2016
DOI: 10.4171/ifb/354
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the regularity of the interface of a thermodynamically consistent two-phase Stefan problem with surface tension

Abstract: Abstract. We study the regularity of the free boundary arising in a thermodynamically consistent two-phase Stefan problem with surface tension by means of a family of parameter-dependent diffeomorphisms, Lp-maximal regularity theory, and the implicit function theorem.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We are now in a position to prove Theorem 1.3 when σ = 0, where we use a parameter trick which appears, in other forms, also in [7,31,44]. We present a new idea which uses only the abstract result Theorem 1.5 in the context of an evolution problem related to (1.1), and not explicitly the maximal regularity property as in [7,31,44]. The proof when σ > 0 is almost identical and is also discussed below, but it relies on some properties established in Section 6.…”
Section: The Conclusion Is Now Obviousmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We are now in a position to prove Theorem 1.3 when σ = 0, where we use a parameter trick which appears, in other forms, also in [7,31,44]. We present a new idea which uses only the abstract result Theorem 1.5 in the context of an evolution problem related to (1.1), and not explicitly the maximal regularity property as in [7,31,44]. The proof when σ > 0 is almost identical and is also discussed below, but it relies on some properties established in Section 6.…”
Section: The Conclusion Is Now Obviousmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We now come to the proof of our first main result, which is mainly based on the abstract theory for quasilinear parabolic problems due to H. Amann, cf. [3,Section 12], and a recent idea from the proof of [40,Theorem 1.3] where a parameter trick, also used in [7,28,44], is employed in a different manner.…”
Section: Proofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…. , 2 p+1 } and τ ∈ [0, 1] operators A c j,τ ∈ L(H 3 (S), L 2 (S)) (A c j,τ is the complexification of A j,τ defined in (4.10)) such that We now come to the proof our first main result which uses on the one hand the abstract theory for quasilinear parabolic problems outlined in [1][2][3][4][5] (see also [50,Theorem 1.1]), and on the other hand a parameter trick which has been employed in various versions in [8,35,[47][48][49]55] in the context of improving the regularity of solutions to certain parabolic evolution equations. We point out that the parameter trick can only be used because the uniqueness claim of Theorem 1.…”
Section: Noticing Thatmentioning
confidence: 99%