ω | ψ ε θ , θ | p 2 | φ | p 2 d x ) 2 p ( by Hölder’s Inequality with  p = p 2 p 3 , q = ( p 2 ) ) c 1 ( Ω ( | y ε θ , θ | + | y 0 | ) p d x ) p 3 p ( Ω | y ε θ , θ y 0 | p d x ) 1 p × ψ ε θ , θ L p ( Ω ; R N ) φ L p ( Ω ; R N ) .
(7.7)

Since sup θ [ 0 , 1 ] ψ ε θ , θ L p ( Ω ; R N ) <+ by Lemma 6.10, and y ε θ , θ y 0 in W 0 1 , p (Ω) (see the condition (A2)), it follows that

sup θ [ 0 , 1 ] Ω ( | y ε θ , θ | + | y 0 | ) p dx<+, y ε θ , θ y 0 L p ( Ω ; R N ) θ 0 0.

Thus, in view of estimate (7.7), we conclude: lim θ 0 J 1 , 1 θ =0.

As for the case 2p3, the inequality (7.6) and condition (A5) lead to the estimate

| J 1 , 1 θ | c 1 Ω | y ε θ , θ y 0 | p 2 | ψ ε θ , θ ||φ|dx.

Further it remains to repeat the trick like in (7.7). As a result, we obtain

| J 1 , 1 θ | c 1 ( Ω | y ε θ , θ y 0 | p d x ) p 2 p ψ ε θ , θ L p ( Ω ; R N ) φ L p ( Ω ; R N ) .

Therefore, having applied the arguments given before, we can conclude: if 2p3, then lim θ 0 J 1 , 1 θ =0.

As for the term J 1 , 2 θ , we have

| J 1 , 2 θ | Ω | y 0 | p 2 A θ A 0 S sym N | ψ ε θ , θ | | φ | d x c 2 A θ A 0 L ( Ω ; S sym N ) y 0 L p ( Ω ; R N ) p 2 ψ ε θ , θ L p ( Ω ; R N ) φ L p ( Ω ; R N ) c 2 sup θ [ 0 , 1 ] ψ ε θ , θ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) y 0 W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) p 2 φ W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) A θ A 0 L ( Ω ; S sym N ) c 3 A θ A 0 L ( Ω ; S sym N ) b y ( A 3 ) 0 as  θ 0 .
(7.8)

To clarify the asymptotic behavior of the term J 1 , 3 θ as θ tends to zero, we note that

J 1 , 3 θ = Ω | y 0 | p 2 ( ψ ε θ , θ ψ , A 0 φ ) R N dx.

Since φ L p (Ω; R N ), A 0 L (Ω; S sym N ), and y 0 L p (Ω; R N ), it follows that the inclusion A 0 | y 0 | p 2 φ L q (Ω; R N ) holds true with q=p/(p1). Hence, the condition lim θ 0 J 1 , 3 θ =0 is ensured by the weak convergence ψ ε θ , θ ψ in L p (Ω; R N ).

Thus, summing up the results given above, we finally obtain

lim θ 0 I 1 θ = lim θ 0 ( j = 1 3 J 1 , j θ + J 1 , 4 ) = Ω | y 0 | p 2 ( A 0 ψ , φ ) R N dx.
(7.9)

As for the term

I 2 θ := Ω | y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d , φ ) R N dx,

we see that

| y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d ) L q ( Ω ; R N ) with q= p p 1 ,θ[0,1].

Hence, strong convergence y θ y 0 in W 0 1 , p (Ω) implies strong convergence

| y ε θ , θ y d | p 2 ( y ε θ , θ y d ) | y 0 y d | p 2 ( y 0 y d ) in  L q ( Ω ; R N ) .
(7.10)

As a result, we finally get

lim θ 0 I 2 θ = Ω | y 0 y d | p 2 ( y 0 y d , φ ) R N dx,φ W 0 1 , p (Ω).
(7.11)

Thus, combining relations (7.9)-(7.11), it is easy to see that the limit passage in (5.5) leads to the variational statement of the Dirichlet boundary value problem (7.3). The proof is complete. □

8 Conclusions

In this paper the optimal control problem (3.1)-(3.3) for a nonlinear monotone elliptic equation with homogeneous Dirichlet conditions and L (Ω)-control in coefficients of Δ p -Laplacian has been studied. Having defined the class of admissible control in form (2.2), we have proved solvability of the considered problem. After that, using Lagrange principle, the concept of quasi-adjoint system and the well-known Hardy-Poincaré Inequality, we have derived the corresponding optimality system and formulated sufficient conditions under which the degenerate adjoint boundary value problem admits a unique solution.

References

  1. Lurie KA: Optimum control of conductivity of a fluid moving in a channel in a magnetic field. J. Appl. Math. Mech. 1964, 28: 316-327. 10.1016/0021-8928(64)90165-0

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Lurie KA: Applied Optimal Control Theory of Distributed Systems. Plenum, New York; 1993.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Lions JL: Optimal Control of Systems Governed by Partial Differential Equations. Springer, New York; 1971.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Zolezzi T: Teoremi d’esistenza per problemi di controllo ottimo retti da equazioni ellittiche o paraboliche. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova 1970, 44: 155-173.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Murat F: Un contre-exemple pour le problème du contrôle dans les coefficients. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A-B 1971, 273: A708-A711. (in French)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Murat F: Contre-exemples pour divers problèmes où le contrôle intervient dans les coefficients. Ann. Math. Pures Appl. 1977, 112: 49-68. 10.1007/BF02413475

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Tartar L: Problèmes de contrôle des coefficients dans des équations aux dérivées partielles. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 107. In Control Theory, Numerical Methods and Computer Systems Modelling. Edited by: Bensoussan A, Lions JL. Springer, Berlin; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tartar L: The General Theory of Homogenization a Personalized Introduction. Springer, Berlin; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Litvinov VG: Optimization in Elliptic Boundary Value Problems with Applications to Mechanics. Mir, Moskow; 1987. (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pironneau O: Optimal Shape Design for Elliptic Systems. Springer, Berlin; 1984.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Allaire G: Shape Optimization by the Homogenization Method. Springer, Berlin; 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Casas E: Optimal control in the coefficients of elliptic equations with state constraints. Appl. Math. Optim. 1992, 26: 21-37. 10.1007/BF01218394

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Haslinger J, Kocvara M, Leugering G, Stingl M: Multidisciplinary free material optimization. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 2010, 70(7):2709-2728. 10.1137/090774446

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Kogut, OP: Qualitative analysis of one class of optimization problems for nonlinear elliptic operators. PhD thesis at Gluskov Institute of Cybernetics NAS, Kiev (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kogut PI, Leugering G Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications. In Optimal Control Problems for Partial Differential Equations on Reticulated Domains. Approximation and Asymptotic Analysis. Birkhäuser, Boston; 2011.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Kogut PI, Leugering G: Optimal L 1 -control in coefficients for Dirichlet elliptic problems: W -optimal solutions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 150(2):205-232. 10.1007/s10957-011-9840-4

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Kogut PI, Leugering G: Optimal L 1 -control in coefficients for Dirichlet elliptic problems: H -optimal solutions. Z. Anal. Anwend. 2012, 31(1):31-53.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Kogut PI, Leugering G:Matrix-valued L 1 -optimal controls in the coefficients of linear elliptic problems. Z. Anal. Anwend. 2013, 32(4):433-456. 10.4171/ZAA/1493

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Kupenko OP, Manzo R:On an optimal L 1 -control problem in coefficients for linear elliptic variational inequality. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013. 10.1155/2013/821964

    Google Scholar 

  20. D’Apice, C, De Maio, U, Kogut, PI, Manzo, R: On the solvability of an optimal control problem in coefficients for ill-posed elliptic boundary value problems. Adv. Differ. Equ. (to appear)

  21. D’Apice C, De Maio U, Kogut PI: On shape stability of Dirichlet optimal control problems in coefficients for nonlinear elliptic equations. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2010, 15(7-8):689-720.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. D’Apice C, De Maio U, Kogut PI: Optimal control problems in coefficients for degenerate equations of monotone type: shape stability and attainability problems. SIAM J. Control Optim. 2012, 50(3):1174-1199. 10.1137/100815761

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Kogut, PI, Kupenko, OP, Leugering, G: Optimal control problems in coefficients for nonlinear Dirichlet problems of monotone type: optimality conditions. Z. Anal. Anwend. (to appear)

  24. Kupenko OP: Optimal control problems in coefficients for degenerate variational inequalities of monotone type. I. Existence of solutions. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2011, 106(3):88-104.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Serovajskiy SY: Variational inequalities in non-linear optimal control problems. Methods Means Math. Model. 1977, 1: 156-169.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lions JL: Some Methods of Solving Non-Linear Boundary Value Problems. Gauthier-Villars, Paris; 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ju E-Y, Jeong J-M: Optimal control problems for hyperbolic equations with damping terms involving p -Laplacian. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 92

    Google Scholar 

  28. Casado-Diaz J, Couce-Calco J, Martín-Gomez J: Optimality conditions for non-convex multistate control problems in the coefficients. SIAM J. Control Optim. 2004, 43(1):216-239. 10.1137/S0363012902411714

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Casas E, Fernandez LA: Optimal control of quasilinear elliptic equations with non differentiable coefficients at the origin. Rev. Mat. Univ. Complut. Madr. 1991, 4(2-3):227-250.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Krumbiegel K, Rehberg J: Second order sufficient optimality conditions for parabolic optimal control problems with pointwise state constraints. SIAM J. Control Optim. 2013, 51(1):304-331. 10.1137/120871687

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Evans LC, Gariepy RF: Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions. CRC Press, Boca Raton; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gajewski H, Gröger K, Zacharias K: Nichtlineare Operatorgleichungen und Operatordifferentialgleichungen. Akademie Verlag, Berlin; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ivanenko VI, Mel’nik VS: Variational Methods in Control Problems for Systems with Distributed Parameters. Naukova Dumka, Kiev; 1988. (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Al’shin AB, Korpusov MO, Sveshnikov AG: Blow-up in Nonlinear Sobolev Type Equations. de Gruyter, Berlin; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Fursikov AV: Optimal Control of Distributed Systems. Theory and Applications. Am. Math. Soc., Providence; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ioffe A, Tikhomirov V: Extremal Problems. North-Holland, Amsterdam; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Manfredi JJ: p -Harmonic functions in the plane. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1988, 103: 473-479.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Drabek P, Milota Y: Methods of Nonlinear Analysis. Applications to Differential Equations. Birkhäuser, Berlin; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosanna Manzo.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kupenko, O.P., Manzo, R. On optimality conditions for optimal control problem in coefficients for Δ p -Laplacian. Bound Value Probl 2014, 72 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-2770-2014-72

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-2770-2014-72

Keywords