Acta Mathematica Scientia 2018,38B(6):1655–1677

http://actams.wipm.ac.cn

THE COMBINED INVISCID AND NON-RESISTIVE

LIMIT FOR THE NONHOMOGENEOUS
INCOMPRESSIBLE MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC
EQUATIONS WITH NAVIER BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS∗

Zhipeng ZHANG ( ܓ*)

Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics, Beijing 100088, China;
Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China
E-mail : zhpzhp@aliyun.com

Abstract In this paper, we establish the existence of the global weak solutions for the non-
homogeneous incompressible magnetohydrodynamic equations with Navier boundary condi-
tions for the velocity field and the magnetic field in a bounded domain Ω ⊂ R3 . Furthermore,
we prove that as the viscosity and resistivity coefficients go to zero simultaneously, these weak
solutions converge to the strong one of the ideal nonhomogeneous incompressible magneto-
hydrodynamic equations in energy space.
Key words nonhomogeneous incompressible MHD equations; Navier boundary conditions;
inviscid and non-resistive limit
2010 MR Subject Classification 35Q30; 76D03; 76D05; 76D07

1 Introduction
In this paper, we consider the nonhomogeneous incompressible magnetohydrodynamic
(MHD) equations (for example, see [1])


 ρt + u · ∇ρ = 0,



 ρut + ρu · ∇u − H · ∇H + ∇π − ν∆u = 0,
(1.1)

 Ht + u · ∇H − H · ∇u − µ∆H = 0,




div u = div H = 0
in Q := (0, T ) × Ω, where Ω is a smooth bounded domain of R3 and T > 0. The unknowns are
ρ, u = (u1 , u2 , u3 )t , H = (H1 , H2 , H3 )t and π, denoting the density, the velocity, the magnetic
field and the pressure of the fluid, respectively, where (·, ·, ·)t represent the transpose of (·, ·, ·).
The constant ν > 0 is the viscosity coefficient of the fluid, and µ > 0 is the resistivity constant
acting as the magnetic diffusion coefficient of the magnetic field.
∗ Received April 24, 2017; revised October 16, 2017. This paper is supported by the National Natural

Science Foundation of China (11671193) and the China Scholarship Council.

1656 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

We add to ρ, u and H the following initial-boundary value conditions:



 ρ(0) = ρ0 ,

(ρu)(0) = v0 , (1.2)



H(0) = H0
in Ω, and 

 u · n = 0,



 (Su · n)τ = −αuτ ,
(1.3)

 H · n = 0,




(SH · n)τ = −βHτ
on Σ, where Σ := (0, T ) × ∂Ω, and n is the outward unit normal vector to ∂Ω. ρ0 ≥ 0, and v0
has to be at least such that v0 (x) = 0 whenever ρ0 (x) = 0. Moreover, α and β are two given
nonnegative constants, and the constant α measures the tendency of the fluid to slip on the
boundary, S is the strain tensor defined by
1
Sf = (∇f + (∇f )t ),
2
where (∇f )t denotes the transpose of the matrix ∇f , and fτ stands for the tangential part of
f on Σ, i.e.,
fτ = f − (f · n)n.

The boundary condition (1.3)1 and (1.3)2 are the so-called Navier boundary conditions,
which were introduced by Navier in [26] to show that the velocity is proportional to the tangen-
tial part of the stress. This kind boundary condition allows the fluid slip along the boundary
and has important applications for problems with rough boundaries [2, 5].
For the magnetic field H, the Navier boundary conditions (1.3)3 and (1.3)4 can be rewritten
in the form of the vorticity as

H · n = 0, n × (∇ × H) = (BH)τ on Σ, (1.4)

see [33] for details, where B is a smooth symmetric matrix. We remark that the perfectly
conducting boundary conditions for the magnetic field take the form:

H · n = 0, n × (∇ × H) = 0 on Σ. (1.5)

Therefore, the boundary condition (1.3)3 and (1.3)4 can be regarded as the generalization of
(1.5). Additional, the Navier boundary conditions are adaptable to system (1.1), since it ensures
the boundary balance of the quantities on the boundary. The interested reader can refer to
[15, 34].
The problem (1.1)–(1.3) describes the macroscopic behavior of electrically conducting in-
compressible fluids in a magnetic field. Due to the significance of the physical background, the
MHD equations were studied by many physicists and mathematicians on various topics, refer
to [1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16–18, 20–22, 24, 25, 27, 32, 35, 36]. Since the resistivity coefficient µ is
inversely proportional to the electrical conductivity, it is reasonable to assume that there is no
magnetic diffusion when the conducting fluid under consideration is of very high conductivity,
we refer, for example, to [7, 27]. Consequently, for the extremely high electrical conductivity
No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1657

cases which occur frequently in many cosmical and geophysical problems, it is more rational to
ignore the resistivity term µ∆H in (1.1)3 . Thus, it is very interesting to study the inviscid and
non-resistive limits to the problem (1.1)–(1.3).
The purpose of this paper is to establish the convergence of the weak solutions for (1.1)–
(1.3), as ν and µ go to zero simultaneously, toward the strong one of the following ideal non-
homogeneous incompressible MHD equations


 ρ0t + u0 · ∇ρ0 = 0,



 ρ0 u0 + ρ0 u0 · ∇u0 − H 0 · ∇H 0 + ∇π 0 = 0,
t
(1.6)
 H 0 + u0 · ∇H 0 − H 0 · ∇u0 = 0,


 t

 div u0 = div H 0 = 0

with the following initial-boundary value conditions:




 ρ0 (0) = ρ00 in Ω,



 u0 (0) = u00 in Ω,


H 0 (0) = H00 in Ω, (1.7)





 u0 · n = 0 on Σ,


 H0 · n = 0 on Σ.

We aim at giving a rigorous justification of this formal procedure.

Before we proceed our concerns, we first recall some results on the homogeneous or non-
homogeneous incompressible MHD equations with Dirichlet boundary condition. For the ho-
mogeneous incompressible MHD equations, Duvaut and Lions [4] constructed a class of global
weak solution and a class of local strong solution to the initial-boundary value problem of the
MHD equations, which is similar to the Leray-Hopf solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations.
Sermange and Teman [14] mainly considered the large time behavior of the solutions to the
homogeneous incompressible MHD equations. Additional, Ferreira and Villamizar-Roa [11]
studied the stability of steady solutions for the homogeneous incompressible MHD equations
in a bounded domain of R3 . They also proved the existence of fast decaying strong solutions
for the non-steady MHD equations. Li and Cai [24] investigated the global L2 stability for
large solutions to the homogeneous incompressible MHD equations in bounded or unbounded
domains of R3 . Under suitable conditions for the large solutions, they showed that the large
solutions are stable. For the nonhomogeneous incompressible MHD equations with the initial
density away from vacuum, the existence and uniqueness are established for the local strong
solution as well as for the global strong solution with small data by Li and Wang in [21]. We
also refer to [12, 18, 22, 32] and the references therein for more results.
However, there are only a few results on the inviscid and non-resistive limits for the incom-
pressible MHD equations. In 2002, Dı́az and Lerena [16] utilized the C 0 -semigroup technique
developed in [19] to study the inviscid and non-resistive limits in the whole space R3 for the
homogeneous incompressible MHD equations. Recently, Zhang in [36] extended the results in
[16] to the nonhomogeneous case. Xiao, Xin and Wu [35] studied the inviscid limit for the
1658 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

homogeneous incompressible MHD equations with the following slip boundary conditions:
(
u · n = 0, n × (∇ × u) = 0 on Σ,
(1.8)
H · n = 0, n × (∇ × H) = 0 on Σ,

where they followed the approaches in [34] and formulated the boundary value in a suitable
functional setting so that the Stokes operator is well behaved and the nonlinear terms fall
into the desired functional spaces. Specially, the authors of this paper in [25] investigated the
inviscid limit in a bounded domain of R3 for the homogeneous incompressible MHD equations
with the boundary condition (1.3) in conormal Sobolev space.
Note that, if we take H = 0 in (1.1), it is reduced to the nonhomogeneous incompressible
Navier-Stokes equations. As for the research on the vanishing viscosity limit for the nonhomo-
geneous incompressible fluids, we can refer to [6, 23, 28, 31] and the references cited therein.
In particular, the authors in [23] proved the convergence, as the viscosity coefficient goes to
zero, of the weak solutions for the nonhomogeneous incompressible Navier-Stokes eqautions
with Navier boundary conditions to the strong solution of the nonhomogeneous incompressible
Euler equations.
Now we give more detailed explanations on the purpose of this paper. The first goal
is to prove the existence for a global weak solution of the nonhomogeneous incompressible
MHD equations. We mainly follow and modify some ideas developed in [8, 9, 23, 29, 30].
We first introduce a regularized problem depending on a small positive parameter ǫ through a
regularization of the problem (1.1)–(1.3) (see (2.8)–(2.10) below). In order to get the existence of
a weak-strong solution (see Definition 2.5) to the regularized problem, we set up the approximate
problem (2.17)–(2.19) of the regularized problem (2.8)–(2.10) by Galerkin approximate method.
Next, we verify the existence of the solution for the approximate solution independent of the
index m. Third, we prove more estimates for the approximate solution independent of the index
m. By virtue of some compactness arguments, we give the existence of a weak-strong solution
to the regularized problem. Finally, based on the lower semi-continuity of norms, we obtain the
estimates for the solution of the regularized problem which is independent of ǫ. With the help
of these estimates and some compactness arguments, we show the existence of a global weak
solution for the problem (1.1)–(1.3). The second goal of this paper is using the energy method
to prove the convergence of a global weak solution of the nonhomogeneous incompressible MHD
equations with Navier boundary conditions, as ν and µ go to zero simultaneously, to the strong
solution of the ideal nonhomogeneous incompressible MHD equations in energy space.
In fact, due to the appearance of the magnetic field H in system (1.1), we need to overcome
some new difficulties and to face more complicated energy estimates in the proof of the above
two goals. Here, we list the main difficulties. On one hand, we need to use ω · ∇ρm , ρm ω · ∇um
and ω · ∇H m to replace um · ∇ρm , ρm um · ∇um and um · ∇H m in (2.17) and (2.18), respectively,
to get a nonlinear ordinary differential problem (2.23), where ω is a given function. Hence
we can only give the local existence of the solution for problem (2.22) by using the classical
theory of nonlinear ordinary equations directly, which is different from [23], where the ordinary
differential equations are linear. In order to prove the global existence of the solution for problem
(2.22), we need to do some energy estimates. Fortunately, we find that the local solution of
(2.23) satisfies uniform estimate (2.32), such that we can extend the local solution of (2.22) to
No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1659

any time T > 0. On the other hand, we will need to estimate more terms which are caused by
the terms which contain the magnetic field H, such as the nonlinear terms u · ∇H, H · ∇u and
H · ∇H in system (1.1), see Step 3 in Section 2 for details.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next Section, we give the precise definition of the
weak solutions for the problem (1.1)–(1.3) and establish the existence of these weak solutions.
In Section 3, we first introduce a result of local strong solution for the ideal nonhomogeneous
incompressible MHD equations, and investigate the proof of the combined inviscid and non-
resistive limit in energy space.
Throughout the rest of the paper, we denote by D(Ω) and D′ (Ω) the space of C ∞ -functions
with compact support and the space of distributions in Ω, respectively. Lp (Ω) and W m,p (Ω)
stand for the usual Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces with norms k · kp and k · kW m,p (Ω) , respectively.
In particular, W m,2 (Ω) is replaced by H m (Ω) with norm k · kH m (Ω) . For a Banach space X,
we indicate by h·, ·iX ′ ,X the duality product between X ′ (the dual space of X) and X. We
also denote by Hσ1 (Ω) the subspace of H 1 (Ω) in which the vector fields are divergence-free and
tangent to the boundary.

2 The Weak Solutions

In this section, we establish the global existence of weak solutions to the nonhomogeneous
incompressible MHD equations with Navier boundary conditions. Before stating the main
result of this section, we first introduce the definition of global weak solutions to the problem
(1.1)–(1.3). We assume that the initial density ρ0 ∈ Lp (Ω) (6 < p ≤ +∞), allowing vacuum,
|v0 |2 2p 2

ρ0 ∈ L1 (Ω) which imply v0 ∈ L p+1 (Ω), and H0 ∈ L2 (Ω). The initial data v0 and |vρ00|
correspond formally to the initial value for ρu and ρ|u|2 , respectively. In the case p = ∞,
Lr -exponents depending on p should be understood in the natural way, that is, as the limit
2p
when p → ∞. For instance, L p+1 becomes L2 in that case.
Now we introduce the definition of a weak solution with finite energy for the problem
(1.1)–(1.3).
Definition 2.1 We call (ρ, u, H) a weak solution to the problem (1.1)–(1.3) if (ρ, u, H)
satisfies 
 ρ ∈ C([0, T ]; W −1,p(Ω)) ∩ L∞ (0, T ; Lp (Ω)), ρ ≥ 0 a.e. in Q,



 u ∈ L2 (0, T ; H 1 (Ω)), √ρu ∈ L∞ (0, T ; L2 (Ω)),


 σ

H ∈ L (0, T ; L2(Ω)) ∩ L2 (0, T ; Hσ1 (Ω)),
∞
(2.1)




4p−6
2
4p−6
2

 ρui uj ∈ L 3p (0, T ; L (Ω)), Hi Hj ∈ L 3p (0, T ; L (Ω)),


 3p
ui Hj ∈ L2 (0, T ; L 2p+2 (Ω)),
where i, j = 1, 2, 3, and 6 < p ≤ ∞ such that
(1) The continuity equation holds in D′ (Q), the momentum equation and the magnetic
field equation are verified in the following senses
Z TZ Z TZ Z TZ
− ρu · ∂t f dxdt − (ρu · ∇f ) · u dxdt + (H · ∇f ) · H dxdt
0 Ω 0 Ω 0 Ω
Z T Z Z T Z Z
+ 2ν Su : Sf dxdt + 2αν u · f dσdt = v0 · f (0) dx, (2.2)
0 Ω 0 ∂Ω Ω
1660 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

Z T Z Z T Z Z T Z
− H · ∂t g dxdt − (u · ∇g) · H dxdt + (H · ∇g) · u dxdt
0 Ω 0 Ω 0 Ω
Z T Z Z T Z Z
+ 2µ SH : Sg dxdt + 2βµ H · g dσdt = H0 · g(0) dx, (2.3)
0 Ω 0 ∂Ω Ω

where (f, g) ∈ C 1 ([0, T ]; Hσ1 (Ω)) and (f, g)(T, x) = 0 a.e. in Ω.

(2) The initial datum ρ(0) = ρ0 is verified in the following sense:
Z
′
hρ(0), ψiW −1,p (Ω),W 1,p′ (Ω) = ρ0 ψ dx ∀ ψ ∈ W01,p (Ω). (2.4)
0
Ω

(3) The energy inequality

 Z t Z t 
1 √ 2 2

2 2
k( ρu)(t)k2 + kH(t)k2 + 2 ν kSuk2ds + µ kSHk2ds
2 0 0
 Z tZ Z tZ   
2 2 1 v0 2 2
+ 2 να |u| dσds + µβ |H| dσds ≤ k √ k2 + kH0 k2 (2.5)
0 ∂Ω 0 ∂Ω 2 ρ0

holds for a.e. t ∈ (0, T ).

Remark 2.2 Note that div u = div H = 0 in Q and u · n = H · n = 0 on Σ are given by
the choice of the space Hσ1 (Ω). The weak formulation (2.2) and (2.3) also contain the boundary
condition (1.3)2 and (1.3)4 , respectively, in the sense that if (u, H) ∈ Hσ1 (Ω) ∩ H 2 (Ω), then
(1.3)2 and (1.3)4 can be recovered, see [23] for the details.
Remark 2.3 We also note that by taking test functions in D([0, T ) × Ω) in the form
ϕ = ψ(x)θh (z) in (2.2) and (2.3), where ψ belongs to D(Ω) and is divergence-free, and θh (z) ∈
D([0, T )) such that θh (z) = 1 for z ≤ t and θh (z) = 0 for z ≥ t + h, and taking the limit as
h → 0, we obtain that
Z Z tZ Z tZ
(ρu)(t) · ψ dx − (ρu · ∇ψ) · u dxds + (H · ∇ψ) · H dxds
Ω 0 Ω 0 Ω
Z tZ Z tZ Z
+ 2ν Su : Sψ dxds + 2αν u · ψ dσds = v0 · ψ dx, (2.6)
0 Ω 0 ∂Ω Ω
Z Z tZ Z tZ
H(t) · ψ dx − (u · ∇ψ) · H dxds + (H · ∇ψ) · u dxds
Ω 0 Ω 0 Ω
Z tZ Z tZ Z
+ 2µ SH : Sψ dxds + 2βµ H · ψ dσds = H0 · ψ dx, (2.7)
0 Ω 0 ∂Ω Ω

which imply that ((ρu)(t), H(t)) converges weakly to (v0 , H0 ) as t → 0+ .

The main result in this section reads
2
Theorem 2.4 Let 6 < p ≤ ∞, ρ0 ∈ Lp (Ω), ρ0 ≥ 0 a.e. in Ω, |vρ00| ∈ L1 (Ω), and
H0 ∈ L2 (Ω). Then there exists a weak solution (ρ, u, H) of the problem (1.1)–(1.3) in the sense
of Definition 2.1.
In order to prove the global existence of a weak solution, we first introduce a regularized
problem depending on a small positive parameter ǫ through a regularization of the problem
(1.1)–(1.3). Specifically, fixed ǫ > 0, we need to find the solution (ρǫ , uǫ , H ǫ ) of the following
No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1661

regularized problem related to (1.1)–(1.3)



 ρǫt + uǫ · ∇ρǫ = ǫ∆ρǫ ,



 ρǫ uǫt + ρǫ uǫ · ∇uǫ − H ǫ · ∇H ǫ + ∇π ǫ − ν∆uǫ = − ǫ (∆ρǫ )uǫ ,

2 (2.8)

 ǫ ǫ ǫ ǫ ǫ ǫ
H
 t
 + u · ∇H − H · ∇u − µ∆H = 0,


 div uǫ = div H ǫ = 0

in Q, with the following initial-boundary value conditions



 ρǫ (0) = ρǫ0 ,

(ρǫ uǫ )(0) = v0ǫ , (2.9)


 ǫ
H (0) = H0ǫ
in Ω, and  ǫ
 ∂ρ

 = 0,

 ∂n



 ǫ
 u · n = 0,
(Suǫ · n)τ = −αuǫτ , (2.10)





 H ǫ · n = 0,




(SH ǫ · n)τ = −βHτǫ

on Σ, where ρǫ0 belongs to C 2,r (Ω), r ∈ (0, 1) (see [9]) with

 ǫ
 ∂ρ0

 = 0 on ∂Ω, 0 < ǫ ≤ ρǫ0 in Ω,

 ∂n


  
 x ∈ Ω : ρǫ0 (x) < ρ0 (x)  → 0 as ǫ → 0, (2.11)



 ρǫ0 (x) → ρ0 in Lp (Ω) as ǫ → 0, 6 < p < ∞,



 ǫ
ρ0 (x) ⇀ ρ0 weakly − ∗ in L∞ (Ω) as ǫ → 0, p = +∞,
and the initial datum (v0ǫ , H0ǫ ) is defined as
( (
ǫ
v0 if ρǫ0 (x) ≥ ρ0 (x), ǫ
H0 if ρǫ0 (x) ≥ ρ0 (x),
v0 = ǫ
and H0 = (2.12)
0 if ρ0 (x) < ρ0 (x) 0 if ρǫ0 (x) < ρ0 (x).
We introduce the definition of a weak-strong solution to the above regularized problem.
Definition 2.5 We call (ρǫ , uǫ , H ǫ ) a weak-strong solution of the problem (2.8)–(2.10), if
(ρǫ , uǫ , H ǫ ) satisfies


 ρǫ ∈ C([0, T ]; W −1,p (Ω)) ∩ L∞ (0, T ; Lp(Ω)),







 ∇ρǫ ∈ L2 (0, T ; L2 (Ω)), ρǫ > 0 a.e. in Q,



 √ ǫ

 ǫ 2 1 ∞ 2
 u ∈ L (0, T ; Hσ (Ω)), ρǫ u ∈ L (0, T ; L (Ω)),
(2.13)
 ǫ ∞ 2 2 1
 H ∈ L (0, T ; L (Ω)) ∩ L (0, T ; Hσ (Ω)),








4p−6 4p−6
ρǫ uǫi uǫj ∈ L 3p (0, T ; L2(Ω)), Hiǫ Hjǫ ∈ L 3p (0, T ; L2 (Ω)),






 ǫ ǫ 3p
ui Hj ∈ L2 (0, T ; L 2p+2 (Ω)),
1662 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

where i, j = 1, 2, 3 and 6 < p ≤ +∞, such that

(1) Equation (2.8)1 holds a.e. in Q. The boundary condition (2.10)1 holds a.e. on Σ, and
the initial condition (2.9)1 holds a.e. in Ω.
(2) The momentum equation (2.8)2 is verified in the sense

Z T Z Z T Z
ǫ ǫ
− ρ u · ∂t f dxdt − (ρǫ uǫ · ∇f ) · uǫ dxdt
0 Ω 0 Ω
Z T Z Z T Z Z T Z
ǫ ǫ ǫ
+ (H · ∇f ) · H dxdt + 2ν Su : Sf dxdt + 2αν uǫ · f dσdt
0 Ω 0 Ω 0 ∂Ω
Z T Z Z
ǫ
=− ∇ρǫ · ∇(uǫ · f ) dxdt + v0ǫ · f (0) dx. (2.14)
2 0 Ω Ω

(3) The magnetic field equation (2.8)3 is verified in the sense

Z T Z Z T Z Z T Z
− H ǫ · ∂t g dxdt − (uǫ · ∇g) · H ǫ dxdt + (H ǫ · ∇g) · uǫ dxdt
0 Ω 0 Ω 0 Ω
Z T Z Z T Z Z
+ 2µ SH ǫ : Sg dxdt + 2βµ H ǫ · g dσdt = H0ǫ · g(0) dx, (2.15)
0 Ω 0 ∂Ω Ω

where (f, g) ∈ C 1 ([0, T ]; Hσ1 (Ω)) with (f, g)(T, x) = 0 a.e. in Ω.

Now, we give the existence of a weak-strong solution to the regularized problem.

Lemma 2.6 Let 6 < p ≤ ∞, ρǫ0 be as in (2.11), and (u0 , H0 ) as in Theorem 2.4. Then
there exists a weak-strong solution (ρǫ , uǫ , H ǫ ) of the problem (2.8)–(2.10) in the sense of
6p
Definition 2.5. Moreover, (ρǫ , uǫ ) satisfies ρǫ uǫ ∈ L2 (0, T ; L p+6 (Ω)), ρǫ ∈ Lς (0, T ; W 2,ς (Ω)),
and ∂t ρǫ ∈ Lς (0, T ; Lς (Ω)) for some ς > 32 .

Proof Since the proof is complicated and lengthy, we divide it into five steps.

Step 1 Approximate problem Let ω k k∈N be a smooth basis of Hσ1 , orthonormal

in L2 (Ω). We define Ym := span ω 1 , · · · , ω m . For fixed ǫ > 0, we will define a sequence of
approximated solutions (ρm,ǫ , um,ǫ , H m,ǫ ), m ∈ N, which converges to a weak-strong solution of
the problem (2.8)–(2.10) as m → ∞. For presentation convenience, we shall omit the parameter
ǫ, and write (ρm , um , H m ) in place of (ρm,ǫ , um,ǫ , H m,ǫ ),

m
X m
X
m j m
u (t) = φj (t)ω , H (t) = ψj (t)ω j . (2.16)
j=1 j=1

For each m ∈ N, we will find ρm ∈ C([0, T ]; C 2 (Ω)) and (um , H m ) ∈ C 1 ([0, T ]; Ym ) satisfying
 m

 ρ + um · ∇ρm = ǫ∆ρm in Q,
 t


 m
∂ρ
=0 on Σ, (2.17)

 ∂n



 m
ρ (0) = ρǫ0 in Ω
No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1663

and
Z 
 ρm u m m m m m
· ∇f ) · H m

 t · f + (ρ u · ∇u ) · f + (H

 Ω

 Z



 + 2νSu m
: Sf dx + 2αν um · f dσ



 Z ∂Ω


 = ǫ

∇ρm · ∇(um · f ) dx, ∀ f ∈ Ym ,
2 Ω (2.18)
 Z

  m


 Ht · g − (um · ∇g) · H m + (H m · ∇g) · um

 Ω

 Z

 m



 + 2µSH : Sg dx + 2βµ H m · g dσ = 0, ∀ g ∈ Ym ,

 ∂Ω

 m
u (0) = um0 , H m (0) = H0m ,

where (um (0), H m (0)) ∈ Ym is uniquely determined by

Z Z Z Z
ρǫ0 um
0 · φ dx = v0
ǫ
· φ dx, H m
0 · φ dx = H0ǫ · φ dx, ∀ φ ∈ Ym . (2.19)
Ω Ω Ω Ω
R
Note that (um (0), H m (0)) is well-defined because the matrices with coefficients Ω
ρǫ0 ω i · ω j dx
R
and Ω ω i · ω j dx are invertible, respectively.
Step 2 Existence of the solution to the approximate problem For fixed m, by
virtue of the Schauder’s fixed point theorem, some estimates independent m and compactness
arguments, we prove the existence of (ρm , um , H m ). We first pay attention to the following
linearized problem


 ∂ ρm + ω · ∇ρm = ǫ∆ρm in Q,
 t


 m
∂ρ
=0 on Σ, (2.20)

 ∂n



 m
ρ (0) = ρǫ0 in Ω,

where ω ∈ C([0, T ]; Ym ).
From the following lemma, we get the existence of ρm ∈ C([0, T ]; C 2(Ω)) for fixed m ∈ N
and ω.
Lemma 2.7 (see Lemma 3.1 in [10]) Let ω ∈ C([0, T ]; Ym) be a given vector field. Suppose
∂ρǫ
that ρǫ0 ∈ C 2,r (Ω), r ∈ (0, 1), inf x∈Ω ρǫ0 (x) > 0, and satisfies the compatibility condition ∂n0 = 0
on ∂Ω. Then (2.20) possesses a unique classical solution

ρm = ρm (ω) ∈ W = ρm ∈ C([0, T ]; C 2,r (Ω)), ∂t ρm ∈ C([0, T ]; C 0,r (Ω)) .

Moreover, the mapping ω → ρm (ω) maps bounded sets in C([0, T ]; Ym) into bounded sets in W
and it is continuous with values in C 1 ([0, T ] × Ω).
Finally, as div ω = 0, it holds that

inf ρǫ0 (x) ≤ ρm (t, x) ≤ sup ρǫ0 (x), (t, x) ∈ [0, T ] × Ω. (2.21)
x∈Ω x∈Ω

Next, given ω ∈ C([0, T ]; Ym) and ρm ∈ C([0, T ]; C 2(Ω)), we need to deal with the following
1664 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

problem:
Z 

 ρm u m m m m
· ∇f ) · H m + 2νSum : Sf dx

 t · f + (ρ ω · ∇u ) · f + (H

 Ω

 Z Z

 m ǫ

 + 2αν u · f dσ = ∇ρm · ∇(um · f ) dx ∀ f ∈ Ym ,

 ∂Ω 2 Ω
Z
 m (2.22)
 Ht · g − (ω · ∇g) · H m + (H m · ∇g) · um + 2µSH m : Sg dx
 Ω


 Z



 + 2βµ H m · g dσ = 0 ∀ g ∈ Ym ,



 ∂Ω

 m
u (0) = um0 , H m (0) = H0m .
 m
Putting (2.16) into (2.22), we obtain the following ordinary differential equations for φj j=1
 m
and ψj j=1 :
 m m m
X X X

 1 dφj 2

 a ij + a φ
ij j + a3ijk ψj ψk = 0,

 dt

 j=1 j=1 j,k=1


 m
 X 1 dψj X 2 m Xm
bij + bij ψj + b3ijk ψk φj = 0, (2.23)
 dt

 j=1 j=1 j,k=1

  m

 φj (0) j=1 = components of um

 0 ,

 
 ψ (0) m = components of H m ,
j j=1 0

where
Z
a1ij = ρm ω i · ω j dx,
Ω
Z Z Z
a2ij = m j
(ρ ω · ∇ω ) · ω dx + 2ν i i j
Sω : Sω dx + 2αν ω i · ω j dσ
Ω Ω ∂Ω
Z
ǫ
− ∇ρm · ∇(ω i · ω j ) dx,
2 Ω
Z
a3ijk = (ω j · ∇ω i ) · ω k dx,
ZΩ
b1ij = ω i · ω j dx,
Ω
Z Z Z
b2ij = − (ω · ∇ω i ) · ω j dx + 2µ Sω i : Sω j dx + 2βµ ω i · ω j dσ,
Ω Ω ∂Ω
Z
b3ijk = (ω k · ∇ω i ) · ω j dx.
Ω

Due to the orthogonality of {ω k }k∈N in L2 (Ω), we easily find that B := b1ij = Id. Additional,
since ρm ≥ ǫ, it holds that
Z X m 2 Xm
T m i
ξ Aξ = ρ (x, t) ξi ω (x) dx ≥ ǫ |ξi |2 ,
Ω i=1 i=1
!
 A 0
where A := a1ij . We obtain that the following matrix is symmetric, positive definite
0 B
and invertible. Based on the classical theory of ordinary differential equations, problem (2.23)
 m  m
has a local unique solution φj j=1 ∈ (C 1 ([0, T1 ]))m and ψj j=1 ∈ (C 1 ([0, T1 ]))m , where,
No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1665

without loss of generality, we assume 0 < T1 < T . Then the local solvability of problem (2.22)
is proved.
Now, we aim at extending the solution (um , H m ) to the time T . Multiplying (2.20)1 by
1 m 2 m
2 |u | , integrating on Ω, and adding this result to (2.22)1 with f = u , we have
Z Z
1 d √ m m 2
k ρ u k2 + 2νkSumk22 + 2να |um |2 dσ = (H m · ∇H m ) · um dx. (2.24)
2 dt ∂Ω Ω

Taking g = H m in (2.22)2 , we obtain that

Z Z
1 d
kH m k22 + 2µkSH m k22 + 2µβ |H m |2 dσ = − (H m · ∇H m ) · um dx. (2.25)
2 dt ∂Ω Ω

From (2.24) and (2.25), we arrive at

1 d √ m m 2


k ρ u k2 + kH m k22 + 2 νkSum k22 + µkSH m k22
2 dt Z Z 
+ 2 να |um |2 dσ + µβ |H m |2 dσ = 0. (2.26)
∂Ω ∂Ω

Integrating (2.26) on (0, t] ⊂ [0, T1 ], we can obtain that

√ p
k( ρm um )(t)k22 + kH m (t)k22 ≤ k ρǫ0 um 2 m 2
0 k2 + kH0 k2 . (2.27)

As for the initial data, we have the following observations

Z Z Z Z
|v0ǫ |2 |v0 |2
v0ǫ · um
0 dx = ρ ǫ m 2
|u
0 0 | dx ≤ ǫ dx ≤ dx ≤ C, (2.28)
Ω Ω Ω ρ0 Ω ρ0
Z Z Z
|H0m |2 dx ≤ |H0ǫ |2 dx ≤ |H0 |2 dx ≤ C. (2.29)
Ω Ω Ω

Here and in what follows, C denotes a generic constant independent of m and ǫ, and may
change from line to line. Hence, we conclude that
Z Z
√ m m 2 m 2
p ǫ m 2 m 2 |v0ǫ |2
k( ρ u )(t)k2 + kH (t)k2 ≤ k ρ0 u0 k2 + kH0 k2 ≤ ǫ dx + |H0ǫ |2 dx. (2.30)
Ω ρ0 Ω

By virtue of (2.21), for small ǫ, we obtain that

p ǫ m 2 R |v0ǫ |2 R ǫ 2
m ρ0 u0 k2 + kH0m k22
k Ω ρǫ0 dx + Ω |H0 | dx
ku (t)k22
+ kH ≤m
(t)k22 ≤ . (2.31)
ǫ ǫ
m
P Pm
Thanks to |φj (t)|2 = kum (t)k22 and |ψj (t)|2 = kH m (t)k22 , we get
j=1 j=1

p ǫ m 2 R |v0ǫ |2 R
m
X ρ0 u0 k2 + kH0m k22
k Ω ρǫ0 dx + Ω
|H0ǫ |2 dx
2 2
(|φj (t)| + |ψj (t)| ) ≤ ≤ . (2.32)
j=1
ǫ ǫ

Hence, using the uniform estimate (2.32), and the continuity of {φj (t)}m m
j=1 and {ψj (t)}j=1 with
respect to time, and regarding {φj (T1 )}m m
j=1 and {ψj (T1 )}j=1 as new initial data, we can easily
m m
extend the solution {φj (t)}j=1 and {ψj (t)}j=1 to the time T by repeating the previous processes,
which implies that (um , H m ) exists on [0, T ]. Moreover, from (2.28)–(2.30), the solution also
satisfies
Z Z
√ |v0 |2
k ρm um (t)k22 + kH m (t)k22 ≤ dx + |H0 |2 dx, ∀ t ∈ [0, T ]. (2.33)
Ω ρ0 Ω
1666 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

Furthermore, by virtue of (2.21) and (2.33), we also conclude that (um , H m ) is bounded
m
P
in C([0, T ], L2(Ω)) which is independent of m and ω. Using the equalities |φj (t)|2 = kum k22
j=1
m
P 2
 m  m
and |ψj (t)| = kH m k22 again, we obtain that φj j=1
and ψj j=1 are bounded in C([0, T ]),
j=1
which further imply that (u , H ) is bounded in C([0, T ], Ym ) (independent of ω). Additional,
m m

if ω is bounded in C([0, T ]; Ym), from (2.23) and the properties of the matrix M , we obtain that
 m  m
∂t φj j=1 and ∂t ψj j=1 are bounded in C([0, T ]), which imply that (∂t um , ∂t H m ) is bounded
in C([0, T ], Ym ). Thus, we obtain that (um , H m ) is bounded in C 1 ([0, T ], Ym ) provided that ω
is bounded in C([0, T ], Ym ).
It is precise that, given ω ∈ C([0, T ]; Ym ), based on Lemma 2.7, there exists a unique
solution ρm ∈ C([0, T ]; C 2,r (Ω)) of (2.20). With the help of the known functions ρm and ω,
we can verify that there exists a unique solution (um , H m ) ∈ C 1 ([0, T ]; Ym ) of (2.22), which
is bounded in C 1 ([0, T ]; Ym ) provided that ω is bounded in C([0, T ]; Ym). Thus, there are two
positive constants M1 and M2 such that kum kC 1 ([0,T ];Ym ) ≤ M2 if kωkC([0,T ];Ym) ≤ M1 . Denote
by B1 the closed ball in C([0, T ]; Ym) of radius M1 and B2 the closed ball in C 1 ([0, T ]; Ym ) of
radius M2 . Then, the mapping

T : B1 → B2 ,
ω → um

is continuous. Furthermore, by the Arzelà-Ascoli’s theorem, we know that B2 is compact in

C([0, T ]; Ym). Therefore, the mapping T is continuous and compact from B1 to B1 . Then, in
view of the Schauder’s fixed point theorem, we obtain that the existence of a fixed point um
for given time T > 0. Taking ρm the corresponding solution of (2.20), we obtain the existence
of an approximate solution (ρm , um , H m ) of (2.17)–(2.19).
Step 3 Estimates for (ρm , um , H m ) We will show several estimates for (ρm , um , H m )
which are independent of m and ǫ.
(1) From Lemma 2.7, we obtain that

0 < inf ρǫ0 ≤ ρm (x, t), (t, x) ∈ [0, T ] × Ω. (2.34)

x∈Ω

Multiplying (2.17)1 by ρm |ρm |p−2 , integrating by parts and using the incompressible condition
of um , we have
Z
1 d m p p−2
kρ kp + ǫ(p − 1) ||∇ρm ||ρm | 2 |2 dx = 0. (2.35)
p dt Ω

Hence, based on (2.11)3 and (2.11)4 , we obtain that

kρm (t)kp ≤ kρǫ0 kp ≤ C, ∀ t ∈ [0, T ]. (2.36)

(2) We multiply (2.17)1 by ρm , and use the incompressible condition of um and integration
by parts to obtain that
Z t
kρm (t)k22 + 2ǫ k∇ρm (s)k22 ds = kρǫ0 k22 . (2.37)
0
Thus
√ √
k ǫ∇ρm kL2 (0,T ;L2 (Ω)) + k ǫ∆ρm kL2 (0,T ;W −1,2 (Ω)) ≤ C. (2.38)
No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1667
m
(3) Integrating (2.17)1 on Ω and using ∂ρ 
∂n Σ = 0, we obtain the total mass conversation
Z Z
ρm (t) dx = ρǫ0 dx, t ∈ [0, T ]. (2.39)
Ω Ω
(4) Similar to (2.26), taking f = um and g = H m in (2.18), we can easily get that
1 d √ m m 2


k ρ u k2 + kH m k22 + 2 νkSum k22 + µkSH m k22
2 dt Z Z 
+ 2 να |um |2 dσ + µβ |H m |2 dσ = 0. (2.40)
∂Ω ∂Ω

Furthermore, integrating (2.40) on (0, t] ⊂ [0, T ], we obtain that

 Z t Z t 
1 √ m m 2 m 2

m 2 m 2
k( ρ u )(t)k2 + kH (t)k2 + 2 ν kSu k2 ds + µ kSH k2 ds
2 0 0
 Z tZ Z tZ 
+ 2 να |um |2 dσds + µβ |H m |2 dσds
0 ∂Ω 0 ∂Ω
1 p

≤ k ρǫ0 um 2 m 2
0 k2 + kH0 k2 . (2.41)
2
Using (2.28) and (2.29), we arrive at
√
k( ρm um )(t)k22 + kH m (t)k22 ≤ C, ∀ t ∈ [0, T ]. (2.42)

Additional, (Sum , SH m ) m∈N+ is bounded in L2 (0, T ; L2(Ω)). In order to prove that
 m m
(u , H ) m∈N+ is bounded in L2 (0, T ; H 1 (Ω)), we shall apply the following generalized Korn’s
inequality (see [10])


kvk2H 1 (Ω) ≤ C(K, M, p) kSvk22 + kRvk21


≤ C(K, M, p) kSvk22 + kRk1 kRv 2 k1 (2.43)
R
for v ∈ Hσ1 (Ω) and any function R ≥ 0 satisfying 0 < M ≤ Ω R dx, kRkp ≤ K, for some p > 1.

In view of the generalized Korn inequality, we can easily get that H m m∈N+ is bounded

in L2 (0, T ; H 1(Ω)) ⊂ L2 (0, T ; L6(Ω)), independent of ǫ. As for um m∈N+ , without loss of
generality, we can assume that ρ0 ≥ 0 and ρ0 6≡ 0. It follows from (2.39) and the fact that
ρǫ0 → ρ0 in Lp (Ω), 6 < p < ∞, that
Z Z
1 m
M := kρ0 k1 ≤ ρ dx = ρǫ0 dx ≤ 2kρ0 k1 , for small ǫ > 0 and any m. (2.44)
2 Ω Ω

Hence, taking R = ρm in (2.43) and using (2.44), we infer that um m∈N+ is bounded in
L2 (0, T ; H 1(Ω)) ⊂ L2 (0, T ; L6(Ω)), independent of ǫ. For the case p = ∞, since the weak-∗
R R
convergence ρǫ0 ⇀ ρ0 in L∞ implies that Ω ρǫ0 dx → Ω ρ0 dx, we can also obtain the same
 m
conclusion for u m∈N+ by choosing the same M .
 √ 
(5) Using the bounds for ρm m∈N+ , ρm um m∈N+ and um m∈N+ , we deduce the

following estimates for ρm um m∈N+ :
1 √
kρm um k 2p ≤ kρm kL2 ∞ (0,T ;Lp (Ω)) k ρm um kL∞ (0,T ;L2 (Ω)) ≤ C, (2.45)
L∞ (0,T ;L p+1 (Ω))

kρm um k 6p ≤ kρm kL∞ (0,T ;Lp (Ω)) kum kL2 (0,T ;L6 (Ω)) ≤ C. (2.46)
L2 (0,T ;L p+6 (Ω))

Furthermore, in view of interpolation inequality, we have

kρm um k2 ≤ kρm um kθ 2p kρm um k1−θ
6p , (2.47)
L∞ (0,T ;L p+1 (Ω)) p+6
1668 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

2p−6
where 0 < θ = 2p−3 < 1. Thus
2(2p − 3)
kρm um kLq (0,T ;L2 (Ω)) ≤ C with q = > 6. (2.48)
3
(6) Using Hölder’s inequality, we have
√ 1
k ρm u m k 2 12p ≤ kρm kL2 ∞ (0,T ;Lp (Ω)) kum kL2 (0,T ;L6 (Ω)) ≤ C. (2.49)
L (0,T ;L
6+2p (Ω))
12p
Since p > 6, we have 6+2p > 4. It follows from interpolation inequality that
√ √ p−6
√ 3p

k ρm um k4 ≤ k ρm um k24p−6 k ρm um k 4p−6
12p . (2.50)
6+2p

2(4p−6)
Furthermore, taking ζ = 3p , we obtain ζ > 2 and
√ √ 2(p−6)
√
k ρm um kζ4 ≤ k ρm um k2 3p k ρm um k212p . (2.51)
6+2p
√ m
ζ 4
Consequently, ρm u m∈N+ is bounded in L (0, T ; L (Ω)), which implies that

kρm um m
i uj k ζ ≤ C. (2.52)
L 2 (0,T ;L2 (Ω))
 
(7) Since H m m∈N+ is bounded in L2 (0, T ; H 1 (Ω)), we can easily deduce that H m m∈N+
is bounded in the following spaces
6p 12p
L2 (0, T ; L p+6 (Ω)), L2 (0, T ; L 6+2p (Ω)), Lζ (0, T ; L4 (Ω)). (2.53)

Thus, we also obtain that

kHim Hjm k ζ ≤ C. (2.54)

L 2 (0,T ;L2 (Ω))

Additional, from kum kL2 (0,T ;H 1 (Ω)) ≤ C and kH m kL∞ (0,T ;L2 (Ω)) ≤ C, we obtain that

kum m
i Hj k 3p ≤ kum
i k 6p kHjm k 2p , (2.55)
2p+2 p+1 p+1

 3p
which implies um i Hj
m
m∈N+
is bounded in L2 (0, T ; L 2p+2 (Ω)).
 
(8) Finally, we estimate the temporal derivative of ρm m∈N+ , ρm um m∈N+ and
 m 2p
H m∈N+ . First, since ∂t ρm = −div (ρm um ) + ǫ∆ρm and W −1,2 (Ω) ⊂ W −1, p+1 (Ω), by
using (2.38) and (2.45), we conclude that
√ √

k∂t ρm k 2 −1,
2p ≤ C kρm um k ∞ 2p + ǫk ǫ∆ρm kL2 (0,T ;W −1,2 (Ω))
L (0,T ;W p+1 (Ω)) p+1 L (0,T ;L (Ω))

≤C (2.56)

for small ǫ > 0.


Next, for ρm um m∈N+ , in view of (2.18)1 , Hölder’s inequality, and Sobolev’s embedding
inequality, we obtain, for all f ∈ D(Ω) and s > 3, that
d Z 
 
 ρm um f dx ≤ kρm um ⊗ um k2 k∇f k2 + 2νkSum k2 kSf k2
dt Ω
ǫ
+ 2ανkum kL2 (∂Ω) kf kL2(∂Ω) + k∇ρm k2 kum k6 k∇f k3
2
ǫ
+ k∇ρm k2 k∇um k2 kf k∞ + kH m k2 k∇H m k2 kf k∞
2
≤ C kρm um ⊗ um k2 + kum kH 1 (Ω) + ǫk∇ρm k2 kum kH 1 (Ω)
No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1669


+ kH m k2 k∇H m k2 kf kW 1,s (Ω) , (2.57)

where um ⊗ um = um m
i uj 3×3 . Hence, based on (2.38) and (2.52), we deduce that
d Z 
 
 ρm um f dx ≤ fm kf kW 1,s (Ω) , ∀ f ∈ D(Ω) (2.58)
dt Ω
for some fm ∈ L1 (0, T ), which implies that
1 1
k∂t (ρm um )kL1 (0,T ;W −1,s′ (Ω)) ≤ C, + = 1. (2.59)
s s′

Finally, as for H m m∈N+ , in view of (2.18)2 , the uniform estimates in (4), Hölder’s in-
equality, and Sobolev embedding inequality, we have, for s > 3,
d Z 

 
 H m g dx ≤ kum k2 k∇H m k2 + k∇um k2 kH m k2 kgk∞
dt Ω
+ 2µkSH m k2 kSgk2 + 2βµkH m kL2 (∂Ω) kgkL2(∂Ω)
≤C kum k2 k∇H m k2 + k∇um k2 kH m k2


+ kH m kH 1 (Ω) kgkW 1,s (Ω)
≤ gm kgkW 1,s (Ω) , ∀ g ∈ D(Ω) (2.60)

for some gm ∈ L1 (0, T ), which implies that

1 1
k∂t H m kL1 (0,T ;W −1,s′ (Ω)) ≤ C, + ′ = 1. (2.61)
s s
Step 4 Convergence properties We will use the uniform estimates obtained in Step
3 to infer some convergence properties of the approximate solution. We first pay attention to
2p
ρm . Since H 1 (Ω) ֒→֒→ L2 (Ω) ֒→ W −1, p+1 (Ω),

kρm kL2 (0,T ;H 1 (Ω)) ≤ C(ǫ) and k∂t ρm k −1,

2p ≤ C. (2.62)
L2 (0,T ;W p+1 (Ω))

Here and in what follows, C(ǫ) indicates that the constant C depends on ǫ. By using Lemma
4 in [29], we obtain that
 m
ρ m∈N+ is relatively compact in L2 (0, T ; L2(Ω)).
2p 
Similarly, since Lp (Ω) ֒→֒→ W −1,p (Ω) ֒→ W −1, p+1 (Ω) and ρm m∈N+ is bounded in
L∞ (0, T ; Lp(Ω)) , we deduce that
 m
ρ m∈N+ is relatively compact in C([0, T ]; W −1,p(Ω)).
6p 6p ′
6p
For ρm um , as s > 3 ≥ 5p−6 , L p+6 (Ω) ֒→֒→ W −1, p+6 (Ω) ֒→ W −1,s (Ω), by using (2.46) and
(2.59), we conclude that
 m m 6p
ρ u m∈N+ is relatively compact in L2 (0, T ; W −1, p+6 (Ω)).

Similar to ρm um m∈N+ , we can easily obtain that
 6p
Hm m∈N+
is relatively compact in L2 (0, T ; W −1, p+6 (Ω)).

Additional, in view of the uniform bounds obtained in Step 3, we deduce that the se-

quence (ρm , um , H m , ρm um , ρm um m m m m m
i uj , Hi Hj , ui Hj ) m∈N+ converges (up to subsequences)
1670 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

to (ρǫ , uǫ , H ǫ , ξ1ǫ , (ξ2ǫ )ij , (ξ3ǫ )ij , (ξ4ǫ )ij ) as m → ∞, in the following senses


 strongly in L2 (0, T ; L2 (Ω)) and a.e. in Q,

ρm → ρǫ weakly − ∗ in L∞ (0, T ; Lp(Ω)), (2.63)



strongly in C([0, T ]; W −1,p(Ω)),
um → uǫ weakly in L2 (0, T ; Hσ1 (Ω)), (2.64)


 weakly in L2 (0, T ; Hσ1 (Ω)),


 6p
 weakly in L2 (0, T ; L 6+p
m ǫ
(Ω)),
H →H (2.65)
 weakly − ∗ in L (0, T ; L2(Ω)),
 ∞



 6p
strongly in L2 (0, T ; W −1, p+6 (Ω)),
 6p


 weakly in L2 (0, T ; L p+6 (Ω)),
 2p
ρm um → ξ1ǫ weakly − ∗ in L∞ (0, T ; L p+1 (Ω)), (2.66)



 strongly in L2 (0, T ; W −1, p+6
6p
(Ω)),
ζ
ρm u m m ǫ 2 2
i uj → (ξ2 )ij weakly in L (0, T ; L (Ω)), (2.67)
ζ
Him Hjm → (ξ3ǫ )ij weakly in L (0, T ; L2(Ω)),
2 (2.68)
3p
um m ǫ 2
i Hj → (ξ4 )ij weakly in L (0, T ; L
2p+2 (Ω)). (2.69)

Finally, we identify the limits ξ1ǫ , ξ2ǫ , ξ3ǫ and ξ4ǫ . Note that the product mapping from
6p
H 1 (Ω) × W −1,p (Ω) to W −1, p+1 (Ω) is continuous (see Lemma 3 in [29]). Thus, from (2.63)3 and
(2.64), we can obtain that
6p
ρm um → ρǫ uǫ weakly in L2 (0, T ; W −1, p+1 (Ω)), (2.70)
6p
which implies that ξ1ǫ = ρǫ uǫ . Also, notice that the product mapping from H 1 (Ω)×W −1, p+1 (Ω)
3p
to W −1, p+3 (Ω) is continuous (see also Lemma 3 in [29]). Therefore, based on (2.64), (2.65)1 ,
(2.65)4 , (2.66)3 and (2.70), we can infer that
3p
−1, p+3
ρm u m m ǫ ǫ ǫ 1
i uj → ρ ui uj weakly in L (0, T ; W (Ω)), (2.71)
3p
−1, p+3
Him Hjm → Hiǫ Hjǫ weakly in L1 (0, T ; W (Ω)), (2.72)
3p
−1, p+3
um m
i Hj → uǫi Hjǫ 1
weakly in L (0, T ; W (Ω)). (2.73)

The uniqueness of the limit in the sense of distributions implies that

(ξ2ǫ )ij = ρǫ uǫi uǫj , (ξ3ǫ )ij = Hiǫ Hjǫ , (ξ4ǫ )ij = uǫi Hjǫ .

Step 5 Passing to the limit as m → ∞ In this last step, we will show the existence
of a weak-strong solution to the problem (2.8)–(2.10) by passing to the limit as m → ∞ in
the approximate problem (2.17)–(2.19). First, using (2.48) and the maximal regularity for

parabolic equations, we obtain that ρm m∈N+ is bounded in Lq (0, T ; H 1(Ω)), which implies

that ∇ρm m∈N+ is bounded in Lq (0, T ; L2(Ω)). This bound together with the estimate for
 m
u m∈N+ in L2 (0, T ; L6 (Ω)) us to apply the classical Lς -theory of parabolic equations (see
Theorem 10.22 in [10]) to conclude that

k∂t ρm kLς (0,T ;Lς (Ω)) + kρm kLς (0,T ;W 2,ς (Ω)) ≤ C(ǫ), (2.74)
No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1671

2q
where ς = q+2 > 32 .
Since
ρm → ρǫ , ρm u m → ρ ǫ u ǫ , ∆ρm → ∆ρǫ in D′ (Q),

by passing to the limit in (2.17)1 in the sense of distributions, we can conclude that

∂t ρǫ + uǫ · ∇ρǫ = ǫ∆ρǫ in D′ (Q). (2.75)

In view of (2.74) and the lower semi-continuity of norms, we further get that

∂t ρǫ + uǫ · ∇ρǫ = ǫ∆ρǫ a.e. in Q. (2.76)

As for the initial value of ρǫ , from (2.63)3 , we have ρm (0) → ρǫ (0) in W −1,p (Ω). In addition, the
initial condition (2.17)3 shows that ρm (0) = ρǫ0 ∈ C 2,r (Ω), so we have ρǫ (0) = ρǫ0 . Moreover, it
is easy to see that the boundary condition is also satisfied.
Next, we pass to the limit in (2.18) as m → ∞. Using the energy identity (2.37) and
(2.76) for ρm and ρǫ , respectively, we can deduce that ∇ρm converges strongly to ∇ρǫ in
L2 (0, T1 ; L2 (Ω)) (see [8]). Hence, using the convergence obtained in Step 4 and passing to the
limit in (2.18) as m → ∞, we can verify that (2.14) and (2.15) hold. We complete the proof of
Lemma 2.6. 
Proof of Theorem 2.4 Let (ρǫ , uǫ , H ǫ ) be the weak-strong solution of the problem
(2.8)–(2.10) given by Lemma 2.6. Recall that the uniform estimates obtained in Step 3 of the
proof of Lemma 2.6 are independent of ǫ > 0. So, similar to the Step 4 in the proof of Lemma 2.6,

we can conclude that there exists a subsequence of (ρǫ , uǫ , H ǫ , ρǫ uǫ , ρǫ uǫi uǫj , Hiǫ Hjǫ , uǫi Hjǫ ) ǫ>0
converging to (ρ, u, H, β1 , (β2 )ij , (β3 )ij , (β4 )ij ) as ǫ → 0 in the following senses
(
ǫ
weakly − ∗ in L∞ (0, T ; Lp(Ω)),
ρ →ρ (2.77)
strongly in C([0, T ]; W −1,p(Ω)),
uǫ → u weakly in L2 (0, T ; Hσ1 (Ω)), (2.78)
 2 1
 weakly in L (0, T ; Hσ (Ω)),



 6p
 weakly in L2 (0, T ; L 6+p (Ω)),
ǫ
H →H (2.79)

 weakly − ∗ in L (0, T ; L2(Ω)),
∞



 6p
strongly in L2 (0, T ; W −1, p+6 (Ω)),
 6p
 2
 weakly in L (0, T ; L p+6 (Ω)),

 2p
ρǫ uǫ → β1 weakly − ∗ in L∞ (0, T ; L p+1 (Ω)), (2.80)



 strongly in L2 (0, T ; W −1, p+66p
(Ω)),
ζ
ρǫ uǫi uǫj → (β2 )ij weakly in L 2 (0, T ; L2(Ω)), (2.81)
ζ
Hiǫ Hjǫ → (β3 )ij weakly in L (0, T ; L2(Ω)),
2 (2.82)
3p
uǫi Hjǫ 2
→ (β4 )ij weakly in L (0, T ; L 2p+2 (Ω)). (2.83)

Moreover, using (2.38) and the continuity of the product mapping from H 1 (Ω) × W −1,2 (Ω) to
3
W −1, 2 , we obtain

ǫ∇ρǫ → 0 strongly in L2 (0, T ; L2(Ω)), (2.84)

1672 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

3
ǫuǫ ∆ρǫ → 0 weakly in L1 (0, T ; W −1, 2 (Ω)). (2.85)

Similar to the compactness arguments of Step 4 in the proof of Lemma 2.6, we can verify
that β1 = ρu, (β2 )ij = ρui uj , (β3 )ij = Hi Hj , (β4 )ij = ui Hj . From the above convergence
properties, analogous to Step 5, we can pass to the limit in the problem (2.8)–(2.10). The only
difference is that the two terms involving the parameters ǫ vanish.
Then, we obtain that the mass equation is proved in D′ (Q). From (2.77)2 , we have that
ρǫ0 = ρǫ (0) → ρ(0) in W −1,p (Ω). However, as ρǫ0 → ρ0 in Lp (Ω), when 6 < p < ∞, and ρǫ0 ⇀ ρ0
weakly-∗ in L∞ (Ω), when p = ∞, then ρ(0) = ρ0 at least in W −1,p (Ω).
Finally, we verify the energy inequality (2.5). Multiplying (2.41) by φ ∈ D(0, T ), φ > 0,
integrating over (0, T ), using the convergence properties (2.63)–(2.69), we arrive at
Z T    Z t Z t 
1 √ ǫ ǫ 2 ǫ 2 ǫ 2 ǫ 2
k( ρ u )(t)k2 + kH (t)k2 + 2 ν kSu k2 ds + µ kSH k2 ds
0 2 0 0
 Z tZ Z tZ 
+ 2 να |uǫ |2 dσds + µβ |H ǫ |2 dσds φ(t)dt
0 ∂Ω 0 ∂Ω
 Z T
1 |v0,ǫ | 2
≤ k√ k2 + kH0ǫ k22 φ(t)dt. (2.86)
2 ρ0,ǫ 0

As ǫ → 0, we have
Z Z Z Z
|v0,ǫ |2 |v0 |2
dx → dx, |H0ǫ |2 dx → |H0 |2 dx.
Ω ρ0,ǫ Ω ρ0 Ω Ω

Furthermore, in view of the convergence properties (2.77)–(2.83), we can easily get

Z T    Z t Z t 
1 √ 2 2 2 2
k( ρu)(t)k2 + kH(t)k2 + 2 ν kSuk2ds + µ kSHk2ds
0 2 0 0
 Z tZ Z tZ 
+ 2 να |u|2 dσds + µβ |H|2 dσds φ(t)dt
0 ∂Ω 0 ∂Ω
 Z T
1 |v0 |
≤ k √ k22 + kH0 k22 φ(t)dt (2.87)
2 ρ0 0

for any φ ∈ D(0, T ), φ > 0. This yields the energy inequality (2.5). Consequently, we obtain
the existence of a weak solution in the sense of Definition 2.1. 

3 Combined Inviscid and Non-resistive Limit to the MHD Equations

In this section, we prove the convergence of the weak solutions obtained in Section 2 to the
strong solution of the ideal nonhomogeneous incompressible MHD equations as ν and µ go to
zero simultaneously. To this end, we recall a result of existence of strong solutions to the ideal
nonhomogeneous incompressible MHD equations.
Theorem 3.1 (see [13]) Let Ω be a bounded domain with boundary ∂Ω ∈ C ∞ and
0 < ρ∗ ≤ ρ00 ≤ ρ∗ < ∞, for two constants ρ∗ and ρ∗ . Moreover, assume that ρ00 , u00 , H00
∈ H s (Ω) with integer s ≥ 3, div u00 = div H00 = 0 in Ω, and u00 · n = H00 · n = 0 on ∂Ω.
Then there exists a positive time T ∗ such that the problem (1.6)–(1.7) has a unique solution
(ρ0 , u0 , H 0 ) satisfying

0 < ρ∗ ≤ ρ0 ≤ ρ∗ < ∞, (ρ0 , u0 , H 0 ) ∈ L∞ (0, T ∗ ; H s (Ω)). (3.1)

No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1673

Furthermore, if u0 and H 0 satisfy

∇u0 , ∇H 0 ∈ L∞ (0, T ; L∞(Ω)) (3.2)

with 0 < T < ∞, then the solution (ρ0 , u0 , H 0 , π 0 ) can be extended beyond T > 0.
Remark 3.2 By Sobolev embedding inequality and the regularity of the strong solution,
we have that u0 ∈ L∞ ((0, T ∗ ) × Ω), (∇ρ0 , ∇u0 , ∇H 0 ) ∈ L∞ ((0, T ∗ ) × Ω), u0t ∈ L∞ ((0, T ∗ ) × Ω).
Let (ρν,µ , uν,µ , H ν,µ ) be a weak solution, given by Theorem 2.4, of the system


 ρν,µ
t + uν,µ · ∇ρν,µ = 0,



 ρν,µ uν,µ + ρν,µ uν,µ · ∇uν,µ − H ν,µ · ∇H ν,µ + ∇π ν,µ − ν∆uν,µ = 0,
t
(3.3)


 Htν,µ + uν,µ · ∇H ν,µ − H ν,µ · ∇uν,µ − µ∆H ν,µ = 0,


 div uν,µ = div H ν,µ = 0

in Q, with the following initial-boundary conditions



 ρν,µ (0) = ρν,µ
0 ,

(ρ u )(0) = v0ν,µ ,
ν,µ ν,µ
(3.4)


 ν,µ
H (0) = H0ν,µ
in Ω, and 
 ν,µ
 u · n = 0,



 (Suν,µ · n)τ = −αuν,µ ,
τ
(3.5)

 H ν,µ · n = 0,




(SH ν,µ · n)τ = −βHτν,µ
on Σ.
We now give the main result of this section.
Theorem 3.3 Suppose that the hypotheses of Theorem 2.4 and Theorem 3.1 hold.
Let (ρν,µ , uν,µ , H ν,µ ) be the solution of the problem (1.1)–(1.3) given in Theorem 2.4, and
(ρ0 , u0 , H 0 ) be the solution of the problem (1.6)–(1.7) given in Theorem 3.1. Assume further
that ρ∗ ≤ ρν,µ 0 ≤ ρ∗ for all ν, µ > 0, where ρ∗ and ρ∗ are the same constants of Theorem 3.1.
Then there exists C > 0 independent of ν > 0 and µ > 0 such that the following inequality
holds

kρ0 (t) − ρν,µ (t)k22 + ku0 (t) − uν,µ (t)k22 + kH 0 (t) − H ν,µ (t)k22
 q
v0ν,µ 2
≤ C kρ00 − ρν,µ
0 k 2
2 + k ρ ν,µ 0
0 u 0 − p k2 + kH00 − H0ν,µ k22
ρν,µ
0
Z T∗ Z T∗ 
+ν ku0 k2H 1 (Ω) dτ + µ kH 0 k2H 1 (Ω) dτ . (3.6)
0 0

In particular, if
q
v0ν,µ 2
kρ00 − ρν,µ 2
0 k2 + k ρν,µ 0 0 ν,µ 2
0 u0 − p ν,µ k2 + kH0 − H0 k2 → 0 (3.7)
ρ0
as ν, µ → 0, then

sup kρ0 (τ ) − ρν,µ (τ )k22 + ku0 (τ ) − uν,µ (τ )k22

0<τ <t
1674 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

+ kH 0 (τ ) − H ν,µ (τ )k22 → 0 as ν, µ → 0. (3.8)
p √ p √ √
Remark 3.4 We point out that since ρ0 u0 − ρν,µ uν,µ = ( ρ0 − ρν,µ )u0 + ρν,µ (u0 −
uν,µ ), we have
p √

sup k( ρ0 u0 )(τ ) − ( ρν,µ uν,µ )(τ )k22 → 0 as ν, µ → 0.
0<τ <t

Proof The differences ρ = ρ0 − ρν,µ , u = u0 − uν,µ , H = H 0 − H ν,µ , and π = π 0 − π ν,µ

satisfy

 ν,µ 0
 ρt + u · ∇ρ = −u · ∇ρ ,




 ρν,µ [ut + uν,µ · ∇u] + ∇π = −ρ(u0t + u0 · ∇u0 ) − ρν,µ u · ∇u0 − ν∆uν,µ


+ H · ∇H 0 + H ν,µ · ∇H, (3.9)





 H t + uν,µ · ∇H + u · ∇H 0 − H 0 · ∇u − H · ∇uν,µ + µ∆H ν,µ = 0,


 div u = div H = 0

in Q, with the following initial-boundary conditions



 u·n= H ·n= 0 on Σ,



 ρ(0) = ρ0 − ρν,µ
0 0 in Ω,
(3.10)


 u(0) = u0 − uν,µ
0
0 in Ω,


 H(0) = H 0 − H ν,µ in Ω.
0 0

Multiplying the first equation in (3.9) by ρ and integrating with respect to time and space
variables, we have
Z tZ
1 2 1 2
kρ(t)k2 ≤ kρ(0)k2 − (u · ∇ρ0 )ρ dxdτ, (3.11)
2 2 0 Ω

where we have used the facts that div uν,µ = 0 in Q and uν,µ · n = 0 on Σ to deduce that the
RtR
integral 0 Ω (uν,µ · ∇ρ)ρ dxdτ vanishes. Based on Hölder’s and Young’s inequalities, we arrive
at
Z t


kρ(t)k22 ≤ kρ(0)k22 + k∇ρ0 k∞ kuk22 + kρk22 dτ. (3.12)
0

Additional, multiplying the second equation in (3.9) by u, integrating in space and time,
and integrating by parts in the Laplacian term, we obtain that
Z tZ Z tZ
1 √ ν,µ
k( ρ u)(t)k22 − 2να uν,µ · u dσdτ − 2ν S(uν,µ ) : S(u) dxdτ
2 0 ∂Ω 0 Ω
q Z tZ
1 v0ν,µ 2
≤ k ρν,µ 0 u 0
0 − p k 2 − (ρν,µ u · ∇u0 ) · u dxdτ
2 ρν,µ
0 0 Ω
Z tZ Z tZ
0 0 0
− ρ(ut + u · ∇u ) · u dxdτ + (H · ∇H 0 ) · u dxdτ
0 Ω 0 Ω
Z tZ
+ (H ν,µ · ∇H) · u dxdτ. (3.13)
0 Ω

We observe that
Z tZ Z tZ
− 2να uν,µ · u dσdτ − 2ν S(uν,µ ) : S(u) dxdτ
0 ∂Ω 0 Ω
No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1675
Z tZ Z tZ
u0 2 u0
= 2να |u − | dσdτ + 2ν |S(u − )|2 dxdτ
0 ∂Ω 2 0 Ω 2
Z tZ Z tZ
να ν
− |u0 |2 dσdτ − |S(u0 )|2 dxdτ. (3.14)
2 0 ∂Ω 2 0 Ω
Thus, by using Hölder’s inequality, we have
q Z t
1 √ ν,µ 2 1 ν,µ 0 v0ν,µ 2 √
k( ρ u)(t)k2 ≤ k ρ0 u0 − p k +
ν,µ 2
k∇u0 k∞ k ρν,µ uk22 dτ
2 2 ρ0 0
Z t Z Z
να t
+ ku0t k∞ kρk2 kuk2 dτ + |u0 |2 dσdτ
0 2 0 ∂Ω
Z t Z Z
ν t
+ ku0 · ∇u0 k∞ kρk2 kuk2 dτ + |S(u0 )|2 dxdτ
0 2 0 Ω
Z t Z tZ
0 ν,µ
+ k∇H k∞ kHk2 kuk2 dτ + (H · ∇H) · u dxdτ. (3.15)
0 0 Ω

Similar to u, we can easily get the following inequality for H

Z t
1 2 1 0 ν,µ 2
kH(t)k2 ≤ kH0 − H0 k2 + 2 k∇u0 k∞ kHk22 dτ
2 2 0
Z Z Z Z
µβ t 0 2 µ t
+ |H | dσdτ + |S(H 0 )|2 dxdτ
2 0 ∂Ω 2 0 Ω
Z t Z tZ
0
+ k∇H k∞ kHk2 kuk2 dτ − (H ν,µ · ∇H) · u dxdτ. (3.16)
0 0 Ω

Combining (3.12) and (3.15) with (3.16), and using trace inequality, we obtain that
1 √

kρ(t)k22 + k( ρν,µ u)(t)k22 + kH(t)k22
2  q 
0 ν,µ 2 1 ν,µ 0 v0ν,µ 2 0 ν,µ 2
≤ kρ0 − ρ0 k2 + k ρ0 u0 − p ν,µ k2 + kH0 − H0 k2
2 ρ0
Z t Z t
√
+ k∇u0 k∞ k ρν,µ uk22 dτ + C k∇ρ0 k∞ + k∇u0 k∞ + ku0t k∞
0 0



+ ku0 · ∇u0 k∞ + k∇H 0 k∞ kρk22 + kuk22 + kHk22 dτ
Z t Z t 
+ν ku0 k2H 1 (Ω) dτ + µ kH 0 k2H 1 (Ω) dτ , (3.17)
0 0

where the positive constant C = C(α, β, Ω) is independent of ν and µ. Notice also that

ρ∗ ≤ ρν,µ ≤ ρ∗ . (3.18)

Furthermore, in view of (3.18), there exists a positive constant C, depending only on α, β, Ω, ρ∗ ,

ρ∗ , such that

kρ0 (t) − ρν,µ (t)k22 + ku0 (t) − uν,µ (t)k22 + kH 0 (t) − H ν,µ (t)k22
 q
v0ν,µ 2
≤ C kρ00 − ρν,µ
0 k 2
2 + k ρν,µ 0 0
0 u0 − p ν,µ k2 + kH0 − H0 k2
ν,µ 2
ρ0
Z t


+ k∇ρ0 k∞ + k∇u0 k∞ + ku0t k∞ + ku0 · ∇u0 k∞ + k∇H 0 k∞ kρk22
0
Z t Z t 


+ kuk22 + kHk22 dτ + ν ku0 k2H 1 (Ω) dτ + µ kH 0 k2H 1 (Ω) dτ . (3.19)
0 0
1676 ACTA MATHEMATICA SCIENTIA Vol.38 Ser.B

Now we apply Gronwall’s inequality to obtain that

kρ0 (t) − ρν,µ (t)k22 + ku0 (t) − uν,µ (t)k22 + kH 0 (t) − H ν,µ (t)k22
 q
v0ν,µ 2
≤ C kρ00 − ρν,µ
0 k 2
2 + k ρν,µ 0 0
0 u0 − p ν,µ k2 + kH0 − H0 k2
ν,µ 2
ρ0
Z T∗ Z T∗ 
+ν ku0 k2H 1 (Ω) dτ + µ kH 0 k2H 1 (Ω) dτ , (3.20)
0 0

where the positive constant C depend only on α, β, Ω, ρ∗ , ρ∗ , ku0t kL∞ ((0,T ∗ )×Ω) ,
k∇(ρ0 , u0 , H 0 )kL∞ ((0,T ∗ )×Ω) , and ku0 · ∇u0 kL∞ ((0,T ∗ )×Ω) . Due to the regularity of u0 and
H 0 in Theorem 3.1, all the above norms are finite. Thus, we complete the proof of Theorem
3.3. 

Acknowledgements The author would like to show his appreciation to Professor Fucai
Li for his valuable suggestions and encouragement during preparing this paper.

References
[1] Gerbeau J F, Bris C L, Lelièvre T. Mathematical Methods for the Magnetohydrodynamics of Liquid Metals.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006
[2] Basson A, Gérard-Varet D. Wall laws for fluid flows at a boundary with random roughness. Comm Pure
Appl Math, 2008, 61(7): 941–987
[3] Davidson P A. An Introduction to Magnetohydrodynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001
[4] Duvaut G, Lions J L. Inéquations en thermoélasticité et magnétohydrodynamique. Arch Ration Mech Anal,
1972, 46(4): 241–279
[5] Gérard-Varet D, Masmoudi N. Relevance of the slip condition for fluid flows near an irregular boundary.
Comm Math Phys, 2010, 295(1): 99–137
[6] Danchin R. The inviscid limit for density-dependent incompressible fluids. Ann Fac Sci Toulouse Math,
2006, 15(4): 637–688
[7] Chandrasekhar S. Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961
[8] Feireisl E, Novotný A, Petzeltová H. On the existence of globally defined weak solutions to the Navier-Stokes
equations. J Math Fluid Mech, 2001, 3(4): 358–392
[9] Feireisl E. Dynamics of Viscous Compressible Fluids. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004
[10] Feireisl E, Novotný A. Singular Limits in Thermodynamics of Viscous Fluids. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag,
2009
[11] Ferreira L C F, Villamizar-Roa E J. Exponentially-stable steady flow and asymptotic behavior for the
magnetohydrodynamic equations. Commun Math Sci, 2011, 9(2): 499–516
[12] He C, Xin Z P. Partial regularity of suitable weak solutions to the incompressible magnetohydrodynamic
equations. J Funct Anal, 2005, 227(1): 113–152
[13] He F Y, Fan J S, Zhou Y. Local existence and blow-up criterion of the ideal density-dependent flows. Bound
Value Probl, 2016, 101: 13
[14] Michel S, Roger T. Some mathematical questions related to the MHD equations. Comm Pure Appl Math,
1983, 36(5): 635–664
[15] Meng Y, Wang Y G. A uniform estimate for the incompressible magneto-hydrodynamics equations with a
slip boundary condition. Quart Appl Math, 2016, 74(1): 27–48
[16] Dı́az J I, Lerena M B. On the inviscid and non-resistive limit for the equations of incompressible magneto-
hydrodynamics. Math Models Methods Appl Sci, 2002, 12(10): 1401–1419
[17] Kulikovskiy A G, Lyubimov G A. Magnetohydrodynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1965
[18] Kang K, Kim J. Regularity criteria of the magnetohydrodynamic equations in bounded domains or a half
space. J Diff Eqns, 2012, 253(2): 764–794
[19] Kato T. Quasi-linear equations of evolution, with applications to partial differential equations. Lecture
Notes in Math, 1975, 448: 25–70
No.6 Z.P. Zhang: NONHOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE MHD EQUATIONS 1677

[20] Landau L D, Lifchitz E M. Electrodynamics of Continuous Media. 2nd ed. New York: Pergamon, 1984
[21] Li X L, Wang D H. Global strong solution to the three-dimensional density-dependent incompressible
magnetohydrodynamic flows. J Diff Eqns, 2011, 251(6): 1580–1615
[22] Li X L, Wang D H. Global solutions to the incompressible magnetohydrodynamic equations. Commun Pure
Appl Anal, 2012, 11(2): 763-783
[23] Ferreira L C F, Planas G, Villamizar-Roa E J. On the nonhomogeneous Navier-Stokes system with Navier
friction boundary conditions. SIAM J Math Anal, 2013, 45(4): 2576–2595
[24] Li X J, Cai X J. The global L2 stability of solutions to three dimensional mhd equations. Acta Math Sci,
2013, 33B(1): 247–267
[25] Li F C, Zhang Z P. Zero kinematic viscosity-magnetic diffusion limit of the incompressible viscous magne-
tohydrodynamic equations with Navier boundary conditions. ArXiv:1606.05038
[26] Navier C L M H. Mémoire sur les lois de l’équilibre et du mouvement des corps élastiques. Mem Acad R
Sci Inst France, 1827, 6: 369
[27] Freidberg J P. Ideal Magnetohydrodynamics. New York, London: Plenum Press, 1987
[28] Itoh S. On the vanishing viscosity in the Cauchy problem for the equations of a nonhomogeneous incom-
pressible fluid. Glasgow Math J, 1994, 36(1): 123–129
[29] Simon J. Nonhomogeneous viscous incompressible fluids: existence of velocity, density, and pressure. SIAM
J Math Anal, 1990, 21(5): 1093–1117
[30] Simon J. Écoulement d’un fluide non homogène avec une densité initiale s’annulant (French). C R Acad
Sci Paris Sér A-B, 1978, 287(15): A1009–A1012
[31] Itoh S, Tani A. Solvability of nonstationary problems for nonhomogeneous incompressible fluids and the
convergence with vanishing viscosity. Tokyo J Math, 1999, 22(1): 17–42
[32] Schonbek M E, Schonbek T P, Süli E. Large-time behaviour of solutions to the magneto-hydrodynamics
equations. Math Ann, 1996, 304: 717–759
[33] Wang Y, Xin Z P, Yong Y. Uniform regularity and vanishing viscosity limit for the compressible Navier-
Stokes with general Navier-slip boundary conditions in three-dimensional domains. SIAM J Math Anal,
2015, 47(6): 4123–4191
[34] Xiao Y L, Xin Z P. On the vanishing viscosity limit for the 3D Navier-Stokes equations with a slip boundary
condition. Comm Pure Appl Math, 2007, 60(7): 1027–1055
[35] Xiao Y L, Xin Z P, Wu J H. Vanishing viscosity limit for the 3D magnetohydrodynamic system with a slip
boundary condition. J Funct Anal, 2009, 257(11): 3375–3394
[36] Zhang J W. The inviscid and non-resistive limit in the Cauchy problem for 3-D nonhomogeneous incom-
pressible magneto-hydrodynamics. Acta Math Sci, 2011, 31B(3): 882–896