Transition Threshold For The 3D Couette Flow in A Finite Channel

TRANSITION THRESHOLD FOR THE 3D COUETTE FLOW IN A
FINITE CHANNEL
QI CHEN, DONGYI WEI, AND ZHIFEI ZHANG

arXiv:2006.00721v1 [math.AP] 1 Jun 2020
Abstract. In this paper, we study nonlinear stability of the 3D plane Couette flow (y, 0, 0)
at high Reynolds number Re in a finite channel T × [−1, 1] × T. It is well known that the
plane Couette flow is linearly stable for any Reynolds number. However, it could become
nonlinearly unstable and transition to turbulence for small but finite perturbations at high
Reynolds number. This is so-called Sommerfeld paradox. One resolution of this paradox is
to study the transition threshold problem, which is concerned with how much disturbance
will lead to the instability of the flow and the dependence of disturbance on the Reynolds
number. This work shows that if the initial velocity v0 satisfies kv0 − (y, 0, 0)kH 2 ≤ c0 Re−1
for some c0 > 0 independent of Re, then the solution of the 3D Navier-Stokes equations is
global in time and does not transition away from the Couette flow in the L∞ sense, and
1
rapidly converges to a streak solution for t ≫ Re 3 due to the mixing-enhanced dissipation
effect. This result confirms the transition threshold conjecture proposed by Trefethen et
al.(Science, 261(1993), 578-584). To this end, we develop the resolvent estimate method to
establish the space-time estimates for the full linearized Navier-Stokes system around the
flow (V (t, y, z), 0, 0), where V (t, y, z) is a small perturbation(but independent of Re) of the
Couette flow y.
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Linear and nonlinear mechanisms affecting the threshold 7
2.1. 3D lift-up effect 7
2.2. Inviscid damping 7
2.3. Enhanced dissipation 8
2.4. Boundary layer effect 9
2.5. Streak solution and nonlinear interaction 10
3. Key ideas and ingredients of the proof 11
3.1. Reformulation of the perturbation system 11
3.2. Key ingredients when Ω = T × R × T 11
3.3. New ingredients and ideas when Ω = T × [−1, 1] × T 13
3.4. Sketch of the estimate of E5 15
3.5. Resolvent estimates with non-vanishing Neumann data 18
4. Resolvent estimates with Navier-slip boundary condition 19
4.1. Resolvent estimates 21
4.2. Weak type resolvent estimates 27
4.3. Estimates of the Neumann data 29
5. Lp estimate of the solutions for the homogeneous OS 37
5.1. Basic properties of the Airy function 38
5.2. The solution of the homogeneous OS equation 40
Date: June 2, 2020.

1
2 QI CHEN, DONGYI WEI, AND ZHIFEI ZHANG
5.3. Proof of Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 5.2 42

6. Resolvent estimates via the Neumann boundary data 45
6.1. Resolvent estimates when V = y and F = 0 45
6.2. Resolvent estimates with general V and F = 0 47
6.3. Resolvent estimates with general V and F 50
7. Resolvent estimates when V = y 61
8. Resolvent estimates for the simplified linearized NS system 65
8.1. Resolvent estimates for a toy model 65
1 1
8.2. Proof of Proposition 8.1 when |λ| ≥ 1 − ν 3 |k|− 3 67
8.3. Singular part of W 68
8.4. Boundary corrector of U 69
8.5. Construction of good unknown 76
1 1
8.6. Proof of Proposition 8.1 when |λ| ≤ 1 − ν 3 |k|− 3 78
9. Resolvent estimates for the full linearized NS system 84
9.1. Case of νk2 ≥ 1 84
9.2. Case of νk2 ≤ 1 87
10. Space-time estimates of the linearized equation 88
10.1. Space-time estimates with Navier-slip boundary condition 88
10.2. Space-time estimates with non-slip boundary condition 92
11. Nonlinear interactions 98
11.1. Anisotropic bilinear estimates 98
11.2. The velocity estimates in terms of the energy 100
11.3. Interaction between nonzero modes 103
11.4. Interaction between zero modes 105
11.5. Interaction between zero mode and nonzero mode 106
12. Energy estimates for zero mode 108
12.1. Estimate of E1 108
13. Energy estimates for nonzero modes:semi-linear part 114
13.1. Estimate of E3,0 115
13.2. Estimate of E3,1 117
14. Energy estimates for nonzero modes:quasi-linear part 119
14.1. Resolvent estimate of the linearized operator 119
14.2. Space-time estimate via freezing the coefficient in time 122
14.3. Estimates of quadratic form 127
15. Global stability and long-time behavior 132
15.1. Global existence and uniqueness 132
15.2. Global stability estimates 134
16. Appendix 136
16.1. Sobolev inequalities 136
16.2. Elliptic estimates with the weight 137
16.3. Some basic properties of harmonic function 138
16.4. Maximal inequality of harmonic function 140
16.5. Limiting absorption principle 141
16.6. A simple algebraic inequality 144
16.7. Gearhart-Prüss type lemma 145
Acknowledgement 145
TRANSITION THRESHOLD FOR THE 3D COUETTE FLOW 3
References 145
1. Introduction
Hydrodynamic stability at high Reynolds number has been an important and very active
field in the fluid mechanics. Beginning with Reynolds’s famous paper in 1883 [56], many
famous physicists and mathematicians made an important contribution to this field, such as
Rayleigh, Kelvin, Orr, Sommerfeld, Heisenberg, Prandtl, Taylor, Arnold, Kolmogorov, Lin
etc. This field is mainly concerned with how the laminar flows become unstable and transition
to turbulence [58, 69].
On one hand, the eigenvalue analysis showed that the plane Couette flow is linearly stable
for any Reynolds number Re ≥ 0 [57, 24]. It has been a folklore conjecture since Reynolds’s
experiment in 1883 that the pipe Poiseuille flow is linearly stable for any Reynolds number. In
a recent work [18], we prove the linear stability of pipe Poiseuille flow for general perturbations
at high Reynolds number regime. On the other hand, the experiments showed that these
flows could be unstable and transition to turbulence for small but finite perturbations at
high Reynolds number [15, 28, 53, 58, 69]. In addition, some laminar flows such as plane
Poiseuille flow become turbulent at much lower Reynolds number than the critical Reynolds
number predicted by the eigenvalue analysis. This is so-called Sommerfeld paradoxes. The
resolution of these paradoxes is a long-standing problem in fluid mechanics. There are many
attempts to resolve these paradoxes(see [15] and references therein).
The linear mechanism leading to the transition is very different from those due to the exis-
tence of growing modes(or unstable eigenvalues). This kind of transition is called subcritical
transition or by-pass transition in physical literature. In [59], Trefethen et al provided an
important understanding of this transition from the viewpoint of pseudospectra of the linear
operator. For both Couette flow and Poiseuille flow, their pseudospectra includes the unsta-
ble domain, although their spectrum is stable. This phenomena is due to the non-normality
of the linear operator. Psuedospectra has become an important concept for analyzing the
stability of non-normal operators [60]. Another consequence of non-normality gives rise to
the transient growth of the solution of the linear evolution equation:
∂t u + Au = 0, u(0) = u0 ,
where A is a non-normal operator. That is, the solution ku(t)kX could grow polynomially in
time, even if A has no unstable eigenvalues.
To understand how the interaction of linear and nonlinear mechanisms leads to the transi-
tion to turbulence, an important question firstly proposed by Trefethen et al. [59] is to study
the transition threshold problem, which is concerned with how much disturbance will lead to
the instability of the flow and the dependence of disturbance on the Reynolds number. This
idea may be traced back to Kelvin, who wrote in 1887(see [40, 59]):
It seems probable, almost certain, indeed, that · · · the steady motion is stable for any
viscosity, however small; and the practical unsteadiness pointed out by Stokes forty-four years
ago, and so admirable investigated by Osborn Reynolds, is to be explained by limits of stability
becoming narrower and narrower the smaller is the viscosity.
The following mathematical version of transition threshold problem was formulated
by Bedrossian, Germain and Masmoudi [9, 10]:
Given a norm k · kX , find a β = β(X) so that

ku0 kX ≤ Re−β =⇒ stability,
ku0 kX ≫ Re−β =⇒ instability.
The exponent β is referred to as the transition threshold. It was conjectured by Trefethen
et al. in [59] that β ≤ 1:
Notwithstanding these qualification, we conjecture that transition to turbulence of eigenvalue-
stable shear flows proceeds analogously to our model in that the destabilizing mechanism is
essentially linear in the sense described above and the amplitude threshold for transition is
O(Reγ ) for some γ < −1.
A lot of works [2, 15, 25, 44, 49, 54, 61, 69] in applied mathematics and physics are
devoted to estimating β. Numerical experiments by Lundbladh, Henningson and Reddy [49]
and formal asymptotic analysis by Chapman [15] indicated that
1. Plane Couette flow
5
(1) Numerical experiments: β = 1 for streamwise perturbation and β = 4 for oblique
perturbation;
(2) Asymptotic analysis: β = 1 for streamwise and oblique perturbation.
2. Plane Poiseuille flow
(1) Numerical experiments: β = 47 for streamwise and oblique perturbation;
(2) Asymptotic analysis: β = 32 for streamwise perturbation and β = 54 for oblique
perturbation.
Furthermore, it was shown in [15] why the numerically determined threshold exponents are
not the true asymptotic values. Formal asymptotic analysis in [15] confirms the conjecture
for the Couette flow proposed by Trefethen et al. in [59].
In the absence of physical boundary(i.e., T × R × T), in the works [9, 7, 8], Bedrossian,
Germain and Masmoudi made an important progress on the transition threshold problem
for the 3-D Couette flow. It was shown that β ≤ 1 for the perturbations in Gevrey class
and β ≤ 32 for the perturbations in Sobolev space. More precisely, the authors in [9] showed
3
that if the initial perturbation u0 satisfies ku0 kH σ ≤ δν 2 for σ > 92 , then the solution is
1
global in time, remains within O(ν 2 ) of the Couette flow in L2 for any time, and converges
1
to the streak solution for t ≫ ν − 3 . In a recent work [63], the later two authors proved that
β ≤ 1 also for the perturbations in Sobolev space, which means that the regularity of the
initial data(at least above H 2 regularity) does not play an important role in determining the
transition threshold.
In the presence of physical boundary, at high Reynolds number regime, the boundary layer
could affect the stability of the flow. To understand the boundary layer effect, in a joint work
[19] with Li, we study the transition threshold problem of the 2-D Couette flow in a finite
channel T × [−1, 1]. Since the 2-D Navier-Stokes equations have no lift-up effect, nonlinear
effect is weaker so that the threshold is much smaller. More precisely, it was showed that if
1 1
ku0 kH 2 ≤ c0 ν 2 for some c0 > 0, then the solution will remain within O(ν 2 ) of the Couette
flow in L∞ for any time. This result is consistent with one for the case of Ω = T×R considered
in [13]. In a recent work [50], the threshold has been improved to β ≤ 13 when Ω = T × R.
It remains a very interesting problem whether the threshold can be improved to β ≤ 13 when
Ω = T × [−1, 1]. Our previous work in 2D provides a foundation to study the 3D problem. In
particular, the resolvent estimate method developed in [19] is still very key in 3D case. Main
challenges in 3D is to study how various linear effects(especially, boundary layer effect) and
strong nonlinear effect interact to determine the transition threshold.
The goal of this paper is to solve the transition threshold conjecture for the 3D plane
Couette flow U (y) = (y, 0, 0) in a finite channel Ω = T × [−1, 1] × T. We consider the 3D
incompressible Navier-Stokes equations at high Reynolds number Re regime:

 ∂t v − ν∆v + v · ∇v + ∇p = 0,

∇ · v = 0,

 v(0, x, y, z) = v (x, y, z), x, z ∈ T, y ∈ [−1, 1].
0

where v = v 1 (t, x, y, z), v 2 (t, x, y, z), v 3 (t, x, y, z) is the velocity, p(t, x, y, z) is the pressure,
and ν = Re−1 > 0 is the viscosity coefficient.
We introduce the perturbation u(t, x, y, z) = v(t, x, y, z) − U (y), which solves
  2

 u

  0  + ∇pL + u · ∇u + ∇pN L = 0,

 ∂ t u − ν∆u + y∂ x u +
(1.1) 0

 ∇ · u = 0,




u(0, x, y, z) = u0 (x, y, z),
together with the nonslip boundary condition
(1.2) u(t, x, ±1, z) = 0.
Here the pressure pL and pN L are determined by


 ∆pL = −2∂x u2 ,

(1.3) ∆pN L = −div(u · ∇u) = −∂i uj ∂j ui ,


 (∂ pL − ν∆u2 )| = 0, ∂ pN L | = 0.
y y=±1 y y=±1
To state our result, we define

Z
1
P0 f = f = f (x, y, z)dx, P6= f = f6= = f − P0 f.
2π T
Our main result is stated as follows.
Theorem 1.1. Assume that u0 ∈ H01 (Ω) ∩ H 2 (Ω) with div u0 = 0. There exist constants
ν0 , c0 , ǫ, C > 0, independent of ν so that if ku0 kH 2 ≤ c0 ν, 0 < ν ≤ ν0 , then the solution u of
the system (1.1) is global in time and satisfies the following stability estimates:
• Uniform bounds and decay of the background streak:
(1.4) kū1 (t)kH 2 + kū1 (t)kL∞ ≤ Cν −1 min(νt + ν 2/3 , e−νt )ku0 kH 2 ,
(1.5) kū2 (t)kH 2 + kū3 (t)kH 1 + k(ū2 , ū3 )(t)kL∞ ≤ Ce−νt ku0 kH 2 .
• Rapid convergence to a streak:
(1.6) k(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= (t)kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= (t)kL2 + k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= (t)kL2 + ν 1/4 ku26= (t)kH 2
1/3
+ ν 1/3 k(u16= , u36= )(t)kH 1 + ku26= (t)kL∞ + ν 1/6 k(u16= , u36= )(t)kL∞ ≤ Ce−2ǫν t ku0 kH 2 ,
√
(1.7) ku6= kL∞ L2 + νkt(u16= , u36= )kL2 L2 + k∇u26= kL∞ L2 + k∇u26= kL2 L2 ≤ Cku0 kH 2 .
Let us give some remarks on our results.
1. Our rigorous analysis shows that various linear effects(including 3D lift-up effect,
boundary layer effect, inviscid damping and enhanced dissipation) and nonlinear in-
teraction play an import role in determining the transition threshold. Surprisingly,
the transition threshold obtained in this paper is consistent with one for the case of
Ω = T × R × T obtained in [63]. This shows that 3D lift-up may be the main mech-
anism leading to the instability of the flow even in the presence of boundary layer
effect. Our explanation on this surprise result is that weak nonlinear interaction(or
null structure of nonlinear terms) and good linear mechanisms(inviscid damping and
enhanced dissipation) counteract the bad effect of the boundary layer.
2. Global stability estimates in particular imply that
ku(t)kL∞ ≤ Cc0 e−νt → 0 as t → +∞.
This means that the 3D Couette flow is nonlinearly stable in L∞ sense when the
perturbation is o(ν) in H 2 .
3. In [50], the authors formulated the following question on nonlinear enhanced dissipa-
tion and inviscid damping:
Given a norm k · kX (X ⊂ L2 ), find a β = β(X) so that for ku0 kX ≪ ν β and for
any t > 0
1/3 t
ku6= (t)kL2 ≤ Ce−cν ku0 kX and ku26= kL2 L2 ≤ Cku0 kX .
Our results answer this question for the 3D Couette flow.
4. The transition threshold problem is very interesting in an infinite channel Ω = R ×
[−1, 1] × T. In this case, we need to understand the long wave effect in the x variable
on the stability. In fact, we conjecture that the threshold may be strictly less than 1
in this case.
5. The dynamics above the threshold should be a challenging problem, which is out of
our current method.
6. Formal asymptotic analysis conducted in [15] indicates that the profile of shear flows
may affect the transition threshold. From the results in [15], it seems reasonable to
conjecture that the threshold β ≤ 32 for the plane Poiseuille flow. In [43], Li, Wei
and Zhang proved that the threshold β ≤ 74 for the 3D Kolmogorov flow. It is a very
interesting question whether one can improve the threshold to β ≤ 23 .
7. The transition threshold for the pipe Poiseuille flow is completely open. However,
this flow is probably the most interesting and important, because it is close to the
setting of the experiment conducted by Reynolds in 1883. In fact, the linear stability
is just proved by our work [18].
Notations. Throughout this paper, we denote by C a constant independent of ν, k, ℓ and
c0 , ε0 , ǫ1 , which may be different from line to line. Moreover, ε0 , ǫ1 are absolute small con-
stants independent of ν, k, ℓ.
The following notations will be constantly used throughout this paper:

• Γj = (x, j, z)|x, z ∈ T} for j ∈ {±1 and ∂Ω = Γ1 ∪ Γ−1 .
1
R
• P0 f = f = 2π T f (x, y, z)dx, P6= f = f6= = f − P0 f .
1 1 1
• η = (k + ℓ ) 2 and δ = ν 3 |k|− 3 .
2 2
∂y κ + κ∂z κ ∂z κ − κ∂y κ
• κ = ∂z V /∂y V , ρ1 = 2
, ρ2 = .
∂y V (1 + κ ) (1 + κ2 )
• We denote by k · kLp the Lp (D) norm with D = Ω or D = I = (−1, 1), which is easy
to distinguish from the context(for example, D = Ω in sections 4, 6, 8, 9).
• We denote by k · kH k the Sobolev norm k · kH k (D) with D = Ω or D = I = (−1, 1).

• We denote by k · kLq Lp the space-time norm k · kLq (0,t;Lp (D)) with D = Ω or I and
t = T ( in sections 11, 12, 13) or +∞(somewhere in section 10, 14).
• Summation convention: the repeated upper and lower indices are summed over i, j ∈
{1, 2, 3} and α, β ∈ {2, 3}.
2. Linear and nonlinear mechanisms affecting the threshold

There are four kinds of linear effects: 3D lift-up, boundary layer, inviscid damping and
enhanced dissipation, which play a key role in determining the transition threshold.
2.1. 3D lift-up effect. To avoid the boundary, we consider y ∈ R. In this case, the linearized
system of (1.1) reads

∂t u − ν∆u + y∂x u + u2 , 0, 0 − ∇∆−1 2∂x u2 = 0.
Introduce new variables (x, y, z) = (x−ty, y, z) and set u
e(t, x, y, z) = u(t, x, y, z), which solves

e − ν∆L u
∂t u e+ ue2 , 0, 0 − ∇L ∆−1L 2∂x ue2 = 0,
where ∇L = (∂x , ∂y − t∂x , ∂z ) and ∆L = ∇L · ∇L . Notice that P0 u
e = u, and hence it reads
2

∂t u − ν∆u + u , 0, 0 = 0.
The solution of this linear problem is given by
 νt∆ 1 
e (u (0) − tu2 (0))
u(t) =  eνt∆ u2 (0) .
νt∆ 3
e u (0)
This means that
ku1 (t)kL2 ≤ Cte−νt ku(0)kL2 .
This linear growth for times t . 1/ν is known as the lift-up effect first observed in [26].
This effect is related to the non-normality of the linearized operator, which may give rise to
the transient growth of the solution even if the operator is spectrally stable [59, 60].
This turns out to be the main mechanism leading to nonlinear instability of the flow in
3D case, which is absence in 2D fluid flow due to the beautiful structure of the vorticity
ω = ∂y v 1 − ∂x v 2 :
∂t ω − ν∆ω + v · ∇ω = 0.
2.2. Inviscid damping. Let us consider the 2D linearized Euler equation around a shear
flow (U (y), 0) in terms of the vorticity:
∂t ω + U (y)∂x ω + U ′′ (y)∂x (−∆)−1 ω = 0.
In particular, when U (y) = y, there holds
∂t ω + y∂x ω = 0.
Thus, kω(t)kLp is conserved for any time. However, Orr [25] observed that the velocity will
tend to 0 as t → ∞. More precisely, there holds
ku(t)k ≤ C(1 + t)−1 ku0 kH 2 , ku2 (t)kL2 ≤ C(1 + t)−2 ku0 kH 3 .
This is so-called the inviscid damping, which is due to the mixing of the vorticity induced
by a shear flow. This phenomena is analogous to Landau damping in plasma physics found
by Landau [48].
For general shear flows, linear inviscid damping is also a difficult problem. In a series of
work [65, 66, 67], Wei, Zhang and Zhao proved the linear inviscid damping for monotone
flows and non-monotone flows including the Poiseuille and Kolmogorov flows. Let us refer
to [70, 71, 5, 68, 55, 39, 22] and references therein for related works and recent progress on
linear inviscid damping.
Nonlinear inviscid damping is a challenging problem. Nonlinear Landau damping was
proved by Mouhot and Villani [51]. Bedrossian and Masmoudi [11] proved nonlinear inviscid
damping for the Couette flow in the domain Ω = T×R. On the other hand, nonlinear Landau
damping and inviscid damping do not hold for the perturbations in Sobolev spaces of low
regularity [46, 47]. Let us refer to [23, 37, 38] for recent important progress on nonlinear
inviscid damping.
Let us turn to the 2D linearized Navier-Stokes equations around the Couette flow in a
finite channel T × [−1, 1]:
(
∂t ω − ν∆ω + y∂x ω = 0,
(2.1)
∆ϕ = ω, ϕ|y=±1 = ∂y ϕ|y=±1 = 0, u = − ∂y ϕ, ∂x ϕ .
In a joint work [19] with Li, we established the inviscid damping result of (2.1) in the sense
ku6= kL2 L2 ≤ Ckω(0)kH 1 ,
which plays an important role for 2D transition threshold problem.
In 3D, ∆u2 has a similar structure as the vorticity in 2D:
∂t W − ν∆W + y∂x W = 0, ∆u2 = W, u2 |y=±1 = ∂y u2 |y=±1 = 0.
2.3. Enhanced dissipation. Let us consider the diffusion-convection equation in Ω = T×R:
∂t ω − ν∆ω + y∂x ω = 0.
Introduce new variables (x, y) = (x − ty, y) and set ω e (t, x, y) = ω(t, x, y). Then the solution
R
b
ω
e (t, k, ξ) = T×R ω
e (t, x, y)e−ikx−iξy dxdy takes the form
2
Rt 2 +(ξ−kτ )2 )dτ
b
e 6= (t, k, ξ) = e−ν(2π)
ω 0 (k ω
b6= (0, k, ξ).
Rt 2
Due to 0 (k + (ξ − kτ )2 )dτ ≥ k2 t3 /12, we deduce that
3 1/3 t
kω6= (t)kL2 ≤ e−cνt kω6= (0)kL2 ≤ Ce−cν kω6= (0)kL2 ,
which also gives
1 1/3 t
(2.2) ν 6 kecν ω6= (t)kL2 L2 ≤ Ckω6= (0)kL2 .
Here the exponent νt3 gives a dissipation time scale ν −1/3 , which is much shorter than the
dissipation time scale ν −1 . We refer to this phenomenon as the enhanced dissipation,
which is also due to the mixing mechanism. For the system (2.1), the following enhanced
dissipation estimate was essentially proved in [19]:
1 1/3 t
ν 4 kecν ω6= (t)kL2 L2 ≤ Ckω6= (0)kH 1 .
1
Compared with (2.2), the loss of ν is due to the boundary layer effect.
12
In [20], Constantin et al. gave a sufficient and necessary condition for general incom-
pressible flow on a compact manifold. However, the quantitative enhanced dissipation rate
is usually hard to obtain except for some special flows such as shear flow, spiral flow and
Anosov flow [21].
The enhanced dissipation for the Kolmogorov flow (eνt cos y, 0), which is a solution of
the 2D Navier-Stokes equations on the torus, has been proved by using different methods:
resolvent estimate method [43, 36], wave operator method [67] and hypocoercivity method [64,
3]. More precisely, consider the linearized 2D Navier-Stokes equations around the Kolmogorov
flow in T2πδ × T2π :

∂t ω − ν∆ω + e−νt cos y∂x 1 + ∆−1 ω = 0.
If δ ∈ (0, 1), then it holds that for t . ν −1 ,
1
kω6= (t)kL2 ≤ Ce−cν 2 t kω6= (0)kL2 .
Here the enhanced dissipation rate is smaller than one for the Couette flow. This leads
to conjecture that for stable monotone shear flows to the Euler equations, the enhanced
1 1
dissipation rate should be ν 3 , and the rate should be ν 2 for stable shear flows with non
degenerate critical point.
In additional to the transition threshold problem, the enhanced dissipation also plays an
important role for the suppression of blow-up in the Keller-Segel system [42, 6, 35] and
axisymmertrization of 2D viscous vortices [27]. Let us refer to [4, 34, 45] for more relevant
works.
2.4. Boundary layer effect. Using the Laplace transform, the system (2.1) can be reduced
to solving the Orr-Sommerfeld(OS) equation
(
− ν(∂y2 − k2 )2 φ + ik(y − λ)(∂y2 − k2 )φ = F,
(2.3)
φ(±1) = 0, φ′ (±1) = 0.
In general, when ν → 0, the solution of (2.3) does not converge in a strong sense to the
solution of the Rayleigh equation
ik(y − λ)(∂y2 − k2 )φ = F, φ(±1) = 0,
because of the mismatch of their boundary conditions.
In [19], we decompose the solution of (2.3) as
φ = φN a + c1 φb,1 + c2 φb,2 ,
where φN a solves the OS equation with the Navier-slip boundary condition:
(
− ν(∂y2 − k2 )2 φN a + ik(y − λ)(∂y2 − k2 )φN a = F,
φN a (±1) = 0, φ′′N a (±1) = 0,
and φb,i , i = 1, 2 solves the homogeneous OS equation:
(
− ν(∂y2 − k2 )2 φb,1 + ik(y − λ)(∂y2 − k2 )φb,1 = 0,
φb,1 (±1) = 0, φ′b,1 (1) = 1, φ′b,1 (−1) = 0,
and
(
− ν(∂y2 − k2 )2 φb,2 + ik(y − λ)(∂y2 − k2 )φb,2 = 0,
φb,2 (±1) = 0, φ′b,2 (−1) = 1, φ′b,2 (1) = 0.
Via this decomposition, the boundary behavior of the solution φ can be described by φb,i ,
and the coefficients ci , i = 1, 2 are determined by φN a . Let wb,i = (∂y2 − k2 )φb,i , which is a
linear combination of the following two independent Airy functions:
π 5π
W1 (y) = Ai ei 6 (L(y − λ − ikν)) , W2 (y) = Ai ei 6 (L(y − λ − ikν)) ,
1 1
where L = kν 3 . In some sense, this means that the width of the boundary layer is ν 3 . In
particular, there is a loss of L when taking the derivative in y variable.
Main advantage of this decomposition is that the resolvent estimate of φN a can be derived
by using the energy method under the Navier-slip boundary conditions, and the estimates of
φb,i can be obtained by using the estimates of the Airy function. This idea introduced in [19]
could be used to study the stability problem for general shear flows.
Recently, Grenier, Guo and Nguyen developed Rayleigh-Airy iteration method to solve the
OS equation [32, 33]. Gerard-Varet, Maekawa and Masmoudi applied their method to the
stability of the boundary layer shear flows [30, 29].
2.5. Streak solution and nonlinear interaction. If the initial data in (1.1) is independent
of x, then so is the solution, i.e., u(t, x, y, z) = u(t, y, z). In this case, (u2 , u3 ) solves the 2D
Navier-Stokes equations, and u1 solves the linear advection-diffusion equation


 ∂t u1 − ν∆u1 + (u2 ∂y + u3 ∂z )u1 + u2 = 0,


 ∂t u2 − ν∆u2 + (u2 ∂y + u3 ∂z )u2 + ∂y p = 0,


 ∂t u3 − ν∆u2 + (u2 ∂y + u3 ∂z )u3 + ∂z p = 0,


∂y u2 + ∂z u3 = 0.
1
This solution is referred to as the streak. Our result shows that for t ≫ ν − 3 , the streak
solutions describe the dynamics of the system if the perturbation is below the threshold.
If we decompose the solution u into u + u6= , where u denotes zero mode and u6= denotes
nonzero mode, then nonlinear interactions can be classified as follows:
• zero mode and zero mode interaction: 0 · 0 → 0;
• zero mode and nonzero mode interaction: 0· = 6 →6=;
• nonzero mode and nonzero mode interaction: 6= · = 6 →6= or 6= · = 6 → 0.
Due to the lift-up effect, main nonlinear effect comes from the interaction between the
streak solution and nonzero modes, especially, u1 ∂x u6= , uj6= ∂j u1 (j = 2, 3). This seems a pri-
mary source so that the solution could become unstable and transition to turbulence if the
perturbation exceeds some threshold.
To study how nonlinear and linear mechanisms interact to bring about transition to tur-
bulence, in [59], the authors considered a 2 × 2 model problem:
du
= Au + kukBu,
dt
where

−R−1 1 0 −1
A= , B= .
0 − 2R−1 1 0
and R is a large parameter. Now the linear part has a transient growth due to the non-
normality of A, and nonlinear term does not create or destroy energy since B is skew-
symmetric. This simple model has a strong nonlinear bootstrapping effect so that the
threshold amplitude is of order R−3 not R−1 . However, the Navier-Stokes equations are
different from this simple model in two aspects: (1) there are infinitely many different modes,
most of which do not experience non-normal linear growth; (2) nonlinear interactions be-
tween different modes probably make the quadratic nonlinearity unrealistically strong. Thus,
they conjectured that the amplitude threshold of transition for the Naver-stokes equation is
O(Reγ ) for some γ < −1.
Indeed, for the Navier-Stokes equations, nonlinear term has some good(null) structures
similar to null forms introduced in [41]. These structures may avoid the worst nonlinear
interactions. In some sense, u2 could be viewed as a good component, u1 a bad component,
and ∂x , ∂z good derivatives, while ∂y is a bad derivative. Since the nonlinear term takes the
form ui ∂i uj , there are no worst interactions such as the interaction between u1 and itself. For
the term u2 ∂y u6= , although ∂y is bad, u2 is good. In other words, a bad term(or derivative)
always accompanies a good one for nonlinear interactions.
3. Key ideas and ingredients of the proof

3.1. Reformulation of the perturbation system. Recall that the perturbation u = v −U
satisfies
 2
u
∂t − ν∆ + y∂x u +  0  + ∇pL + u · ∇u + ∇pN L = 0.
0
For the zero mode u, there holds
(3.1) (∂t − ν∆)u1 + u2 + u · ∇u1 = 0,
(3.2) (∂t − ν∆)ūj + ∂j p̄ + (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )ūj + u6= · ∇uj6= = 0, j = 2, 3.
To estimate the nonzero modes, we will use the formulation in terms of the shear wise
velocity u2 and vorticity ω 2 = ∂z u1 − ∂x u3 :


 ∂t (∆u2 ) − ν∆2 u2 + y∂x ∆u2 + (∂x2 + ∂z2 )(u · ∇u2 )


 − ∂y ∂x (u · ∇u1 ) + ∂z (u · ∇u3 ) = 0,
(3.3)
 ∂t ω 2 − ν∆ω 2 + y∂x ω 2 + ∂z u2 + ∂z (u · ∇u1 ) − ∂x (u · ∇u3 ) = 0,




∂y u2 (t, x, ±1, z) = u2 (t, x, ±1, z) = 0, ω 2 (x, ±1, z) = 0.
The idea of using ∆u2 may go back to Kelvin’s original paper [40]. The coupled system
of (∆u2 , ω 2 ) was used in many physical literatures such as [15, 58], and our recent work
on the stability of 3D Kolmogorov flow [43], and blow-up criterion in terms of one velocity
component [16, 17]. The main advantage of using ∆u2 is that the equation of ∆u2 does not
destroy the linear structure. This important point has played an important role in the works
[9, 63].
3.2. Key ingredients when Ω = T×R×T. In this subsection, we will review the framework
and key ingredients when Ω = T × R × T in [63], which will help understand the difficulties
and ideas of this work.
For a ≥ 0, we introduce two norms
1
kwkY0 =kwkL∞ L2 + ν 2 k∇wkL2 L2 ,
1/3 t 1 1/3 t
kwkXa =keaν wkL∞ L2 + ν 2 keaν ∇wkL2 L2
aν 1/3 t 1/3 t
+ ν 1/6 ke wkL2 L2 + keaν ∇∆−1 ∂x wkL2 L2 .
1/3
The norm of Y0 corresponds to the heat diffusion. The weight eaν t in Xa corresponds to
the enhanced dissipation, and the fourth part of Xa corresponds to the inviscid damping.
In [63], the following energy functionals were introduced:
1
E1 = kukL∞ H 4 + ν 2 k∇ukL2 H 4 + k∂t ukL∞ H 2 + ku(1)kH 2 /ν,
2 1
E2 = k∆u2 kY0 + ku3 kY0 + k∇u3 kY0 + k min(ν 3 + νt, 1) 2 ∆u3 kY0 ,
2
E3 = k∆u26= kX2 + k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= kX2 + ν 3 k∆u36= kX3 ,
1/3 t 1 1/3 t
E4 = ke2ν (∂x , ∂z )u6= kL∞ H 3 + ν 2 ke2ν ∇(∂x , ∂z )u6= kL2 H 3 ,
(E5) E5 = k∂x2 u2 kX3 + k∂x2 u3 kX3 .
Let us give some explanations about the energy functional:
• E1 is introduced to control the zero mode. Due to the lift-up effect, E1 is expected
to be o(1) at best.
• E2 is introduced to control good components u2 , u3 . Since there is no lift-up in the
equations of u2 and u3 , E2 is expected to be o(ν).
• E4 is mainly introduced to control E1 , since E1 involves the fourth order derivative
of the solution. Due to the lift-up effect, it is also expected to be o(1).
• E3 is introduced to control good components ∆u2 and (∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= .
• The most key part E5 is introduced to control E3 . A key difference with E3 is to use
the X3 norm instead of the X2 norm, which is very crucial to control some nonlinear
terms with the lift-up effect such as u1 ∂x u6= and uj6= ∂j u1 (j = 2, 3).
The estimates of E1 and E2 are based on the direct energy method. It holds that

(3.4) E1 ≤ C ku(1)kH 4 + ν −1 ku(1)kH 2 + ν −1 E2 + ν −1 E32 + ν −1 E3 E4 ,

(3.5) E2 ≤ C ku(1)kH 2 + ν −1 E32 .
The estimate of E3 is based on the space-time estimates for the following linearized system:
LW = ∆f1 , LU − 2∂x ∂z ∆−2 W = f2 , L = ∂t − ν∆ + y∂x .
That is, if P0 W = P0 U = P0 f1 = P0 f2 = 0, then it holds that

kW k2Xa + k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )U k2Xa ≤C kW (1)k2L2 + kU (1)k2H 2
1/3 t 1/3 t

+ ν −1 keaν ∇f1 k2L2 L2 + ν −1 keaν (∂x , ∂z )f2 k2L2 L2 .
Taking (W, U ) = (∆u26= , u36= ), it was proved that

(3.6) E3 ≤ C ku(1)kH 2 + ν −1 E2 E3 + E12 E3 + E5 + ν −1 E32 .
The estimate of E4 is based on the space-time estimates for the linear equation:
Lw = ∂x f1 + f2 + divf3 .
That is, if P0 w = P0 f1 = P0 f2 = P0 f3 = 0, then it holds that
1/3 1 1/3 1/3

kwk2Xa ≤ C kw(1)k2L2 + keaν t ∇f1 k2L2 L2 + ν − 3 keaν t f2 k2L2 L2 + ν −1 keaν t f3 k2L2 L2 .
On the right hand side, the second part used the inviscid damping, the third part used the
enhanced dissipation, and the last part used the heat diffusion. Taking w = u6= , it was proved
that

E4 ≤C ku(1)kH 4 + ν −1 E3 + E4 (E3 + E2 )/ν + E1

(3.7) + E1 (E3 + E5 )/ν + E3 E2 /ν 2 .
The estimate of E5 is the most difficult. For this part, we first need to establish the
space-time estimates of the linearized operator with variable coefficient:
LV = ∂t − ν∆ + V ∂x , V = y + u1 (t, x, z).
This can be reduced to the case of L by using the coordinate transform under the following
key assumption:
(3.8) ku1 kL∞ H 4 + ν −1 k∂t u1 kL∞ H 2 ≤ ε.
To estimate E5 , the most important idea in [19] is to introduce a quantity W 2 defined by
W 2 = u26= + κu36= ,
where κ(t, y, z) = ∂z V /∂y V . Then ∆W 2 satisfies

LV ∆W 2 = ∆ − 2ν∇κ · ∇u36= + good terms.

However, the term ∆ − 2ν∇κ · ∇u36= is still very singular. To handle it, an important
decomposition was introduced
(3.9) ∇κ · ∇u36= = ρ1 ∇V · ∇u36= + ρ2 (∂z − κ∂y )u36= ,
where
ρ1 = , ρ2 = .
∂y V (1 + κ2 ) (1 + κ2 )
Since (∂z − κ∂y ) has a good commutative relation with LV , it is a good derivative. So, the
second term in (3.9) is good. To remove the singularity from the first term in (3.9), we need
to introduce W 2,2 with solving
LV W 2,2 = −ρ1 ∇V · ∇u36= , W 2,2 (1) = 0.
We define
W 2,1 = W 2 − νW 2,2 ,
With this decomposition, it was found that ∆W 2,1 satisfies a good equation:
LV ∆W 2,1 = good terms.
Then the space-time estimate k∆W 2,1 kX3 together with the space-time estimate
3
X 2
k∂x2 uj6= kX3 + k∂x (∂x − κ∂z )uj6= kX3 + ν 3 k∆u3 kX3
j=2
yields that

(3.10) E5 ≤ C ku(1)kH 2 + ν −1 E32 .
With the estimates of E1 -E5 and ku0 kH 2 ≤ c0 ν, we can conclude by using a bootstrap
argument that
E1 + E4 ≤ Cc0 , E2 + E3 + E5 ≤ Cc0 ν.
3.3. New ingredients and ideas when Ω = T×[−1, 1]×T. It seems hard to apply Fourier
multiplier method used in [9, 7] based on Fourier analysis to the case of finite channel. There
are two main advantages of the framework introduced in [63]:
(1) the method is not strongly dependent on the use of Fourier analysis, although we
used the Fourier transform for the space-time estimates of the linearized system;
(2) global stability is established in the Sobolev spaces of low regularity, which avoid the
singularity due to the boundary layer effect when taking high order derivatives.
Despite these advantages, there are still many challenging problems when applying this
framework to the case of finite channel.
First of all, the space-time estimates of LV strongly rely on the assumption (3.8). On the
other hand, the estimate of E1 depends on the energy E4 , while E4 involves the H 4 estimate
of u6= . However, in the presence of the boundary, the high order derivative estimates in y
variable lead to singularity due to the boundary layer effect. Our new observations are:
(1) The estimates of E3 and E5 do not depend on E4 (see (3.6) and (3.10));
(2) The assumption (3.8) could be replaced by
kū1,0 kL∞ H 4 + ν −1 k∂t ū1,0 kL∞ H 2 ≤ ε.
Here we decompose u1 = u1,0 + u1,6= with
(3.11) (∂t − ν∆)ū1,0 + ū2 + ū2 ∂y ū1,0 + ū3 ∂z ū1,0 = 0,
(3.12) (∂t − ν∆)ū1,6= + ū2 ∂y ū1,6= + ū3 ∂z ū1,6= + u6= · ∇u16= = 0,
(3.13) ū1,0 |t=0 = 0, ū1,6= |t=0 = ū1 (0), ū1,0 |y=±1 = 0, ū1,6= |y=±1 = 0.
The key point of this decomposition is that u1,6= has better decay in ν, and thus u1,6= ∂x could
be viewed as a perturbation. Therefore, we avoid the use of the energy E4 . We introduce the
following energy functional to control the zero mode:
E1 = E1,0 + ν −2/3 E1,6= ,
where
1
E1,0 = kū1,0 kL∞ H 4 + ν −1 k∂t ū1,0 kL∞ H 2 + ν − 2 k∂t ū1,0 kL2 H 3 ,
1
E1,6= = kū1,6= kL∞ H 2 + ν 2 k∇ū1,6= kL2 H 2 ,
and the energy E2 is defined by
1 1 1
E2 =k∆ū2 kL∞ L2 + ν 2 k∇∆ū2 kL2 L2 + ν 2 k∆ū2 kL2 L2 + ν − 2 k∂t ∇ū2 kL2 L2
1 1 1
+ k∇ū3 kL∞ L2 + ν 2 k∆ū3 kL2 L2 + ν 2 k∇ū3 kL2 L2 + ν − 2 k∂t ū3 kL2 L2
2 1 1 2 1
+ k min((ν 3 + νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 )∆ū3 kL∞ L2 + ν − 2 k min((ν 3 + νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 )∇∂t ū3 kL∞ L2
1 2 1
+ ν 2 k min((ν 3 + νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 )∇∆ū3 kL2 L2 .
Next we introduce a similar part of E3 defined by
E3 = E3,0 + E3,1 ,
where E3,0 and E3,1 are given by
1 1 3 1 1
E3,0 = ν 2 ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x , ∂z )∆u26= kL2 L2 + ν 4 ke2ǫν 3 t ∇∆u26= kL2 L2 + ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x , ∂z )∇u26= kL∞ L2
1 1 1 1
+ ke2ǫν 3 t ∂x ∇u26= kL2 L2 + ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= kL∞ L2 + ν 2 ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x2 + ∂z2 )∇u36= kL2 L2 ,
1 1 1 1
E3,1 = ν 3 ke2ǫν 3 t ∇ω6=
2
kL∞ L2 + ν 2 ke2ǫν 3 t ∆ω6= 2
kL2 L2 .
Here and in what follows, the space-time norm k · kLq Lp = k · kLq (0,T ;Lp (Ω)) for T > 0.
The estimate of E3 is based on the space-time estimates for the coupled system (3.3)
of (∆u2 , ω 2 ). For this, we need to make the space-time estimates for the linear equation
∂t w − ν∆w + y∂x w = f in a finite channel with nonslip boundary condition or Navier-slip
boundary condition. Due to the boundary layer effect, this is highly nontrivial. In our work
[19], we have developed the resolvent estimate method to solve this problem. In 3-D case,
the idea is basically similar.
The adaption of E5 to the present setting is the most challenging. The first important
observation is that it is enough to replace E5 (given by (E5)) by
1/3 t 1/3
E5 = ν 1/6 ke3ǫν∂x2 u26= kL2 L2 + ν 1/6 ke3ǫν t ∂x2 u36= kL2 L2 .

Let V = y + u1,0 (t, y, z) and Au = P ν∆u − V ∂x u − ∂y V (u2 + κu3 ), 0, 0 , here P is the
Leray projection. To estimate E5 , we need to consider the following linearized system
∂t u6= − Au6= + ~g = 0.
Thus, we need to establish the space-time estimates (without exponential growth) for the
linearized system with variable coefficient, which is completely open in 3D case. In fact, even
for the following linearized equation

∂t w − ν∆w + V ∂x w = f,
(3.14)
∆ϕ = w, ϕ|y=±1 = ∂y ϕ|y=±1 = 0,
the linear stability also remains unknown. In a very recent work by Almog and Helffer [1],
the linear stability of the Couette flow under a small perturbation U (y) was just proved.
In this work, main challenges are that
(1) we need to consider a system, which is much more complicated than the scalar equa-
tion (3.14). All the difficulties for the domain Ω = T × R × T still exist, while the
main difficulty for (3.14) only lies in the boundary conditions.
(2) we need to consider general perturbations of the Couette flow, which depend on
(t, y, z);
(3) we need to establish both linear stability and uniform resolvent estimates, which
should embody various linear effects: boundary layer, enhanced dissipation and in-
viscid damping;
(4) we need to derive the space-time estimates from the resolvent estimates by using
the Laplace transform. The trouble is that it is not direct in the case when the
perturbation depends on t.
3.4. Sketch of the estimate of E5 . First of all, to derive the space-time estimates from the
resolvent estimate, we will use the method of freezing the coefficient to estimate E5 , which
is sketched as follows.
S
• Separation of the time interval: [0, T ] = Ij , where Ij = [tj , tj+1 ) ∩ [0, T ] with
1 1
tj = jν − 3 for j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z. Here the choice of tj is due to the enhanced dissipation rate.
We define

Vj (y, z) = y + u1,0 (tj , y, z), Aj = A[Vj ] = P ν∆ − Vj ∂x − ∂y Vj (u2 + κj u3 ), 0, 0 .
It can be reduced to considering the system in each interval Ij :

∂t u6= − Aj u6= + ~g = 0 for t ∈ Ij .
• Decomposition of the solution: we define
j−1
X
~g(j) (t) = 0 for t 6∈ Ij , ~g(j) (t) = ~g + (Ak − Aj )~u[k] for t ∈ Ij ,
k=0
and let ~u[j] solve

∂t~u[j] − Aj ~u[j] + ~g(j) = 0,
1
~u[0] (0) = P6= u(0), ~u[j] (0) = 0 for j ∈ (0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z.
Then there holds
j
X 1
u6= = ~u[k] for t ∈ Ij , j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z, ~u[j] (t) = 0 for 0 ≤ t < tj .
k=0
1
• Space-time estimates for fixed j : for j ∈ (0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z, there holds
1/3 t
ke4ǫν ~u[j] kL2 Z 2 ≤ Ce4ǫj k~g(j) kL2 Z 1 ,
j j
4ǫν 1/3 t

ke ~u[0] kL2 Z02 ≤ C ku(0)kH 2 + k~g kL2 (I0 ,Z01 ) ,
which can be deduced from the resolvent estimates. The definition of Zjk (k = 1, 2) norm is
given in section 14.2.
1
• Summation: For j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z, let
j
X 1/3 t
aj = (j − k + 1)k~u[k] kL2 (Ij ,Zj2 ) , bj = e−4ǫj ke4ǫν ~u[j] kL2 Zj2 ,
k=0
N
X 1
E62 = e6ǫj ku6= k2L2 (Ij ,Z 2 ) , N = max([0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z).
j
j=0
Using the following important facts that

1
kvkZ 2 − kvkZ 2 ≤ C|j − k| 2 E1 kvkZ 2 ,
j k k
k(Ak − Aj )~u[k] kZ 1 ≤ C|j − k|E1 k~u[k] kZ 2 ,

j j
we can deduce from the space-time estimates that

bj ≤ C k~g kL2 (Ij ,Z 1) + E1 aj ,
j
1
k~u[k] kL2 (Ij ,Z 2 ) ≤ 1 + C|j − k| 2 E1 e−4ǫ(j−k)bk ,
j
which will yield that

j
X j
X
a2j ≤ C (j − k + 1)5 e−8ǫ(j−k) b2k ≤ C e−7ǫ(j−k) b2k .
k=0 k=0
Then we can conclude that
N
X N
X
E62 ≤ e6ǫj a2j ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C e6ǫj k~g k2L2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) + CE12 E62 .
j
j=0 j=0
Through the above procedure, the problem is reduced to considering the following lin-
earized resolvent system
 1
 2 3

 − ν∆ + V ∂x − iλ − aν 3 u + ∂ V (u + κu ), 0, 0 + ∇P + ~
y g = 0,
2 3
div u = 0, ∆P = −2∂y V (∂x u + κ∂x u ),



u|y=±1 = (∂y P + ν∆v 2 )|y=±1 = 0.
We need to prove that if ~g = 0 and λ ∈ R, a ∈ [0, ǫ1 ], then u = 0. To our knowledge, these

results are new and may be of independent interest. The proof is highly nontrivial.
Motivated by [63], it is natural to introduce W = u2 + κu3 , U = u3 . Then (W, U ) satisfies
 1

 − ν∆W + (∂x V − iλ)W − aν 3 W + (∂y + κ∂z )P



 + (g2 + κg 3 ) + 2ν∇κ · ∇U + ν(∆κ)U = 0,


1
 − ν∆U + (∂x V − iλ)U − aν 3 U + ∂z P + g 3 = 0,



 ∆P = −2∂x (∂y V W ),



W |y=±1 = ∂y W |y=±1 = U |y=±1 = 0.
Taking Fourier transform in x, it can be reduced to the following system


 − ν∆W + ik(V (y, z) − λ)W − a(νk2 )1/3 W + (∂y + κ∂z )P


 + G1 + ν(∆κ)U + 2ν∇κ · ∇U = 0,
(3.15)

 − ν∆U + ik(V (y, z) − λ)U − a(νk 2 )1/3 U + G2 + ∂z P = 0,



W |y=±1 = ∂y W |y=±1 = U |y=±1 = 0,
where
∆P = −2ik∂y V W, ∂x W = ikW, ∂x U = ikU, ∂x P = ikP.
To estimate E5 , the key ingredient is to establish the following resolvent estimates for the
system (3.15) under the assumption (4.2):
1
ν 3 k∂x2 U k2L2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U k2L2 + ν k∇∂x2 U k2L2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U k2L2
1 5
+ ν 3 k∂x ∇W k2L2 + νk∂x ∆W k2L2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆U k2L2

≤ Cν −1 k∇G1 k2L2 + k∂x G2 k2L2 .
To this end, we first need to remove the singular part νWs of W with Ws given by
(
− ν∆Ws + ik(V (y, z) − λ)Ws − a(νk2 )1/3 Ws + ρ1 ∇V · ∇U = 0,
Ws |y=±1 = 0, ∂x Ws = ikWs .
Thus, the good unknown Wg seems to be naturally defined by
Wg = W − νWs .
Since ∆U |y=±1 6= 0, we need to introduce a boundary corrector Ub of U defined by Lemma
8.1. The new good unknown Wg is defined by (for the case |λ| < 1)
Wg = W − νθWs − κUb ,
where θ(y) = θ0 (|y − λ|/(1 − |λ|)) with a fixed θ0 ∈ C0∞ (R) so that θ0 (y) = 1 for |y| ≤ 1/4,
θ0 (y) = 0 for |y| ≥ 1/2. Now Wg satisfies the following system

 2 1/3 1 2
 − ν∆Wg + ik(V (y, z) − λ)Wg − a(νk ) Wg + (∂y + κ∂z ) P + P = F,

(3.16) ∆P 1 = −2ik∂y V Wg , ∂y P 1 |y=±1 = 0, ∆P 2 = 0,


 W | = 0, ∂ W = ikW , ∂ P j = ikP j (j = 1, 2).
g y=±1 x g g x
Finally, wg = ∆Wg satisfies

−ν∆wg + ik(V (y, z) − λ)wg − a(νk2 )1/3 wg = good terms
together with Wg |y=±1 = 0 and good Neumann data ∂y Wg |y=±1 .
The construction of Wg may be the most key part of this paper. The second key part is
to establish the resolvent estimates for the linearized system (given ∂y ϕ|y=±1 )
 2 1/3
 − ν∆w + ik(V (y, z) − λ)w − a(νk ) w = F1 + F2 ,

(3.17) ∆ϕ = w, ϕ|y=±1 = 0,


∂x w = ikw, ∂x F1 = ikF1 , ∂x F2 = ikF2 .
3.5. Resolvent estimates with non-vanishing Neumann data. To estimate E3 and E5 ,
we need to establish the space-time estimates for the linearized system. In the presence of
the boundary, we can not use the Fourier transform method introduced in [63]. Instead, we
will use the resolvent estimate method developed in [19].
To estimate E3 , it is enough to establish the resolvent estimates for the following linearized
system when V = y:
(
− ν∆w + ik(V − λ)w − a(νk 2 )1/3 w = F,
∆ϕ = w, ϕ|y=±1 = 0,
together with the Navier-slip boundary condition(i.e., w|y=±1 = 0) or the Neumann data
∂y ϕ|y=±1 6= 0. Even in the case of Navier-slip boundary condition or nonslip boundary
condition(i.e., ∂y ϕ|y=±1 = 0), the results in [19] can not be applied to the 3D case. In this
work, we will develop a general framework for V satisfying (4.2), then apply general results
to the special case of V = y.
To estimate E5 , we need to establish the resolvent estimates for the linearized system
(3.17). One of the key differences with [19] is that in our applications, ∂y ϕ|y=±1 6= 0. Thus,
the resolvent estimates have to show the precise dependence on the Neumann data ∂y ϕ|y=±1 .
For example, we show that
1 4
1 1 7

ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕkL2 ≤ C kF1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1 1
kwkL2 ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
5 3 1

+ (νk 2 )− 12 kF1 kL2 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 .
In the case of nonslip boundary condition(i.e., ∂y ϕ|y=±1 = 0), the above result shows
1 4 1
ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕkL2 ≤ C kF1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 ,
5 3 1
kwkL2 ≤ C (νk2 )− 12 kF1 kL2 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 ,
which are the same as those in the case when V = y(see [19]). This result in particular implies
the linear stability of the flow near the Couette flow under the nonslip boundary condition.
Thus, our work also gives a new proof of linear stability in [1].
Following the idea introduced in [19], we decompose the solution of (3.17) as w = wN a +wI ,
where wN a and wI solve


 − ν∆wN a + ik(V − λ)wN a − a(νk2 )1/3 wN a = F,


 wN a = ∆ϕN a , ϕN a |y=±1 = 0, wN a |y=±1 = 0,

 − ν∆wI + ik(V − λ)wI − a(νk2 )1/3 wI = 0,



∆ϕI = wI , ϕI |y=±1 = 0
Since wN a satisfies the Navier-slip boundary condition, under the assumption (4.2), we can
follow the energy method developed in [19] to establish the resolvent estimates in the case
when the force F ∈ H 1 , F ∈ L2 or F ∈ H −1 (see Proposition 4.1) and weak type resolvent
estimates when F ∈ H −1 (see Proposition 4.4).
New difficulty is that the solution wI can not be expressed by the Airy function when
V 6= y. Consider the homogeneous problem
(
− ν∆w + ik(V − λ)w − a(νk2 )1/3 w = 0,
∆ϕ = w, ϕ|y=±1 = 0.
Our new idea is to make the decomposition w = wN a + wb , where


 − ν∆wN a + ik(V − λ)wN a − a(νk2 )1/3 wN a = −ik(V − y)wb ,


 wN a = ∆ϕN a , ϕN a |y=±1 = 0, wN a |y=±1 = 0,

 − ν∆wb + ik(y − λ)wb − a(νk2 )1/3 wb = 0,



wb = ∆ϕb , ϕb |y=±1 = 0.
Since
R −iℓzwb solves the homogeneous OS equation with constant coefficient, the solution w
bb,ℓ =
Te wb (x, y, z)dz can be expressed as
w
bb,ℓ = ∂y ϕ
bb,ℓ (1)w‘1,ℓ + ∂y ϕ
bb,ℓ (−1)w2,ℓ ,
R
where ϕ bb,ℓ = T e−iℓz ϕb (x, y, z)dz, and (w1,ℓ , w2,ℓ ) given by (5.1) and (5.2) is the boundary
corrector. The estimates of (w1,ℓ , w2,ℓ ) can be obtained by using the properties of the Airy
function. Thus, wb can be controlled by the Neumann data ∂y ϕ|y=±1 and ∂y ϕN a |y=±1 due
to ∂y ϕb = ∂y ϕ − ∂y ϕN a . Main reason why this decomposition works well is due to the fact
that (V − y)|y=±1 = 0 so that (V − y)wb is a good remainder.
It should be emphasized that the estimates of the Neumann data ∂y ϕN a |y=±1 are very
skilled. The proof will be based on the following key fact: if ∆ϕ = w, ϕ|y=±1 = 0, then we
have
1
k∂y ϕkL2 ({y=1}) = sup | hw, f i |,
(2π)2 f ∈F1
where
n X sinh(η(1 + y)) o

F1 = f (x, y, z) = aℓ eikx+iℓz k{aℓ }kℓ2 = 1, sup{|ℓ||aℓ 6= 0} < +∞ .
sinh(2η)
ℓ∈Z
To estimate hw, f i, we need to use the resolvent estimates of wN a , especially weak type
resolvent estimates given by Proposition 4.4.
We believe that the resolvent estimate method developed in this paper and [19] could be
applied to the stability problem of general shear flows and the other related problems.
4. Resolvent estimates with Navier-slip boundary condition

In this section, we establish the resolvent estimates of the Orr-Sommerfeld equation with
variable coefficient:
(
− ν∆w + ik(V (y, z) − λ)w − a(νk2 )1/3 w = F,
(4.1)
w|y=±1 = 0, ∂x w = ikw, ∂x F = ikF,
where V (y, z) satisfies
(4.2) kV − ykH 4 < ε0 , (V (y, z) − y)|y=±1 = 0,
with ε0 small enough determined later.
In this section, we always assume that λ ∈ R and a ∈ [0, ǫ1 ] for some ǫ1 > 0 small enough
determined later, and let ϕ solve
(4.3) ∆ϕ = w, ϕ|y=±1 = 0.
Let us first give some basic estimates involving V .
Lemma 4.1. It holds that for any (y, z) ∈ [−1, 1] × T,
1 j − V (y, z)
|V (y, z) − y| ≤ Cε0 (1 − y 2 ), ≤ ≤2 j ∈ {±1}.
2 j−y
Proof. Since kV − ykH 4 ≤ ε0 and V − y|y=±1 = 0, we deduce that for y ∈ [−1, 0],
Z y

|V (y, z) − y| = ∂y (V − y)dy ≤ (1 + y)k∇(V − y)kL∞
−1
≤CkV − ykH 4 (1 + y) ≤ Cε0 (1 + y) ≤ Cε0 (1 − y 2 ).
Similarly, for y ∈ [0, 1], we have |V − y| ≤ Cε0 (1 − y 2 ).

Using the first inequality of the lemma, we get
j−V y−V |V − y| 1 − y2
=1+ ≤1+ ≤ 1 + Cε0 ≤ 1 + Cε0 ,
j−y j−y |j − y| |j − y|
j−V y−V |V − y| 1 − y2
=1+ ≥1− ≥ 1 − Cε0 ≥ 1 − Cε0 ,
j−y j−y |j − y| |j − y|
1
which imply by taking ε0 sufficiently small so that Cε0 ≤ 2 that
1 j − V (y, z)
≤ ≤2 j ∈ {±1}.
2 j−y
Lemma 4.2. Let χ1 = (V − λ − iδ)−1 for some δ > 0. It holds that

1
kχ1 kL∞ ≤ Cδ−1 , kχ1 kL∞ −
2 ≤ Cδ 2 ,
x,z Ly
3
k∇χ1 kL∞ ≤ Cδ−2 , k∇χ1 kL∞ −
2 ≤ Cδ 2 .
x,z Ly
Here C is a constant independent of λ, δ.
Proof. The first and third inequality is obvious. Note that

Z 1
1
2
k1/(|V − λ| + δ)kL∞
2 = dy
x,z Ly 2 ∞
−1 (|V − λ| + δ) L
Z 1
∂y V
≤C dy k1/(∂y V )−1 kL∞ ≤ Ck1/(|y − λ| + δ)k2L2y ≤ Cδ−1 ,
(|V − λ| + δ)2 ∞
−1 L
which gives the second inequality. The last inequality can be proved similarly.
4.1. Resolvent estimates. In this subsection, we establish the resolvent estimates in the
case when F ∈ H 1 , L2 or H −1 . The proof is similar to the case of V = y considered in [19].
Proposition 4.1. Let w ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (4.1) with F ∈ H 1 (Ω). Then it holds that
2 1 1
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇wkL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kwkL2 + νk∆wkL2 + |k|k(V − λ)wkL2 ≤ CkF kL2 ,
2 1 1 1 2
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇wkL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kwkL2 + νk∆wkL2 ≤ Cν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F kL2 ,
2 1 1 1 1
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇wkL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kwkL2 ≤ Cν − 3 |k| 3 kF kH −1 ,
1 4 1 5
ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕkL2 + ν 6 |k| 6 kwkL2x,z L1y ≤ CkF kL2 .
If νk2 ≤ 1, then we have
1 4 1 11
ν 6 |k| 3 k∇2 [(V − λ)ϕ]kL2 + ν 6 |k| 6 k∇[(V − λ)ϕ]kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ CkF kL2 .
Proof. Step 1. Case of F ∈ L2 (Ω).

Taking L2 inner product with w to (4.1), and integrating by parts, we obtain
1
(4.4) νk∇wk2L2 ≤ kF kL2 kwkL2 + a(νk2 ) 3 kwk2L2 .
Taking L2 inner product with (V − λ)w to (4.1), we get
D 1
E
−ν∆w + ik(V (y, z) − λ)w − a(νk2 ) 3 w, (V (y, z) − λ)w = hF, (V (y, z) − λ)wi,
and then taking the imaginary part, we get

|k|k(V − λ)wk2L2 ≤ Im hν∆w, (V − λ)wi + kF kL2 k(V − λ)wkL2 ,
where

Im hν∆w, (V − λ)wi = Im − hν∇w, (V − λ)∇wi − hν∇w, (∇V )wi

= Im − hν∇w, (∇V )wi ≤ νk∇V kL∞ k∇wkL2 kwkL2 .
Then we infer that

(4.5) |k|k(V − λ)wk2L2 ≤C k∇wkL2 kwkL2 + |k|−1 kF k2L2 .
Here we used k∇V kL∞ ≤ CkV − ykH 3 + 1 ≤ C.
Using the fact that

−2Re h(V − λ)w, ∂y wi = − (V − λ), ∂y |w|2 = ∂y V, |w|2 ≥ kwk2L2 /2,
we infer that
kwk2L2 ≤ 4k(V − λ)wkL2 k∂y wkL2
1
≤ C ν|k|−1 k∇wkL2 kwkL2 2 + |k|−1 kF kL2 k∇wkL2 ,
which along with (4.4) implies that (for a small enough)
1
(4.6) (νk 2 ) 3 kwkL2 ≤ CkF kL2 .
By (4.5), (4.6) and (4.1), we get
1
νk∆wkL2 ≤ |k|k(V − λ)wkL2 + (νk 2 ) 3 kwkL2 + kF kL2 .
This shows that
2 1 1
(4.7) ν 3 |k| 3 k∇wkL2 + (νk 2 ) 3 kwkL2 + νk∆wkL2 + |k|k(V − λ)wkL2 ≤ CkF kL2 .
Step 2. Case of F ∈ H 1 (Ω).
If νk2 ≥ 1, the proof is obvious due to

2 1 1
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇wkL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kwkL2 + νk∆wkL2
1 1 2
≤ CkF kL2 = C|k|−1 kkF kL2 ≤ C(νk 2 ) 6 |k|−1 kkF kL2 ≤ Cν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F kL2 .
Now we assume νk2 ≤ 1 and k > 0 in this step (the case of k < 0 can be proved by taking
1
conjugation). Let χ1 (y, z) = 1/(V (y, z) − λ − iδ) with δ = (ν/|k|) 3 . Then we have
1
ik(V − λ)w − a(νk2 ) 3 w = ik(V − λ + iaδ)w.
Taking L2 inner product with χ1 w to (4.1), and integrating by parts, we obtain

ν ∇w, ∇(χ1 w)i + ikhw, (V − λ − iaδ)χ1 w = hF, χ1 wi.
Taking the imaginary part, we get
(4.8) |k| |Rehw, (V − λ − iaδ)χ1 wi| ≤ ν |h∇w, ∇(χ1 w)i| + |hF, χ1 wi| .
Using the fact that
(V − λ − iaδ)χ1 = 1 + i(1 − a)δχ1 = 1 + i(1 − a)(V (y, z) − λ + iδ)δ|χ1 |2 ,

thus, Re (V − λ + iaδ)χ1 = 1 − (1 − a)δ2 |χ1 |2 ≥ 1 − δ2 |χ1 |2 ,
we infer that
|Rehw, (V − λ − iaδ)χ1 wi| ≥ kwk2L2 − δ2 kχ1 wk2L2 .
By Lemma 16.1, δ2 kχ1 wk2L2 ≤ CδkwkL2 k∇wkL2 , hence,
3
(4.9) |Rehw, (V − λ − iaδ)χ1 wii| ≥ kwk2L2 − Cδ2 k∇wk2L2 .
4
By Lemma 4.2, we have

(4.10) |h∇w, ∇(χ1 w)i| ≤ k∇wkL2 k∇(χ1 w)kL2 ≤ Ck∇wkL2 δ−2 kwkL2 + δ−1 k∇wkL2 ,
(4.11) |hF, χ1 wi| ≤ kχ1 F kL2 kwkL2 .
Summing up (4.8)-(4.11), we obtain
3
|k| kwk2L2 − Cδ2 k∇wk2L2
4
≤ Cνk∇wkL2 (δ−2 kwkL2 + δ−1 k∇wkL2 ) + Ckχ1 F kL2 kwkL2 ,
which along with Lemma 16.1 and by recalling ν|k|−1 = δ3 gives

kwk2L2 ≤C δ2 k∇wk2L2 + ν|k|−1 k∇wkL2 δ−2 kwkL2 + δ−1 k∇wkL2 + |k|−1 kχ1 F kL2 kwkL2
1 3
≤C δk∇wkL2 kwkL2 + δ2 k∇wk2L2 + δ− 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 kwkL2 .
Then Young’s inequality gives
1 3
(4.12) kwkL2 ≤ C δk∇wkL2 + δ− 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 .
Next we estimate k∇wkL2 and k∆wkL2 . First of all, we have
1
(4.13) νk∇wk2L2 ≤ a(νk2 ) 3 kwk2L2 + |RehF, wi|.
Taking the imaginary part to

1
− ν∆w + ik(V − λ)w − a(νk2 ) 3 w, χ1 (y, z)F = hF, χ1 F i,
we get

|k| |Rehw, (V − λ − iaδ)χ1 F i| ≤ νk∆wkL2 kχ1 F kL2 + Im hF, χ1 F i .
Using the facts that (V − λ − iaδ)χ1 = 1 + i(1 − a)δχ1 , Imχ1 = δ|χ1 |2 , we have
|Rehw, (V − λ − iaδ)χ1 F i| ≥ |RehF, wi| − δkwkL2 kχ1 F kL2 ,
|ImhF, χ1 F i| = δkχ1 F k2L2 ≤ C|k|−1 k∇F k2L2 .
This shows that

|RehF, wi| ≤ δkwkL2 kχ1 F kL2 + |k|−1 νk∆wkL2 kχ1 F kL2 + δkχ1 F k2L2 ,
which along with (4.13) and δ3 = ν/|k| implies that
1
(4.14) νk∇wk2L2 ≤ a(νk2 ) 3 kwk2L2 + δkwkL2 + δ3 k∆wkL2 kχ1 F kL2 + |k|−1 δkχ1 F k2L2 .
Taking L2 inner product with ∆w to (4.1), we have
1
νk∆wk2L2 − kIm (h∇((V − λ)w), ∇wi) − a(νk 2 ) 3 k∇wk2L2 = Re hF, −∆wi .
Due to k∇V kL∞ ≤ C, we have
1
νk∆wk2L2 − a(νk2 ) 3 k∇wk2L2 − |hF, ∆wi|
≤ |k|k∇V kL∞ kwkL2 k∇wkL2 ≤ C|k|kwkL2 k∇wkL2 .
Due to w|y=±1 = 0, we get by integration by parts and Lemma 16.1 that
|hF, ∆wi| ≤k∇F kL2 k∇wkL2 + kF kL2 (∂Ω) k∂y wkL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1
≤k∇F kL2 k∇wkL2 + C|k|− 2 k∇F kL2 k∂y wkL2 2 k∇∂y wkL2 2
1 1 1
≤k∇F kL2 k∇wkL2 + C|k|− 2 k∇F kL2 k∇wkL2 2 k∆wkL2 2 .
Summing up, we arrive at
2 2
k∆wk2L2 ≤aν − 3 |k| 3 k∇wk2L2 + Cν −1 |k|kwkL2 k∇wkL2
1 1 1
+ ν −1 k∇F kL2 k∇wkL2 + Cν −1 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 k∇wkL2 2 k∆wkL2 2 .
2 2
k∆wk2L2 ≤Cν − 3 |k| 3 k∇wk2L2 + Cν −1 |k|kwkL2 k∇wkL2
4 2 4 2
+ Cν −1 k∇F kL2 k∇wkL2 + Cν − 3 |k|− 3 k∇F kL3 2 k∇wkL3 2
2 2 4 4 5 4 4 2
≤Cν − 3 |k| 3 k∇wk2L2 + Cν − 3 |k| 3 kwk2L2 + C ν − 3 |k|− 3 + ν − 3 |k|− 3 k∇F k2L2 .
1 4 2 5 4
Since δ = (ν/|k|) 3 , νk2 ≤ 1, ν − 3 |k|− 3 ≤ ν − 3 |k|− 3 = δ−5 |k|−3 , we have
5 3
(4.15) k∆wkL2 ≤ Cδ−1 k∇wkL2 + Cδ−2 kwkL2 + Cδ− 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 .
Plugging (4.15) into (4.14), we get by (4.12) that
1 1 3
νk∇wk2L2 ≤a(νk2 ) 3 kwk2L2 + C δkwkL2 + δ2 k∇wkL2 + δ 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 kχ1 F kL2
+ |k|−1 δkχ1 F k2L2
1 1 3
≤a(νk2 ) 3 kwk2L2 + C δ2 k∇wkL2 + δ 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 kχ1 F kL2 + |k|−1 δkχ1 F k2L2 ,
from which, Young’s inequality, (4.12) and Lemma 16.1, we infer that
1 1 3
νk∇wk2L2 ≤C a(νk2 ) 3 kwk2L2 + δ 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 kχ1 F kL2 + |k|−1 δkχ1 F k2L2
1 1 3 2
≤Ca νk 2 ) 3 (δk∇wkL2 + δ− 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 + C|k|−2 k∇F k2L2

≤Ca νk∇wk2L2 + |k|−2 k∇F k2L2 + C|k|−2 k∇F k2L2 .
Taking ǫ1 small enough so that Ca ≤ Cǫ1 ≤ 12 , we conclude
νk∇wk2L2 ≤ C|k|−2 k∇F k2L2 ,
which along with (4.12) and (4.15) gives
2 1 1 1 2
νk∆wkL2 + ν 3 |k| 3 k∇wkL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kwkL2 ≤ Cν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F kL2 .
Step 3. Case of F ∈ H −1 (Ω).
If νk2 ≥ 1, taking L2 inner product with w to (4.1), and integrating by parts, we obtain
1
νk∇wk2L2 ≤ kF kH −1 kwkH 1 + a(νk2 ) 3 kwk2L2 ≤ CkF kH −1 k∇wkL2 + a(νk2 )kwk2L2 .
As a(νk2 )kwk2L2 ≤ aνk∇wk2L2 ≤ (ν/2)k∇wk2L2 , we deduce that νk∇wk ≤ CkF kH −1 and
2 1 1 2 1 1
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇wkL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kwkL2 ≤ (ν 3 |k| 3 + (νk2 ) 3 |k|−1 )k∇wkL2
2 1 1 1
≤ 2ν 3 |k| 3 k∇wkL2 ≤ Cν − 3 |k| 3 kF kH −1 .
Now we assume νk2 ≤ 1 and k > 0 in this step. Then δ ≤ 1. By Lemma 4.2, we have

|hF, χ1 wi| ≤kF kH −1 k∇(χ1 w)kL2 + kχ1 wkL2

≤CkF kH −1 kχ1 kL∞ k∇wkL2 + k∇χ1 kL∞ kwkL2 + kχ1 kL∞ kwkL2

≤Cδ−2 kF kH −1 δk∇wkL2 + kwkL2 + δkwkL2 .
As δ ≤ 1, this shows that

(4.16) |hF, χ1 wi| ≤ CkF kH −1 δ−1 k∇wkL2 + δ−2 kwkL2 .
Summing up (4.8)-(4.10) and (4.16), we get
3
|k| kwk2L2 − Cδ2 k∇wk2L2
4
≤ νk∇wkL2 δ−2 kwkL2 + δ−1 k∇wkL2 + δ−2 kF kH −1 δk∇wkL2 + kwkL2 ,
which gives

kwk2L2 ≤C δ2 k∇wk2L2 + ν|k|−1 k∇wkL2 δ−2 kwkL2 + δ−1 k∇wkL2

+ δ−2 |k|−1 kF kH −1 δk∇wkL2 + kwkL2

≤C δk∇wkL2 kwkL2 + δ2 k∇wk2L2 + δ−2 |k|−1 kF kH −1 δk∇wkL2 + kwkL2 .

(4.17) kwkL2 ≤ C δk∇wkL2 + δ−2 |k|−1 kF kH −1 .
On the other hand, we have
1
νk∇wk2L2 ≤a(νk2 ) 3 kwk2L2 + |hF, wi|
1
≤a(νk2 ) 3 kwk2L2 + kF kH −1 k∇wkL2 + kwkL2
1
≤a(νk2 ) 3 kwk2L2 + kF kH −1 k∇wkL2 + δ−1 kwkL2 .
1 1
from which and (4.17), and by taking ǫ1 small enough so that Ca 2 ≤ Cǫ12 ≤ 12 , we infer that
2 1 1 1 1
(4.18) ν 3 |k| 3 k∇wkL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kwkL2 ≤ Cν − 3 |k| 3 kF kH −1 .
Step 4. Estimates of kwkL2x,z L1y and k∇ϕkL2 .
By Lemma 4.2 and (4.7), we have
kwkL2x,z L1y =kχ1 (V − λ − iδ)wkL2x,z L1y
≤kχ1 kL∞ 2 k(V − λ − iδ)wkL2
x,z Ly
1
≤Cδ− 2 δkwkL2 + k(V − λ)wkL2
1 1 1 1 5
≤Cδ 2 |νk2 |− 3 kF kL2 + Cδ− 2 |k|−1 kF kL2 ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 kF kL2 ,
from which and Lemma 16.3, we infer that
1 4 1 5 1 5
(4.19) ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕkL2 + ν 6 |k| 6 kwkL2x,z L1y ≤ Cν 6 |k| 6 kwkL2x,z L1y ≤ CkF kL2 .
Step 5. Estimate of k∇k ((V − λ)ϕ)k, k = 1, 2.
Let F1 = (V − λ)ϕ. Then we have
∆F1 = (V − λ)w + 2∇V · ∇ϕ + ϕ∆V, F1 |y=±1 = 0, ∂x F1 = ikF1 .
Thus, we get by (4.7) and (4.19) that
k∆F1 kL2 ≤k(V − λ)wkL2 + 2k∇V · ∇ϕkL2 + kϕ∆V kL2
1 4
≤C |k|−1 kF kL2 + k∇ϕkL2 + kϕkL2 ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 3 kF kL2 .
As F1 |y=±1 = 0, ∂x F1 = ikF1 , by Lemma 16.1, we have
1 4
k∇2 F1 kL2 ≤ Ck∆F1 kL2 ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 3 kF kL2 ,
1 1 11
k∇F1 kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C|k|− 2 k∇2 F1 kL2 ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 kF kL2 .
1 4 1 11
ν 6 |k| 3 k∇2 [(V − λ)ϕ]kL2 + ν 6 |k| 6 k∇[(V − λ)ϕ]kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ CkF kL2 .
This completes the proof of the proposition.
The following proposition is a simple corollary of Proposition 4.1.
Proposition 4.2. Let w ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (4.1) with F ∈ L2 (Ω). If F = F1 + F2 +
∂x f1 + ∂y f2 + ∂z f3 and F2 |y=±1 = 0, then it holds that
2 1
1 1 1

ν 3 k∇wkL2 + (ν|k|) 3 kwkL2 ≤ C |k|− 3 kF1 kL2 + ν 6 |k|−1 k∇F2 kL2 + ν − 3 k(f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 .
Proof. We decompose w as w = w1 + w2 + w3 , where wj (j = 1, 2, 3) solves


 2 31

 − ν∆w 1 + ik(V (y, z) − λ)w1 − a(νk ) w1 = F1 ,


 − ν∆w + ik(V (y, z) − λ)w − a(νk2 ) 13 w = F ,
2 2 2 2

 1

 − ν∆w3 + ik(V (y, z) − λ)w3 − a(νk2 ) 3 w3 = ∂x f1 + ∂y f2 + ∂z f3 ,


wj |y=±1 = 0, ∂x wj = ikwj , j = 1, 2, 3.
It follows from Proposition 4.1 that
2 1 1
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇w1 kL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kw1 kL2 ≤ CkF1 kL2 ,
2 1 1 1 2
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇w2 kL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kw2 kL2 ≤ Cν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F2 kL2 ,
2 1 1 1 1
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇w3 kL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kw3 kL2 ≤ Cν − 3 |k| 3 k(f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 .
Then we have
3
X
2 1 1 2 1 1
ν 3 k∇wkL2 + (ν|k|) 3 kwkL2 ≤|k|− 3 ν 3 |k| 3 k∇wj kL2 + (νk 2 ) 3 kwj kL2
j=1
1 1 1

(4.20) ≤C |k|− 3 kF1 kL2 + ν 6 |k|−1 k∇F2 kL2 + ν − 3 k(f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 .

The following proposition gives the estimates of w when taking good derivatives ∂x and
∂z − κ∂y .
Proposition 4.3. Let w ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (4.1) with F = f1 + f2 + f3 and P0 fi =
0(i = 1, 2, 3). Then it holds that
1
2

(ν|k|) 3 k∂x2 wkL2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )wkL2 + ν 3 k∇∂x2 wkL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )wkL2
1 1 1 1

≤ C ν 6 kf1 kH 2 + |k|− 3 k∂x2 f2 kL2 + |k|− 3 k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )f2 kL2 + ν − 3 k∂x f3 kL2 .

Proof. Thanks to ∂x (V (y, z) − λ)w = (V (y, z) − λ)∂x w, ∂x f1 = ikf1 , we have
− ν∆∂x2 w + ik(V (y, z) − λ)∂x2 w − a(νk2 )1/3 ∂x2 w = ik∂x f1 + ∂x2 f2 + ∂x2 f3 .
Then it follows from Proposition 4.2 that
1 2
(ν|k|) 3 k∂x2 wkL2 + ν 3 k∇∂x2 wkL2
1 1 1
≤ C ν 6 |k|−1 kik∇∂x f1 kL2 + |k|− 3 k∂x2 f2 kL2 + ν − 3 k∂x f3 kL2
1 1 1
(4.21) ≤ C ν 6 kf1 kH 2 + |k|− 3 k∂x2 f2 kL2 + ν − 3 k∂x f3 kL2 .
Thanks to (∂z − κ∂x )V (y, z) = 0, we have
− ν∆(∂z − κ∂y )w + ik(V (y, z) − λ)(∂z − κ∂y )w − a(νk2 )1/3 (∂z − κ∂y )w
= −ν∆κ∂y w + 2ν(∂y (∂y κ∂y w) + ∂z (∂z κ∂y w)) + (∂z − κ∂y )F,
and we write
(∂z − κ∂y )F = (∂z f1 − κ∂y f1 ) + ∂z f3 − ∂y (κf3 ) + ∂y κf3 + (∂z − κ∂y )f2 .
Thus, we have
− ν∆∂x (∂z − κ∂y )w + ik(V (y, z) − λ)(∂z − κ∂y )∂x w − a(νk 2 )1/3 (∂z − κ∂y )∂x w
= −ν∆κ∂x ∂y w + 2ν(∂y (∂y κ∂y ∂x w) + ∂z (∂z κ∂y ∂x w))
+ ik(∂z f1 − κ∂y f1 ) + ∂z ∂x f3 + ∂x (f3 ∂y κ) − ∂y ∂x (κf3 ) + ∂x (∂z − κ∂y )f2 .
By Proposition 4.2 again, we get
1 2
(ν|k|) 3 k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )wkL2 + ν 3 k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )wkL2
1 1
≤ C ν 6 k∇(∂z f1 − κ∂y f1 )kL2 + ν − 3 (k∂x f3 kL2 + k∂x (κf3 )kL2 + kf3 ∂y κkL2 )
1 2

+ |k|− 3 k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )f2 kL2 + ν 3 (k(∂y κ, ∂z κ)∂y ∂x wkL2 + k∇h1 kL2 ) ,
where ∆h1 = ∆κ∂x ∂y w, h1 |y=±1 = 0. Note that

k∆κkL4 ≤ Ck∆κkH 1 ≤ CkκkH 3 ≤ C,
which gives
k∇h1 k2L2 = − h∆h1 , h1 i = −h∆κ∂x ∂y f, h1 i
≤k∆κkL4 k∂x ∂y wkL2 kh1 kL4 ≤ Ck∂x ∇wkL2 kh1 kH 1 ≤ Ck∇∂x2 wkL2 k∇h1 kL2 .
Thus, k∇h1 kL2 ≤ Ck∇∂x2 wkL2 . This along with the facts that k∇κkL∞ + k∇κkH 2 ≤ CkV −
ykH 4 ≤ Cε0 , shows that
1 2
(ν|k|) 3 k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )wkL2 + ν 3 k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )wkL2
1 1 1 2

≤ C ν 6 kf1 kH 2 + ν − 3 k∂x f3 kL2 + |k|− 3 k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )f2 kL2 + ν 3 k∇∂x2 wkL2 ,
from which and (4.21), we deduce our result.
4.2. Weak type resolvent estimates. In this subsection, we always assume νk2 ≤ 1, so
1 1
that |kδ| ≤ 1(δ = ν 3 |k|− 3 ). We establish various weak type resolvent estimates, which will
play an important role for the estimate of the Neumann data ∂y ϕ|y=±1 . Without lose of
generality, we may assume k > 0.
Proposition 4.4. Let w ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (4.1) with F ∈ L2 (Ω). If f ∈ H 1 (Ω), j ∈
{±1}, f |y=−j = 0, then it holds that

e f i| ≤ C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf kH 1 + kf kL2 (Γ ) + δ1 k(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γ ) (|j − λ| + δ) 14 δ− 34 ,
|hw(V − λ), j j
and
3 3
khw, f i| ≤C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf kL2 (Γj ) + δ1 k(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γj ) (|j − λ| + δ)− 4 δ− 4

+ k∇f /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 + δ−1 kf /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 ,
3
− 12
|hw, f i| ≤C|k|−1 kF kH −1 δ− 2 kf kL2x,z L∞
y
+ δ k(∂x , ∂z )f kL 2 (Γ ) + δ
j
−1
k∇f kL 2
3 1
≤C|kδ|− 2 kF kH −1 k∇f kL2 + C|k|−1 δ− 2 kF kH −1 k(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γj ) ,
|hw, f i| ≤Cν −1 kF kH −1 k(1 − y 2 )f kL2 ,
where
− 1
e = λ − iaδ,
λ δ1 = δ |k(1 − λ)| + 1 2 .
Proof. First of all, for any f0 ∈ H01 (Ω) with f0 |y=±1 = 0, we get by integration by parts that
kF kH −1 kf0 kH 1 ≥|hF, f0 i| = |h−ν∆w + ik(V − λ̃)w, f0 i|
≥|hk(V − λ̃)w, f0 i| − νk∇wkL2 k∇f0 kL2 ,
from which and Proposition 4.1, we infer that

(4.22) w(V − λ̃), f0 ≤ |k|−1 kF kH −1 kf0 kH 1 .
Next we consider the case when f ∈ H 1 (Ω), f (x, −1, z) = 0. In this case, for every
δ∗ ∈ (0, δ] ⊆ [−1, 1], let
χ2 (y) = max(1 − (1 − y)/δ∗ , 0), f0 (x, y, z) = f (x, y, z) − f (x, 1, z)χ2 (y).
Then we have χ2 ∈ H 1 (Ω), f0 ∈ H01 (Ω), I2 := suppχ2 = T × [1 − δ∗ , 1] × T and

1
−1
kχ2 kL∞ = 1, kχ2 kL∞ 2 ≤ δ∗ ,
x,z Ly
2
k∇χ2 kL∞ 2 ≤ δ∗
x,z Ly
2
,
k(V − λ̃)χ2 kL∞ ≤ kV − λ̃kL∞ ([1−δ∗ ,1]) kχ2 kL∞ ≤ |1 − λ| + δ.
Due to w(x, 1, z) = 0, we have
Z 1
1 1

|w(x, y, z)| = ∂y w(x, y1 , z)dy1 ≤ |1 − y| 2 k∂y w(x, ·, z)kL2y ≤ δ∗2 k∂y w(x, ·, z)kL2y
y
for y ∈ [1 − δ∗ , 1] and then

3
kwkL2x,z L1y (I2 ) ≤ δ∗2 k∇wkL2 .
Then it follows from Proposition 4.1 and (4.22) that
|hw(V − λ̃), f i|
≤ |hw(V − λ̃), f (x, 1, z)χ2 i| + |hw(V − λ̃), f0 i|
≤ kf kL2 (Γ1 ) kwkL2x,z L1y (I2 ) k(V − λ̃)χ2 kL∞ + C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf0 kH 1
3
≤ kf kL2 (Γ1 ) δ∗2 k∇wkL2 (|1 − λ| + δ) + C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf (x, 1, z)χ2 kH 1 + C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf kH 1
3
≤ Ckf kL2 (Γ1 ) δ∗2 ν −1 kF kH −1 (|1 − λ| + δ) + C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf (x, 1, z)kL2x,z L∞ y
k∇χ2 kL∞ 2
x,z Ly

+ k∇f (x, 1, z)kL2x,z L∞ y
+ kf (x, 1, z)kL2x,z L∞
y
kχ2 kL∞ 2
x,z Ly
+ C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf kH 1
3 −1 1
≤ Ckf kL2 (Γ1 ) δ∗2 ν −1 kF kH −1 (|1 − λ| + δ) + C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf kL2 (Γ1 ) (δ∗ 2 + δ∗2 )
1
+ k(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γ1 ) δ∗2 + C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf kH 1
3
− 12 1
≤ C|k|−1 kf kL2 (Γ1 ) kF kH −1 δ∗2 (|1 − λ| + δ)δ−3 + δ∗ + C|k|−1 δ∗2 k(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γ1 ) kF kH −1
+ C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf kH 1 .
Here we used ν −1 |k| = δ−3 .
1 3
Taking δ∗ = (|1 − λ| + δ)− 2 δ 2 ≤ δ1 due to νk2 ≤ 1, we obtain
1 3
(4.23) |hw(V − λ̃), f i| ≤C|k|−1 kf kL2 (Γ1 ) + δ1 k(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γ1 ) kF kH −1 (|1 − λ| + δ) 4 δ− 4
+ C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf kH 1 .
This proves the first inequality of the proposition.
For f ∈ H 1 (Ω), f |y=−1 = 0, let φ = χ1 f , where χ1 = (V − λ − iδ)−1 . Then we have
φ ∈ H 1 (Ω), φ|y=−1 = 0. Thus, by (4.23) and the fact (V − λ̃)χ̄1 = 1 + i(a − 1)δχ̄1 , we have
|hw, f i| ≤|hw(V − λ̃), φi| + |i(a − 1)δhw, χ1 f i|
≤|hw(V − λ̃), φi| + CδkwkL2 kχ1 f kL2
1 3
≤C|k|−1 kφkL2 (Γ1 ) + δ1 k(∂x , ∂z )φkL2 (Γ1 ) kF kH −1 (|1 − λ| + δ) 4 δ− 4
+ C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kφkH 1 + CδkwkL2 kχ1 f kL2 .
Thanks to the facts that for y ∈ [−1, 1],
|χ1 (y, z)| ≤ C(|V − λ| + δ)−1 , |∇χ1 (y, z)| ≤ C(|V − λ| + δ)−2 ,
we deduce that
kφkL2 (Γ1 ) ≤kf kL2 (Γ1 ) kχ1 (1, z)kL∞
z
≤ Ckf kL2 (Γ1 ) (|1 − λ| + δ)−1 ,
k(∂x , ∂z )φkL2 (Γ1 ) =k(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γ1 ) kχ1 (1, z)kL∞
z
+ kf kL2 (Γ1 ) k∇χ1 (1, z)kL∞
z
≤Ck(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γ1 ) (|1 − λ| + δ)−1 + Ckf kL2 (Γ1 ) (|1 − λ| + δ)−2 ,
kφkH 1 ≤k∇f χ1 kL2 + kf ∇χ1 kL2 + kf χ1 kL2
≤Ck∇f /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 + Ckf /(|V − λ| + δ)2 kL2 + Ckf /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2
≤Ck∇f /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 + Cδ−1 kf /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 ,
and by Proposition 4.1, we get
δkwkL2 kχ1 f kL2 ≤ Cδ−1 |k|−1 kf /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 kF kH −1 .
Then, using δ1 ≤ δ, δ1 (|1 − λ| + δ)−2 ≤ (|1 − λ| + δ)−1 , we conclude that
3 3
|hw, f i| ≤C|k|−1 kF kH −1 (kf kL2 (Γ1 ) + δ1 k(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γ1 ) )(|1 − λ| + δ)− 4 δ− 4

+ k∇f /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 + δ−1 kf /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 ,
which gives the second inequality.
The third inequality follows from the second inequality and the following facts that
3 3 3 3
kf kL2 (Γj ) (|j − λ| + δ)− 4 δ− 4 ≤ kf kL2 (Γj ) δ− 2 ≤ δ− 2 kf kL2x,z L∞
y
,
3 3 1
δ1 k(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γj ) (|j − λ| + δ)− 4 δ− 4 ≤ k(∂x , ∂z )f kL2 (Γj ) δ− 2 ,
k∇f /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 ≤ δ−1 k∇f kL2 ,
3
δ−1 kf /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 ≤ δ−1 k(|V − λ| + δ)−1 kL∞
x,z Ly x,z y
−
2 kf kL2 L∞ ≤ Cδ 2 kf kL2 L∞ ,
x,z y
1
kf kL2x,z L∞
y
= |k|−1 k∂x f kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C|k|− 2 k∇f kL2 ,
where we used Lemma 16.1 in the last inequality.
By Hardy’s inequality and Proposition 4.1, we have (the fourth inequality)

w

|hw, f i| ≤ k(1 − y 2 )f kL2
1 − y2 2 L
≤Ck∂y wkL2 k(1 − y 2 )f kL2 ≤ Ck∇wkL2 k(1 − y 2 )f kL2
≤Cν −1 kF kH −1 k(1 − y 2 )f kL2 .
The case of f |y=1 = 0 can be proved similarly.
4.3. Estimates of the Neumann data. In this subsection, we will present some uniform
estimates of the Neumann data ∂y ϕ|y=±1 .
Proposition 4.5. Let w ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (4.1) with F ∈ L2 (Ω). Then it holds that
1 4 1 1
ν 6 |k| 3 kϕkL2 + (νk2 ) 3 k∇ϕkL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wkL2 ≤ C k(1 − y 2 )F kL2 + |ν/k| 3 kF kL2 ,
1
k∂z ∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C|νk|− 2 kF kL2 ,
5 1
k∂z ∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 kF kH −1 .
If νk2 ≤ 1, then we have
1 5 1 1
1 + |k(λ − j)| k∂y ϕkL2 (Γj ) ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 min(1, |k(λ + j)| + ν 6 |k| 3 )kF kL2 , j ∈ {±1},
1 1
|k(y − λ)| 12 ∂y ϕ 2 1 5 1 1
≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 min(|k(λ − 1)| 2 , |k(λ + 1)| 2 + ν 6 |k| 3 kF kL2 .
L (∂Ω)
To estimate ∂y ϕ, we need to use the following facts. First of all, we know that

2 1 X sinh(η(y + 1)) iℓz+ikx 2
k∂y ϕkL2 (Γ1 ) = w, e .
(2π)2 sinh(2η)
ℓ∈Z

Let {aℓ } be any complex valued sequence, such that {aℓ }ℓ∈Z ∈ ℓ2c (Z), i.e. ℓ ∈ Z|aℓ 6= 0 is
a finite set and k{aℓ }kℓ2 = 1. Then the duality argument gives

1 X sinh(η(y + 1))
iℓz+ikx
k∂y ϕkL2 (Γ1 ) = sup aℓ w, e
(2π)2 {aℓ }∈lc2 ,k{aℓ }kℓ2 =1 sinh(2η)
ℓ∈Z
* +
1 X sinh(η(y + 1))
iℓz+ikx
= sup w, a ℓ e .
(2π)2 {aℓ }∈lc2 , k{aℓ }k 2 =1 sinh(2η)
ℓ ℓ∈Z
We define the set
( )
X sinh(η(1 + y)) ikx+iℓz 2
F1 = f (x, y, z) = aℓ e {aℓ }ℓ∈Z ∈ ℓc (Z), k{aℓ }kℓ2 = 1 .
sinh(2η)
ℓ∈Z
Thus, we have
1
(4.24) k∂y ϕkL2 (Γ1 ) = sup | hw, f i |.
(2π)2 f ∈F1
The following lemma gives some basic estimates of functions in the set F1 .
Lemma 4.3. For f ∈ F1 , it holds that
1
(4.25) kf kL2 (Γ1 ) ≤ C, kf kL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 ,
1
(4.26) k(1 − y)∇f kL∞ 2
y Lx,z
≤ C, k(1 − y)∇f kL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 ,
(4.27) kf kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C, k(1 − y)f kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C|k|−1 ,
1
(4.28) kf /(1 + y)kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C, kf /(1 + y)kL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 .
Proof. The first inequality of (4.25) is obvious. The second one follows from

X sinh(η(1 + y)) 2 X
2
kf kL2 = (2π) 2 a ≤C (|aℓ |2 η −1 ) ≤ C|k|−1 .
l
sinh(2η) 2
ℓ∈Z Ly l∈Z
Notice that

X η sinh(η(1 + y)) 2 η cosh(η(1 + y)) 2
k∇f k2L2x,z = (2π)2
aℓ sinh(2η) + aℓ sinh(2η)
ℓ∈Z
X X
≤C η 2 |aℓ |2 e−2η(1−y) ≤ C(1 − y)−2 |aℓ |2 e−η(1−y)
ℓ∈Z ℓ∈Z
−2 −|k|(1−y)
≤ C(1 − y) e ,
which gives k(1 − y)∇f kL2x,z ≤ Ce−|k|(1−y)/2 , and then
k(1 − y)∇f kL∞ 2
y Lx,z
≤ Cke−|k|(1−y)/2 kL∞
y
≤ C,
1
k(1 − y)∇f kL2 ≤ Cke−|k|(1−y)/2 kL2y ≤ C|k|− 2 .
Since f |y=−1 = 0, ∆f = 0, we get by Lemma 16.8 that

kf kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ Ckf kL2 (Γ1 ) ≤ C,
and by (4.26) and (4.25), we have
1
k(1 − y)f kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C|k|− 2 k∇((1 − y)f )kL2 ≤ C|k|−1 .
Since f |y=−1 = 0, ∆f = 0, we have
∆((1 − y)2 f ) = 2f − 4(1 − y)∂y f, (1 − y)2 f |y=±1 = 0,
and then the elliptic estimate gives
k∇2 [(1 − y)2 f ]kL2 ≤ Ck∆[(1 − y)2 f ]kL2
1
(4.29) ≤ C(kf kL2 + k(1 − y)∇f kL2 ) ≤ C|k|− 2 .
Using the fact that 4f /(1 + y) = (1 − y)2 f /(1 + y) + (3 − y)f, Hardy’s inequality, (4.25) and
(4.29), we have
kf /(1 + y)kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ (k(1 − y)2 f /(1 + y)kL2x,z L∞
y
+ k(3 − y)f kL2x,z L∞
y
)/4
≤ k∇[(1 − y)2 f ]kL2x,z L∞
y
+ kf kL2x,z L∞
y
1
≤ C|k|− 2 k∇2 [(1 − y)2 f ]kL2 + C ≤ C.
Noting that 2f /(1 + y) = (1 − y)f /(1 + y) + f, by Hardy’s inequality and (4.26), we have
kf /(1 + y)kL2 ≤ (k(1 − y)f /(1 + y)kL2 + kf kL2 )/2
1
≤ Ck∇[(1 − y)f ]kL2 + kf kL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 .
This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now we prove Proposition 4.5.
Proof. Let W = (1 − y 2 )w, which satisfies
(
− ν∆W + ik(V − λ)W − a(νk2 )1/3 W = (1 − y 2 )F + 4νy∂y w + 2νw,
W |y=±1 = 0.
1 5 1
ν 6 |k| 6 kW kL2x,z L1y + (νk 2 ) 3 kW kL2 ≤Ck(1 − y 2 )F + 4νy∂y w + 2νwkL2

≤Ck(1 − y 2 )F kL2 + Cν ky∂y wkL2 + kwkL2 ,
and by Proposition 4.1 again,
ky∂y wkL2 + kwkL2 ≤ k∇wkL2 + kwkL2
2 1 1 2 1
≤ Cν − 3 |k|− 3 (1 + |ν/k| 3 )kF kL2 ≤ Cν − 3 |k|− 3 kF kL2 .
Then we obtain
1 5 1 1
(4.30) ν 6 |k| 6 kW kL2x,z L1y + (νk 2 ) 3 kW kL2 ≤ C k(1 − y 2 )F kL2 + |ν/k| 3 kF kL2 .
k∇ϕkL2 ≤ Ck(1 − y 2 )wkL2 = CkW kL2 ,
1
|k| 2 kϕkL2 ≤ Ck(1 − y 2 )wkL2x,z L1y ≤ CkW kL2x,z L1y ,
which together with (4.30) show that

1 4 1 1
ν 6 |k| 3 kϕkL2 + (νk 2 ) 3 (k∇ϕkL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wkL2 ) ≤ C k(1 − y 2 )F kL2 + |ν/k| 3 kF kL2 .
R1
Thanks to −1 ∂z ∂y ϕ(x, y1 , z)dy1 = 0, we get
1 1 1 1
k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ≤k∂y ∂z ϕkL2x,z L∞
y
≤ Ck∂y ∂z ϕkL2 2 k∂y2 ∂z ϕkL2 2 ≤ CkwkL2 2 k∇wkL2 2 ,
from which and Proposition 4.1, we infer that
1 5 1
k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C|νk|− 2 kF kL2 , k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 kF kH −1 .
For the third inequality of the proposition, we just consider the case of j = 1. Another
case is similar. Notice that ∂y [(V − λ)ϕ] = (V − λ)∂y ϕ = (j − λ)∂y ϕ on Γj . We get by
Proposition 4.1 that
|j − λ|k∂y ϕkL2 (Γj ) ≤k∂y [(V − λ)ϕ]kL2 (Γj )
1 11
≤k∇[(V − λ)ϕ]kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 kF kL2 .
1 1
If |λ − 1| ≥ |k|−1 and |k(λ + 1)| + ν 6 |k| 3 ≥ 1, then 1 + |k(λ − j)| ≤ 2|k(λ − j)|, and then
1 5
(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)k∂y ϕkL2 (Γ1 ) ≤ 2|k(λ − 1)|k∂y ϕkL2 (Γ1 ) ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 kF kL2
1 5 1 1
= Cν − 6 |k|− 6 min(1, |k(λ + 1)| + ν 6 |k| 3 )kF kL2 .
1 1
If |k(λ + 1)| + ν 6 |k| 3 ≤ 1, then we have 1 + |k(λ − 1)| ≤ 2|k| + 2 ≤ 4|k|. Thus, by Proposition
4.1, Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.3, we deduce that for f ∈ F1 ,
|hw, f i| = | h(1 + V )w, f /(1 + V )i |

= (V − λ)w, f /(1 + V ) + (λ + 1)w, f /(1 + V )
≤ k(V − λ)wkL2 kf /(1 + V )kL2 + |λ + 1|kwkL2x,z L1y kf /(1 + V )kL2x,z L∞y (Ω1 )
1 5

≤ C |k|−1 kf /(1 + y)kL2 + ν − 6 |k|− 6 |λ + 1|kf /(1 + y)kL2x,z L∞
y
kF kL2
3 1 5
≤ C |k|− 2 + ν − 6 |k|− 6 |λ + 1| kF kL2 ,
which gives
1 1 5
(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)|hw, f i| ≤ 4|k||hw, f i| ≤ C |k|− 2 + ν − 6 |k|− 6 |k(λ + 1)| kF kL2
1 5 1 1
= Cν − 6 |k|− 6 |k(λ + 1)| + ν 6 |k| 3 kF kL2 .
If |λ − 1| ≤ |k|−1 , we get by Proposition 4.1 and Lemma 4.3 that
1 5
|hw, f i| ≤ Ckf kL2x,z L∞
y
kwkL2x,z L1y ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 kF kL2
1 5
≤ C(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)−1 ν − 6 |k|− 6 kF kL2 .
Combining with two cases, we get by (4.24) that
1 + |k(1 − λ)|
(1 + |k(1 − λ)|)k∂y ϕkL2 (Γ1 ) = sup |hw, f i|
(2π)2 f ∈F1
1 5 1 1
≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 min(1, |k(λ + 1)| + ν 6 |k| 3 )kF kL2 .
For j ∈ {±1}, by the third inequality of the propsition, we have
1 1 5 1
|k(λ − j)| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (Γj ) ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 |k(λ − j)| 2 kF kL2 ,
and
1
|k(λ − j)| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (Γj ) ≤(1 + |k(λ − j)|)k∂y ϕkL2 (Γj )
1 5 1 1
≤Cν − 6 |k|− 6 (min(1, |k(λ + j)|) + ν 6 |k| 3 )kF kL2
1 5 1 1 1
≤Cν − 6 |k|− 6 (|k(λ + j)| 2 + ν 6 |k| 3 )kF kL2 ,
from which, it follows that

|k(y − λ)| 12 ∂y ϕ 2 1 5 1 1 1 1
≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 (min(|k(λ − 1)| 2 , |k(λ + 1)| 2 ) + ν 6 |k| 3 )kF kL2 .
L (∂Ω)

Next we consider the case when F ∈ H −1 .
Proposition 4.6. Let νk 2 ≤ 1, and w ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (4.1) with F ∈ L2 (Ω). Then
it holds that
1
ν 2 |k|k∇ϕkL2 ≤ CkF kH −1 ,
1 1 1
ν 2 |k|kϕkL2 ≤ C max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )kF kH −1 ,
3 1
k(|k(y − λ)| + 1) 4 ∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C|νk|− 2 kF kH −1 .
In what follows, we assume νk2 ≤ 1. We need the following lemmas.
Lemma 4.4. Let f ∈ F1 . We decompose f = f l + f h , where
X sinh(η(1 + y)) ikx+iℓz
f l (x, y, z) = aℓ e ,
2
sinh(2η)
ℓ ≤N1 (k)
X sinh(η(1 + y)) ikx+iℓz
f h (x, y, z) = aℓ e ,
sinh(2η)
ℓ2 >N1 (k)
where N1 (k) = max(δ−2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) − k2 , 0). Then it holds that

3 3
k(f l , f h )kL2 (Γ1 ) ≤ C, k(1 − y 2 )f h kL2 ≤ Cδ 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1)− 4 ,
1 1 1
k(f l , f h )kL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 , k∇f l kL2 ≤ Cδ− 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) 4 ,
k(f l , f h )kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C, k(1 − y)f l kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C|k|−1 .
1
Proof. Let δ1 , δ(|k(1 − λ)| + 1)− 2 . It is easy to see that
ℓ2 ≤ N1 (k) ⇔ η ≤ δ1−1 , ℓ2 > N (k) ⇔ η > δ1−1
Then we have
2
X sinh(η(1 + y)) X
k(1 − y 2
)f h k2L2 = (2π) 2 2
aℓ (1 − y ) sinh(2η) 2 ≤ C |aℓ |2 η −3
ℓ2 >N1 (k) Ly ℓ2 >N1 (k)
X
≤C |aℓ |2 δ13 ≤ Cδ13 ,
ℓ2 >N1 (k)
and
2
X η sinh(η(1 + y)) 2
k∇f l k2L2 =(2π) 2 aℓ + aℓ η cosh(η(1 + y))
sinh(2η) 2 sinh(2η) 2
ℓ2 ≤N1 (k) Ly Ly
X
≤C |aℓ |2 η = Cδ1−1 .
ℓ2 ≤N1 (k)
The proof of the other inequalities is the same as Lemma 4.3.

Lemma 4.5. Let f l be as in Lemma 4.4. Then it holds that
1 − 3
kf l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 + δk∇f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 ≤ Cδ− 2 |k(1 − λ)| + 1 4 .
Proof. By Lemma 4.4 and Lemma 4.2, we have
1
kf l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 ≤ k1/(|V − λ| + δ)kL∞ l −
2 kf kL2 L∞ ≤ Cδ 2 ,
x,z Ly x,z y
1 1
δk∇f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 ≤ k∇f l kL2 ≤ Cδ− 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) 4 .
By Lemma 4.4, Lemma 4.2, Lemma 4.1 and |kδ| ≤ 1, we have
|1 − λ|kf l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 ≤ k(V − λ)f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 + k(1 − V )f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2
≤ kf l kL2 + Ck(1 − y)f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2
1
≤ C|k|− 2 + Ck1/(|V − λ| + δ)kL∞ l
2 k(1 − y)f kL2 L∞
x,z Ly x,z y
1 1 1
≤ C|k|− 2 + Cδ− 2 |k|−1 ≤ Cδ− 2 |k|−1 ,
and
|1 − λ|δk∇f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2
≤ δk(V − λ)∇f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 + δk(1 − V )∇f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2
≤ δk∇f l kL2 + k(1 − V )∇f l kL2 ≤ δk∇f l kL2 + Ck(1 − y)∇f l kL2
1 1 1 1 1
≤ Cδ 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) 4 + C|k|− 2 ≤ Cδ 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) 4 .
Summing up, we conclude that
1
(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)kf l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 ≤ Cδ− 2 ,
(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)δk∇f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2
1 1 1 1 1
≤ C(δ− 2 + |k|δ 2 )(|k(1 − λ)| + 1) 4 ≤ Cδ− 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) 4 ,
which show that
kf l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 + δk∇f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2
1 1 1 3
≤C(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)−1 δ− 2 [1 + (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) 4 ] ≤ Cδ− 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1)− 4 .

Now we are in a position to prove Proposition 4.6.
Proof. Using Proposition 4.4 and the fact that ϕ|y=±1 = 0, we deduce that
3
k∇ϕk2L2 = |hw, ϕi| ≤ C|kδ|− 2 kF kH −1 k∇ϕkL2 ,
which gives
3 1
(4.31) k∇ϕkL2 ≤ C|kδ|− 2 kF kH −1 = Cν − 2 |k|−1 kF kH −1 .
We denote
2
N (k) , max(|ν/k|− 3 − k2 , 0), e = λ − iaδ,
λ
and let ∆φ = ϕ, φ|y=±1 = 0. We decompose φ = φl + φh , where

X 1 Z
φl (x, y, z) = φ(x, y, z1 )eiℓ(z−z1 ) dz1 ,
2π T
ℓ2 ≤N (k)
X 1 Z
φh (x, y, z) = φ(x, y, z1 )eiℓ(z−z1 ) dz1 .
2
2π T
ℓ >N (k)
It is obvious that ∀ α ∈ Z+ , β = {0, 1, 2},

(4.32) k(∂x , ∂z )α ∇β φl kL2 ≤ δ−α k∇β φl kL2 , k∇β φh kL2 ≤ δα k(∂x , ∂z )α ∇β φh kL2 .
Next we discuss the following two cases.
1 1
Case 1. |λ| ≤ 1 + ν 3 |k|− 3 .
1 1
Without loss of generality, we may assume that 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1 + ν 3 |k|− 3 . Then we have
1 1 1 1
|1 − λ̃| ≤ max(1 − λ, λ − 1) + aδ ≤ max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 ) + δ ≤ 2 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 ).
Let φ1 (x, y, z) = φl (x, y, z)/(y − 1). Then we have
Z 1 Z 1
1 l
φ1 (x, y, z) = ∂y φ (y1 )dy1 = ∂y φl (x, 1 − (1 − y)s, z)ds,
1−y y 0
Z 1
∂y φ1 (x, y, z) = s∂y2 φl (x, 1 − (1 − y)s, z)ds,
0
which imply that

kφ1 kL2 + k∇φ1 kL2 ≤ C k∂y φl kL2 + k∂y ∇φl kL2 ≤ CkϕkL2 ,
k∂z ∇φ1 kL2 ≤ Ck∂z ∂y ∇φl kL2 ≤ Cδ−1 k∇2 φl kL2 ≤ Cδ−1 kϕkL2 .
Notice that φ1 |y=1 = (∂y φl )|y=1 , (∂x , ∂z )φ1 |y=1 = ((∂x , ∂z )∂y φl )|y=1 , φ1 |y=−1 = 0. Then
we infer that
kφ1 kL2 (Γ1 ) ≤Ck∂y φl kL2 (Γ1 ) ≤ k∂y φl kL2x,z L∞
y
1 1 1
≤Ck∂y φl kL2 2 k∂y2 φl kL2 2 ≤ C|k|− 2 kϕkL2 ,
and by (4.32),
k(∂x , ∂z )φ1 kL2 (Γ1 ) ≤Ck(∂x , ∂z )∂y φl kL2 (Γ1 ) ≤ k(∂x , ∂z )∂y φl kL2x,z L∞
y
1 1
≤Ck(∂x , ∂z )∂y φl kL2 2 k(∂x , ∂z )∂y2 φl kL2 2
1 1 1
≤Cδ−1 k∇φl kL2 2 k∇2 φl kL2 2 ≤ Cδ−1 |k|− 2 kϕkL2 .
By Proposition 4.4 and Lemma 16.1, we get (here δ1 is defined in Proposition 4.4)
|hw, φl i| =|hw, (y − 1)φ1 i|
=|h(V − λ̃)w, φ1 i + (λ̃ − 1)hw, φ1 i + hw, (y − V )φ1 i|
1 3

≤C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kφ1 kH 1 + (kφ1 kL2 (Γ1 ) + δ1 k(∂x , ∂z )φ1 kL2 (Γ1 ) )(|1 − λ| + δ) 4 δ− 4
+ |1 − λ̃||hw, φ1 i| + |hw, (y − V )φ1 i|,
and
3 3 1
|hw, φ1 i| ≤ C|kδ|− 2 kF kH −1 k∇φ1 kL2 + C|k|− 2 δ− 2 kF kH −1 k∂z ∇φ1 kL2 .
By Lemma 4.1 and integration by parts(using (y − V )φ1 |y=±1 = 0), we get

|hw, (y − V )φ1 i| = |hϕ, ∆[(y − V )φ1 ]i|
≤ |hϕ, (y − V )∆φ1 i| + 2|hϕ, ∇(y − V ) · ∇φ1 i| + |hϕ, [∆(y − V )]φ1 i|

≤ Cε0 kϕkL2 k(1 − y)∆φ1 kL2 + k∇φ1 kL2 + kφ1 kL2

≤ Cε0 kϕkL2 k∆[(1 − y)φ1 ] + 2∂y φ1 kL2 + k∇φ1 kL2 + kφ1 kL2

≤ Cε0 kϕkL2 kϕkL2 + k∇φ1 kL2 + kφ1 kL2 ≤ Cε0 kϕk2L2 .
1 3

|hw, φl i| ≤C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kφ1 kH 1 + (kφ1 kL2 (Γ1 ) + δ1 k(∂x , ∂z )φ1 kL2 (Γ1 ) )(|1 − λ| + δ) 4 δ− 4
3 3 1

+ C|1 − λ̃| |kδ|− 2 kF kH −1 k∇φ1 kL2 + |k|− 2 δ− 2 kF kH −1 k∂z ∇φ1 kL2 + Cε0 kϕk2L2
3
≤C(|1 − λ| + δ)|k|−1 kF kH −1 δ−1 kφ1 kH 1 + δ− 2 kφ1 kL2 (Γ1 ) + δk(∂x , ∂z φ1 kL2 (Γ1 ) )
1 3 1 1

+ |k|− 2 δ− 2 k∇φ1 kL2 + |k|− 2 δ− 2 k∂z ∇φ1 kL2 + Cε0 kϕk2L2
1 3
≤C(|1 − λ| + δ)|k|−1 kF kH −1 kϕkL2 δ−1 + |k|− 2 δ− 2 + Cε0 kϕk2L2
1 1
≤C max(1 − λ, |ν/k| 3 )(νk 2 )− 2 kF kH −1 kϕkL2 + Cε0 kϕk2L2 .
By (4.31), we have
|hw, φh i| ≤k∇ϕkL2 k∇φh kL2 ≤ k∇ϕkL2 (δ2 k∂z2 ∇φh kL2 )
1 8
≤Cδ2 k∇ϕk2L2 ≤ Cν − 3 |k|− 3 kF k2H −1 .
Thus, we obtain
kϕk2L2 = |hw, φi| ≤ |hw, φl i| + |hw, φh i|
1 1 1 8
≤ C max(1 − λ, |ν/k| 3 )(νk2 )− 2 kF kH −1 kϕkL2 + Cν − 3 |k|− 3 kF k2H −1 + Cε0 kϕk2L2 ,
which implies (taking ε0 sufficiently small) that
1 1
ν 2 |k|kϕkL2 ≤ C max(1 − λ, |ν/k| 3 )kF kH −1 .
1 1
Case 2. |λ| ≥ 1 + ν 3 |k|− 3 .
Let f1 (x, y, z) = (V − λ̃)−1 φ. Then f1 |y=±1 = 0, and by Proposition 4.4, we have
kϕk2L2 =|hw(V − λ̃), f1 i| ≤ C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf1 kH 1 .
Using the fact that |V − λ̃|−1 ≤ C(1 + δ − |y|)−1 , we deduce that

∇φ
≤ Ck∇φkL2 L∞ (1 + δ − |y|)−1 ∞ 2 ≤ C|k|− 12 δ− 12 kϕkL2 ,
V − λ̃ 2 x,z y Lx,z Ly
L

φ(∇V ) φ
−1
(V − λ̃)2 ≤ 1 − |y| 2 ∞ (1 + δ − |y|) L∞ 2 k∇V kL∞
x,z Ly
L2 Lx,z Ly

≤ Ck∂y φkL2x,z L∞ (1 + δ − |y|)−1 2 ≤ C|k|− 12 δ− 12 kϕkL2 ,
L
y
φ φ
−1
V − λ̃ 2 ≤ C 1 − |y| 2 ≤ Ck∂y φkL2 ≤ C|k| kϕkL2 ,
L L
which give

∇φ φ(∇V ) φ
kf1 kH 1
≤
+
+ ≤ C|k|− 12 δ− 21 kϕkL2
V − λ̃ L2 (V − λ̃)2 L2 V − λ̃ L2
Thus, we conclude
1 1 1
kϕk2L2 ≤ C|k|−1 |k|− 2 δ− 2 kF kH −1 kϕkL2 = C(νk 2 )− 2 δkF kH −1 kϕkL2 ,
which gives
1 1 1
ν 2 |k|kϕkL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 3 kF kH −1 ≤ C max(1 − |λ|, |ν/k| 3 )kF kH −1
Combining with both cases, we prove the second inequality of the proposition.
We decompose f as f = f h + f l , where f l and f h is as in Lemma 4.4. Recall that
1
N1 (k) = max(δ−2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) − k 2 , 0). Then l2 ≤ N1 (k) ⇔ η ≤ δ−1 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) 2 . Thus,
we have
1
k(∂x , ∂z )f l kL2 (Γ1 ) ≤ δ−1 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) 2 kf l kL2 (Γ1 ) = δ1−1 kf l kL2 (Γ1 ) .
Now, by Proposition 4.4, Lemma 4.4 and Lemma 4.5, we get
3 3
|hw, f l i| ≤C|k|−1 kF kH −1 kf l kL2 (Γ1 ) + δ1 k(∂x , ∂z )f l kL2 (Γ1 ) (|1 − λ| + δ)− 4 δ− 4

+ k∇f l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2 + δ−1 kf l /(|V − λ| + δ)kL2
3 3 3 3

≤C|k|−1 kF kH −1 (|1 − λ| + δ)− 4 δ− 4 + Cδ− 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1)− 4
3 3 1 3
≤C|k|−1 δ− 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1)− 4 kF kH −1 = C|νk|− 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1)− 4 kF kH −1 ,
and
3 3
|hw, f h i| ≤ Cν −1 kF kH −1 k(1 − y 2 )f h kL2 ≤ Cν −1 δ 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1)− 4 kF kH −1
1 3
= C|νk|− 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1)− 4 kF kH −1 .
This shows that
1 3
|hw, f i| ≤ |hw, f l i| + |hw, f h i| ≤ C|νk|− 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1)− 4 kF kH −1 ,
which along with (4.24) gives
1 3
k∂y ϕkL2 (Γ1 ) ≤ C|νk|− 2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1)− 4 kF kH −1 .
For the case of j = −1,we can similarly get
1 3
k∂y ϕkL2 (Γ−1 ) ≤ C|νk|− 2 (|k(1 + λ)| + 1)− 4 kF kH −1 .
5. Lp estimate of the solutions for the homogeneous OS

Let w1,ℓ and w2,ℓ be the solution to the homogeneous Orr-Sommerfeld equation

 2 2 2 1
 − ν(∂ − η )w1,ℓ + ik(y − λ)w1,ℓ − a(νk ) 3 w1,ℓ = 0,

(5.1)
 w1,ℓ = (∂y − η 2 )ϕ1,l , ϕ1,ℓ |y=±1 = 0,

 ∂ ϕ (−1) = 0, ∂ ϕ (1) = 1,
y 1,ℓ y 1,ℓ
and

 2 2 2 13
 − ν(∂ − η )w2,ℓ + ik(y − λ)w2,ℓ − a(νk ) w2,ℓ = 0,

(5.2) w2,ℓ = (∂y − η 2 )ϕ2,l , ϕ2,ℓ |y=±1 = 0,


 ∂ ϕ (−1) = 1, ∂ ϕ (1) = 0.
y 2,ℓ y 2,ℓ
Here λ ∈ R, a ∈ [0, ǫ1 ] with ǫ1 ≤ δ1 and δ1 given by Lemma 5.2. In the sequel, we assume
that k > 0 without loss of generality and let L = (|k|/ν)1/3 (so L = δ−1 ).
The goal of this section is to establish the following Lp type estimates of w1,ℓ and w2,ℓ ,
which could be viewed as boundary correctors in the case of nonslip boundary condition,
hence describe the boundary behavior of the solution.
Proposition 5.1. There exists k0 > 1 independent of ν so that if L ≥ k0 , then we have
1 1

kw1,ℓ kL∞ ≤ C |k(λ − 1)/ν| + η 2 2 + (|k|/ν) 3 ,
1 1

kw2,ℓ kL∞ ≤ C |k(λ + 1)/ν| + η 2 2 + (|k|/ν) 3 ,
k(1 − |y|)α w1,ℓ kL1 + k(1 − |y|)α w2,ℓ kL1 ≤ CL−α , α ≥ 0,
k(1 − |y|)β w1,ℓ kL∞ + k(1 − |y|)β w2,ℓ kL∞ ≤ CL1−β , β ≥ 1.
Proposition 5.2. There exists k0 > 1 independent of ν so that if L ≥ k0 , then we have
1 1 1 1 1

kw1,ℓ kL2 ≤ C |k(λ − 1)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 |ℓ| ,
1 1 1 1 1

kw2,ℓ kL2 ≤ C |k(λ + 1)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 |ℓ| ,
k(1 − |y|)β w1,ℓ kL2 + k(1 − |y|)β w2,ℓ kL2 ≤ CL1/2−β , β ≥ 1/2,
1
k(∂y , η)ϕ1,ℓ kL2 + k(∂y , η)ϕ2,ℓ kL2 ≤ C|ν/k| , 6
1 1 1
|k| 2 kϕ1,ℓ kL2 + |k| 2 kϕ2,ℓ kL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 3 .
In the following sections(section 6-15), we always assume 0 < ν ≤ ν0 ≤ k0−3 . Then L ≥ k0 .
5.1. Basic properties of the Airy function. Let Ai(y) be the Airy function, which is a
nontrivial solution of u′′ − yu = 0. We introduce some notations
Z ∞ Z ∞
iπ/6
A0 (z) = Ai(t)dt = e Ai(eiπ/6 t)dt,
eiπ/6 z z
A0 (z + x) Z x A′ (z + t)
0
ω(z, x) = = exp dt .
A0 (z) 0 A0 (z + t)
The following two lemmas come from [19].
Lemma 5.1. There exists c > 0, δ0 so that for Imz ≤ δ0 ,
A′ (z) 1 A′ (z) 1
0
≤ C 1 + |z| 2 , Re 0 ≤ −c 1 + |z| 2 .
A0 (z) A0 (z)
Lemma 5.2. There exists δ1 ∈ (0, δ0 /2] so that for Imz ≤ δ1 and x ≥ 0,
x
|ω(z, x)| ≤ e− 3 .
Lemma 5.3. Let z ∈ C. It holds that for any x ≥ 0,
Z x
1 1 3
(5.3) 1 + |t + z| 2 dt & x|z| 2 + |x| 2 .
0
Proof. Let z = z1 + iz2 with z1 , z2 ∈ R.

If |z1 | ≤ 1, then we have
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 + |t + z| 2 & 2 + |t + z1 | 2 + |z2 | 2 ≥ 2 + |t| 2 − |z1 | 2 + |z2 | 2 ≥ 1 + |t| 2 + |z2 | 2 ,
which gives
Z x Z x
1 1 1 3 1 1 3
(1 + |t + z| )dt & 2 (1 + |t| 2 + |z2 | 2 )dt & x + x 2 + x|z2 | 2 ≥ x|z| 2 + x 2 .
0 0
If |z1 | ≥ 1 and x ≥ |z1 |, then we have

Z x Z |z1 | Z x Z |z1 | Z x
1 1 1 1 1 1
|t + z1 | 2 dt = |t + z1 | 2 dt + |t + z1 | 2 dt ≥ (|z1 | 2 − t 2 )dt + (t − |z1 |) 2 dt
0 0 |z1 | 0 |z1 |
3 3 3 1 3
& |z1 | + (x − |z1 |) & x & x|z1 | + x ,
2 2 2 2 2
which gives
Z x Z x
1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3
(1 + |t + z| 2 )dt & (1 + |t + z1 | 2 + |z2 | 2 )dt & x|z1 | 2 + x 2 + x|z2 | 2 & x|z| 2 + x 2 .
0 0
If |z1 | ≥ 1 and |z1 | ≥ x, then we have

Z x Z x/2 Z x/2
1 1 1 1 1
|t + z1 | 2 dt ≥ |t + z1 | 2 dt ≥ (|z1 | − t) 2 dt ≥ (|z1 | − x/2) 2 x/2 & x|z1 | 2 ,
0 0 0
which gives
Z x Z x
1 1 1 1 1 1 3
(1 + |t + z| )dt &
2 (1 + |t + z1 | 2 + |z2 | 2 )dt & x|z1 | 2 + x|z2 | 2 & x|z| 2 + x 2 .
0 0
Summing up, we conclude the lemma.

Lemma 5.4. Let δ0 be as in Lemma 5.1. Then it holds that for Imz ≤ δ0 and x ≥ 0,
1
3/2 )
|ω(z, x)| ≤ e−c(x|z| 2 +x .
Proof. By Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.3, we get
Z x A′ (z + t)
0
|ω(z, x)| ≤ exp Re dt
A0 (z + t)
Z0 x 1
1 3/2
≤ exp − c (1 + |z + t| 2 )dt ≤ e−c(x|z| 2 +x ) .
0

Lemma 5.5. Let δ1 be as in Lemma 5.2. There exists k0 > 1 so that if L ≥ k0 , η ≥ 1,
Imz ≤ δ1 − η 2 /L2 , then we have
Z
η 2L ηt
sinh(2η) − cosh 2η − ω(z, t)dt
L 0 L
√ Z ηt
η 2L
≥ 2 sinh(2η)ω(z, 2L) − cosh ω(z, t)dt.
L 0 L
1
Proof. Let c∗ > 0 be the constant c in Lemma 5.4 and b = max(1/3, c∗ |z| 2 ). It follows from
Lemma 5.2 and Lemma 5.4 that for Imz ≤ δ1 , x ≥ 0 we have |ω(z, x)| ≤ e−bx and
η Z 2L ηt Z
η 2L ηt

sinh(2η) − cosh(2η − )ω(z, t)dt ≥ sinh(2η) − cosh 2η − |ω(z, t)|dt
L 0 L L 0 L
Z
η 2L ηt −bt
≥ sinh(2η) − cosh 2η − e dt
L 0 L
Z 2L ηt −bt
= sinh 2η − (be )dt
0 L
Z L/η

≥ sinh(2η − 1)(be−bt )dt = sinh(2η − 1) 1 − e−bL/η ,
0
where
sinh(2η − 1) = e2η−1 (1 − e−2(2η−1) )/2 ≥ e2η−1 (1 − e−2 )/2 ≥ e−1 sinh(2η)(1 − e−2 ),
and
1 1 1
b = max(1/3, c∗ |z| 2 ) = [max(1/9, c2∗ |z|)] 2 ≥ [(1 + |z|)/(9 + c−2
∗ )] ,
2
1
1 + |z| ≥ 1 − Imz ≥ η 2 /L2 , b ≥ c1 (1 + |z|) 2 = c1 η/L, 1 − e−bL/η ≥ 1 − e−c1 ,
1
−
with c1 = (9 + c−2
∗ ) 2 > 0. This shows that
Z
η 2L ηt
2 sinh(2η) ≥ sinh(2η) − cosh 2η − ω(z, t)dt ≥c2 sinh(2η)
L 0 L
with c2 = e−1 (1 − e−2 )(1 − e−c1 ) ∈ (0, 1).
Z ηt
η 2L
sinh(2η)ω(z, 2L) − cosh ω(z, t)dt
L 0 L
Z ηt
η 2L
≤ sinh(2η)|ω(z, 2L)| + cosh |ω(z, t)|dt
L 0 L
Z ηt
−2L/3 η 2L
≤ sinh(2η)e + cosh e−t/3 dt
L 0 L
Z 2L ηt e−t/3
−2L/3
= 2 sinh(2η)e + sinh dt
0 L 3
Z 2L
t e−t/3
≤ 2 sinh(2η)e−2L/3 + sinh(2η) dt
0 2L 3
≤ sinh(2η)(2e−2L/3 + 3/(2L)) ≤ (3/L) sinh(2η).
Here we
√ used the fact that (sinh x)/x is increasing. Now the result follows by choosing
k0 = 3 2/c2 > 1.
5.2. The solution of the homogeneous OS equation. Let
π 5π
u1 (y) = Ai(ei 6 y), u2 (y) = Ai(ei 6 y).
Then u1 and u2 are two linearly independent solutions of u′′ − iyu = 0. Hence,
π 5π
W1,ℓ (y) = Ai ei 6 (L(y − λ − iνη 2 /k) + ia) , W2,ℓ (y) = Ai ei 6 (L(y − λ − iνη 2 /k) + ia)
are two linearly independent solutions of the homogeneous OS equation

1 2
−ν(w′′ − η 2 w) + ik(y − λ)w − aν 3 |k| 3 w = 0.
We denote
d = −1 − λ − iνη 2 /k, de = −1 + λ − iνη 2 /k.
We have the following estimates for W1,ℓ and W2,ℓ .
Lemma 5.6. It holds that
L 1 1

kW1,ℓ kL∞ ≤ C (|k(λ + 1)/ν| + η 2 ) 2 + (|k|/ν) 3 ,
|A0 (Ld + ia)|
L 1 1

kW2,ℓ kL∞ ≤ C (|k(λ − 1)/ν| + η 2 ) 2 + (|k|/ν) 3 ,
|A0 (Lde + ia)|
and for α ≥ 0, β ≥ 1,
L L
k(1 − |y|)α W1,ℓ kL1 + k(1 − |y|)α W2,ℓ kL1 ≤ CL−α,
|A0 (Ld + ia)| e
|A0 (Ld + ia)|
L L
k(1 − |y|)β W1,ℓ kL∞ + k(1 − |y|)β W2,ℓ kL∞ ≤ CL1−β .
|A0 (Ld + ia)| |A0 (Lde+ ia)|
Here C may depend on α, β.
Proof. Thanks to the definition of W1,ℓ and ω(z, x), Lemma 5.1, Lemma 5.2, we have

L|W1,ℓ (y)| LAi(ei π6 L(y − λ − iνη 2 /|k|) + ia) LA′ (L(y + 1) + Ld + ia)
0
≤ =
|A0 (Ld + ia)| A0 (Ld + ia) A0 (Ld + ia)
′
A0 (L(y + 1) + Ld + ia)
= L |ω(Ld + ia, L(y + 1))|
A0 (L(y + 1) + Ld + ia)
1
≤ CL(1 + |Ld + ia + L(y + 1)| 2 )e−L(y+1)/3
1 3 1
≤ C(L(1 + |Ld|) 2 ) + CL 2 (y + 1) 2 e−L(y+1)/3
1 1 1
≤ C(L + L|Ld| 2 ) ≤ C(|k(1 + λ)/ν| + η 2 ) 2 + |k/ν| 3 ,
1 1 1
here we use L|Ld| 2 ≤ (L3 (|1 + λ| + νη 2 /|k|)) 2 = (|k(1 + λ)/ν| + η 2 ) 2 . This yields
L
2 12 1
kW1,ℓ kL ≤ C (|k(λ + 1)/ν| + η ) + |k/ν| .
∞ 3
|A0 (Ld + ia)|
Thanks to Lemma 5.1, Lemma 5.4, we have
Z 1 iπ

Lk(1 − |y|)α W1,ℓ kL1 2
α Ai(e 6 (L(y − λ − iνη /|k|) + ia))

=L (1 − |y|) dy
|A0 (Ld + ia)| −1 A0 (Ld + ia)
Z 2 i π6

α Ai(e (Lx + Ld + ia))

=L (1 − |x − 1|) dx
0 A0 (Ld + ia)
Z 2 ′

α A0 (Lx + Ld + ia)

≤CL x |ω(Ld + ia, Lx)|dx
0 A0 (Lx + Ld + ia)
Z 2 1 3
1
≤CL xα (1 + |Lx + Ld + ia|) 2 e−c(|Lx||Ld+ia| 2 +|Lx| 2 ) dx
0
Z 2 1
1
≤CL xα (1 + |Ld + ia|) 2 e−c|Lx|(1+|Ld+ia| 2 ) dx
0
Z +∞
−α −α
≤CL (1 + |Ld + ia|) 2 tα e−ct dt ≤ CL−α .
0
1
Here we use (1 + |Lx|) e 2 −c|Lx|3/2
≤ Ce−c|Lx| for every x ≥ 0 and fixed c > 0, and make a
1
change of variable t = Lx(1 + |Ld + ia|) 2 .
Let x = y + 1 ∈ [0, 2] and β ≥ 1. Thanks to Lemma 5.1, Lemma 5.4, we have
L(1 − |y|)β
|W1,ℓ (y)|
|A0 (Ld + ia)|

i π6 2
β LAi(e (L(y − λ − iνη /|k|) + ia))
≤ (1 − |y|)
A0 (Ld + ia)

LA′0 (L(y + 1) + Ld + ia)
= (1 − |y|)β

A0 (Ld + ia)
′
A (L(y + 1) + Ld + ia)
= L(1 − |y|)β 0 |ω(Ld + ia, L(y + 1))|
A0 (L(y + 1) + Ld + ia)
1 1 3
≤ CLxβ (1 + |Ld + ia + Lx| 2 )e−c(Lx|Ld+ia| 2 +|Lx| 2 )
1 1
≤ CLxβ (1 + |Ld + ia|) 2 e−c(Lx|Ld+ia| 2 +Lx)
1 1
≤ CL1−β (1 + |Ld + ia|)1/2−β/2 (Lx(1 + |Ld + ia|) 2 )β e−cLx(1+|Ld+ia|) 2
≤ CL1−β (1 + |Ld + ia|)1/2−β/2 ≤ CL1−β ,
which gives
L
k(1 − |y|)β W1,ℓ kL∞ ≤ CL1−β .
|A0 (Ld + ia)|
Thus, we finish the estimate for W1,ℓ . The proof for W2,ℓ is similar.
5.3. Proof of Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 5.2. The solution w1,ℓ and w2,ℓ of (5.1)
and (5.2) can be expressed as
(5.4) w1,ℓ = C11 W1,ℓ (y) + C12 W2,ℓ (y), w2,ℓ = C21 W1,ℓ (y) + C22 W2,ℓ (y),
where Cij , i, j = 1, 2 are constants (depending only on ν, k, ℓ). Thanks to the facts that
Z 1 Z 1
ηy η
e w1,ℓ (y)dy = e , e−ηy w1,ℓ (y)dy = e−η ,
−1 −1
we deduce that
 Z 1 Z 1



 sinh(2η) = C11 sinh(η(y + 1))W1,ℓ (y)dy + C12 sinh(η(y + 1))W2,ℓ (y)dy,
−1 −1
Z 1 Z 1



 0 = C11 sinh(η(1 − y))W1,ℓ (y)dy + C12 sinh(η(1 − y))W2,ℓ (y)dy.
−1 −1
We denote
Z 1 Z 1
A1 = sinh(η(y + 1))W1,ℓ (y)dy, A2 = sinh(η(1 − y))W2,ℓ (y)dy,
−1 −1
Z 1 Z 1
B1 = sinh(η(1 − y))W1,ℓ (y)dy, B2 = sinh(η(y + 1))W2,l (y)dy.
−1 −1
If A1 A2 − B1 B2 6= 0, then we have
sinh(2η)(A2 , −B1 )
(C11 , C12 ) = .
A1 A2 − B1 B2
Similarly, we have
sinh(2η)(B2 , −A1 )
(C21 , C22 ) = .
A1 A2 − B1 B2
Lemma 5.7. Let k0 be as in Lemma 5.5 and δ1 be as in Lemma 5.2. If L ≥ k0 , then it holds
that
C CL
|C11 | ≤ , |C12 | ≤ ,
|A0 (Ld + ia)| |A0 (Lde + ia)|
CL C
|C21 | ≤ , |C22 | ≤ .
|A0 (Ld + ia)| |A0 (Lde + ia)|
Proof. Let y + 1 = x = Lt . Due to A′0 (z) = −eiπ/6 Ai(eiπ/6 z), we have
Z 2
B1 = sinh(η(2 − x))Ai(eiπ/6 (L(x + d) + ia))dx
0
Z
1 2L
ηt
= sinh 2η − Ai(eiπ/6 ((t + Ld) + ia))dt
L 0 L
Z
e−iπ/6 2L ηt ′
=− sinh 2η − A0 (t + Ld + ia)dt
L 0 L
Z
e−iπ/6 h η 2L ηt i
=− − sinh(2η)A0 (Ld + ia) + cosh 2η − A0 (t + Ld + ia)dt
L L 0 L
−iπ/6 h Z 2L i
e η ηt
(5.5) =A0 (Ld + ia) sinh(2η) − cosh 2η − ω(Ld + ia, t)dt .
L L 0 L
Similarly, we have
Z
e−iπ/6 h η 2L ηt i
A1 = −A0 (Ld + ia) sinh(2η)ω(Ld + ia, 2L) − cosh ω(Ld + ia, t)dt .
L L 0 L
Due to d = −1 − λ − iνη 2 /k, Im(Ld + ia) = −Lνη 2 /k + a = −η 2 /L2 + a ≤ δ1 − η 2 /L2 . Then
we infer from Lemma 5.5 that
A sinh(2η)ω(Ld + ia, 2L) − η R 2L cosh( ηt )ω(Ld + ia, t)dt √2
1 L 0 L
(5.6) = η R 2L ηt
≤ .
B1 sinh(2η) − L 0 cosh(2η − L )ω(Ld + ia, t)dt 2
Similarly, using Ai(z) = Ai(z̄) and Lemma 5.5, we have

A √2
2
(5.7) ≤ .
B2 2
Now it follows from (5.6) and (5.7) that
|A1 A2 − B1 B2 | & |B1 B2 |.
From the proof of Lemma 5.5 and (5.5), we know that

h Z
1 η 2L ηt i
|B1 | ≥ |A0 (Ld + ia)| sinh(2η) − cosh 2η − ω(Ld + ia, t)dt
L L 0 L
sinh(2η)
≥c2 |A0 (Ld + ia)|.
L
Similarly, |B2 | ≥ c2 sinh(2η)

L |A0 (Lde + ia)|. Thus, we get
[sinh(2η)]2
|A1 A2 − B1 B2 | & |A0 (Ld + ia)||A0 (Lde + ia)| .
L2
Furthermore, we can deduce that
sinh(2η) sinh(2η)
|B1 | ≤ 2 |A0 (Ld + ia)|, |B2 | ≤ 2 |A0 (Lde + ia)|,
L L
sinh(2η) sinh(2η)
|A1 | ≤ 3 |A0 (Ld + ia)|, |A2 | ≤ 3 |A0 (Lde + ia)|.
L2 L2
Summing up, we can conclude the estimates of Cij .
Now Proposition 5.1 is an immediate consequence of Lemma 5.7 and Lemma 5.6. Next,
let us prove Proposition 5.2.
Proof. By Proposition 5.1 and Hölder inequality, we get

1 1 1 1
1
2
kw1,ℓ kL2 ≤kw1,ℓ kL2 ∞ kw1,ℓ kL2 1 ≤ C (|k(λ − 1)/ν| + η 2 ) 2 + (|k|/ν) 3
1 1 1
1 1 1 1

≤C |k(λ − 1)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |η| 2 ≤ C |k(λ − 1)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 + |ℓ| 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1

≤C |k(λ − 1)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|) 2 + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 |ℓ|
1 1 1 1 1

≤C |k(λ − 1)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 |ℓ| ,
which gives the first inequality. The second inequality can be proved similarly.
For fixed β ≥ 1/2, by Proposition 5.1 and Hölder inequality, we have
1 1 1 1
k(1 − |y|)β w1,ℓ kL2 ≤ k(1 − |y|)β+ 2 w1,ℓ kL2 ∞ k(1 − |y|)β− 2 w1,ℓ kL2 1 ≤ CL1/2−β .
Similarly, k(1 − |y|)β w2,ℓ kL2 ≤ CL1/2−β . This proves the third inequality.
By Lemma 16.4 and the third inequality with β = 1, we have
1
k(∂y , η)ϕ1,ℓ kL2 ≤ k(1 − |y|)w1,ℓ kL2 ≤ CL−1/2 = C|ν/k| 6 .
1
Similarly, k(∂y , η)ϕ2,ℓ kL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 6 , thus we conclude the fourth inequality.
By Lemma 16.4 and Proposition 5.1 with α = 1, we have
1 1 1
|k| 2 kϕ1,ℓ kL2 ≤ η 2 kϕ1,ℓ kL2 ≤ k(1 − |y|)w1,ℓ kL1 ≤ CL−1 = C|ν/k| 3 .
1 1
Similarly, |k| 2 kϕ2,ℓ kL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 3 , thus we conclude the fifth inequality.
6. Resolvent estimates via the Neumann boundary data

In this section, we consider the Orr-Sommerfeld equation with variable coefficient:
 2 1/3
 − ν∆w + ik(V (y, z) − λ)w − a(νk ) w = F,

(6.1) ∆ϕ = w, ϕ|y=±1 = 0,


∂x w = ikw, ∂x F = ikF.
Our goal of this section is to control w via the Neumann boundary data ∂y ϕ|y=±1 and F .
We assume that λ ∈ R, a ∈ [0, ǫ1 ] and V satisfies (4.2). In section 6.1 and section 6.2, we
1
also assume that L = |k|/ν 3 ≥ k0 with k0 given by Proposition 5.1.
6.1. Resolvent estimates when V = y and F = 0.

Proposition 6.1. Let w ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (6.1) with V = y and F = 0. Then it
holds that
1 1 1 1 1

kwkL2 ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1

kwkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 + |k|)∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1
k∇ϕkL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wkL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1
|k| 2 kϕkL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 3 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1
k(1 − y 2 )2 wkL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) .
R
Proof. Let ŵℓ = T e−iℓz w(x, y, z)dz, which satisfies
(
− ν(∂y2 − η 2 )ŵℓ + ik(y − λ)ŵℓ − a(νk2 )1/3 ŵℓ = 0,
ŵℓ = (∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ̂ℓ , ϕ̂ℓ |y=±1 = 0, ∂x ŵℓ = ikŵℓ .
Then we have
ŵℓ = ∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)w‘1,ℓ + ∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)w2,ℓ ,
where w1,ℓ and w2,ℓ are given by (5.1) and (5.2).
By Plancherel’s theorem, we get
X X
kwk2L2 = C kŵℓ k2L2 ≤ C |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 kw1,ℓ k2L2 + |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 kw2,ℓ k2L2 .
ℓ∈Z ℓ∈Z
By Proposition 5.2, we have

X X 1 1 1
|∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 kw1,ℓ k2L2 ≤ C |k(λ − 1)/ν| 2 + (|k|/ν) 3 + |k| + l2 (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)−1 |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2
ℓ∈Z ℓ∈Z
1 1 1
= C |k(λ − 1)/ν| + (|k|/ν) 3 + |k| k∂y ϕk2L2 (Γ1 ) + C(|k/ν| 3 + |k|)−1 k∂z ∂y ϕk2L2 (Γ1 ) .
2
Similarly we have
X
|∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 kw2,ℓ k2L2
ℓ∈Z
1 1 1
≤ C |k(λ + 1)/ν| 2 + (|k|/ν) 3 + |k| k∂y ϕk2L2 (Γ−1 ) + C(|k/ν| 3 + |k|)−1 k∂z ∂y ϕk2L2 (Γ−1 ) .
Thus, we conclude that

X
kwk2L2 ≤ C |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 kw1,ℓ k2L2 + |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 kw2,ℓ k2L2
ℓ∈Z
X 1 1 1

≤C |k(λ − j)/ν| 2 + (|k|/ν) 3 + |k| k∂y ϕk2L2 (Γj ) + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)−1 k∂z ∂y ϕk2L2 (Γj )
j∈{−1,1}
1 1 1 1
= Ck(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕk2L2 (∂Ω) + C(|k/ν| 3 + |k|)−1 k∂z ∂y ϕl k2L2 (∂Ω) .
This shows the first inequality.
By Plancherel’s theorem again, we have
X X
kwk2L2 (∂Ω) ≤kwk2L∞ 2
y Lz
= Ck |ŵℓ |2 ∞
kL y
≤ C kŵℓ k2L∞
ℓ∈Z ℓ∈Z
X
≤C |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 kw1,ℓ k2L∞ + |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 kw2,ℓ k2L∞ .
ℓ∈Z

X X 2
|∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 kw1,ℓ k2L∞ ≤ C |k(λ − 1)/ν| + (|k|/ν) 3 + k2 + ℓ2 |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2
ℓ∈Z ℓ∈Z
2
= C |k(λ − 1)/ν| + (|k|/ν) + k2 k∂y ϕk2L2 (Γ1 ) + Ck∂z ∂y ϕk2L2 (Γ1 ) ,
3
and
X
|∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 kw2,ℓ k2L∞
ℓ∈Z
2
≤ C |k(λ + 1)/ν| + (|k|/ν) 3 + k2 k∂y ϕk2L2 (Γ−1 ) + Ck∂z ∂y ϕk2L2 (Γ−1 ) ,
which imply that
X
kwk2L2 (∂Ω) ≤ C |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 kw1,ℓ k2L∞ + |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 kw2,ℓ k2L∞
ℓ∈Z
X 2 X
≤C |k(λ − j)/ν| + (|k|/ν) 3 + k2 k∂y ϕk2L2 (Γj ) + C k∂z ∂y ϕk2L2 (Γj )
j∈{−1,1} j∈{−1,1}
1 1
= Ck(|k(y − λ)/ν| + |k/ν| + |k|)∂y ϕk2L2 (∂Ω) + Ck∂z ∂y ϕk2L2 (∂Ω) ,
2 3

By Plancherel’s theorem and Proposition 5.2, we get
X
k∇ϕk2L2 =C k(∂y , η)ϕ̂ℓ k2L2
ℓ∈Z
X
≤C |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 k(∂y , η)ϕ1,ℓ k2L2 + |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 k(∂y , η)ϕ2,ℓ k2L2
ℓ∈Z
X 1 1
1
≤C |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 |ν/k| 3 + |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 |ν/k| 3 = C(ν/|k|) 3 k∂y ϕk2L2 (∂Ω) ,
ℓ∈Z
and
X
|k|kϕk2L2 =C|k| kϕ̂ℓ k2L2
ℓ∈Z
X
≤C |k| |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 kϕ1,ℓ k2L2 + |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 kϕ2,ℓ k2L2
ℓ∈Z
X 2 2
2
≤C |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 |ν/k| 3 + |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 |ν/k| 3 = C(ν/|k|) 3 k∂y ϕk2L2 (∂Ω) .
ℓ∈Z
For β ∈ {1, 2}, by Plancherel’s theorem and Proposition 5.2, we get
X
k(1 − y 2 )β wk2L2 =C k(1 − y 2 )β ŵℓ k2L2
ℓ∈Z
X
≤C |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 k(1 − y 2 )β w1,ℓ k2L2 + |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 k(1 − y 2 )β w2,ℓ k2L2
ℓ∈Z
X
≤C |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (1)|2 L1−2β + |∂y ϕ̂ℓ (−1)|2 L1−2β = CL1−2β k∂y ϕk2L2 (∂Ω) ,
ℓ∈Z
which gives
1
k(1 − y 2 )wk2L2 ≤ CL−1 k∂y ϕk2L2 (∂Ω) = C|ν/k| 3 k∂y ϕk2L2 (∂Ω) ,
k(1 − y 2 )2 wk2L2 ≤ CL−3 k∂y ϕk2L2 (∂Ω) = C|ν/k|k∂y ϕk2L2 (∂Ω) .

6.2. Resolvent estimates with general V and F = 0. The following proposition gives
the resolvent estimate of (6.1) in the homogeneous case(i.e., F = 0). The proof is based on
Proposition 6.1 and the perturbation argument.
Proposition 6.2. Let w ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (6.1) with F = 0. Then it holds that
1 1 1 1 1

kwkL2 ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1

kwkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 + |k|)∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1
k∇ϕkL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wkL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1
|k| 2 kϕkL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 3 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) .
Proof. We decompose w = wN a + wI , where wN a and wI solve


 − ν∆wN a + ik(y − λ)wN a − a(νk2 )1/3 wN a = −ik(V (y, z) − y)w,


 wN a = ∆ϕN a , ϕN a |y=±1 = 0, wN a |y=±1 = 0, ∂x wN a = ikwN a .
 − ν∆wI + ik(y − λ)wI − a(νk2 )1/3 wI = 0,




wI = ∆ϕI , ϕI |y=±1 = 0, ∂x wI = ikwI .
Then we have
−ν∆wN a + ik(V (y, z) − λ)wN a − a(νk2 )1/3 wN a = −ik(V (y, z) − y)wI .
(6.2) k(1 − y 2 )(V − y)wI kL2 ≤ Cε0 k(1 − y 2 )2 wI kL2 ,
(6.3) k(V − y)wI kL2 ≤ Cε0 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 .
By Proposition 4.1 and (6.3), we have
1
(6.4) kwN a kL2 ≤ Cε0 |ν/k|− 3 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 .
Using Proposition 4.5 with F = −ik(V − y)w, we get by by (6.2) and (6.3) that
1 4 1
(6.5) ν 6 |k| 3 kϕN a kL2 + (νk2 ) 3 (k∇ϕN a kL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wN a kL2 )
1
≤ Cε0 kk(1 − y 2 )2 wI kL2 + (νk 2 ) 3 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 ,

1
(6.6) |k(y − λ)| 2 ∂y ϕN a 2
L (∂Ω)
1
− 61 1 1 1 1
≤ Cε0 ν |k| 6 min(|k(λ − 1)| 2 , |k(λ + 1)| 2 ) + ν 6 |k| 3 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 ,
and
1 1
(6.7) k∂y ∂z ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cε0 ν − 2 |k| 2 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 ,
1 1
(6.8) k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cε0 ν − 6 |k| 6 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 .
For wI , we get by Proposition 6.1 that
1 1 1
(6.9) kwI kL2 ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1

+ (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 k∂y ∂z ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1

(6.10) kwI kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 + |k|)∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) ,
1
(6.11) k∇ϕI kL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 6 k∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1
(6.12) |k| 2 kϕI kL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 3 k∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) ,
1
(6.13) k(1 − y 2 )2 wI kL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 2 k∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) .
By (6.11) and (6.8), we get
1 1
k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 6 k∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C|ν/k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω)
1
≤ C|ν/k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + Cε0 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 .
Taking Cε0 ≤ 1/2, we conclude that
1
(6.14) k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 ≤ C|ν/k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1
(6.15) k∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ k∂y ϕkL2 + Cε0 |ν/k|− 6 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 ≤ Ck∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) .
By (6.6), (6.8) and (6.14), we have
1
|k(y − λ)| 12 ∂y ϕN a 2 1 1 1
≤ Cε0 min(|k(λ − 1)| 2 , |k(λ + 1)| 2 ) + ν 6 |k| 3 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
L (∂Ω)
1 1
k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cε0 ν − 6 |k| 6 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 ≤ Cε0 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) .
Using the interpolation, we deduce that or γ ∈ [0, 1],
γ 1
k|k(y − λ)| 2 ∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤k|k(y − λ)| 2 ∂y ϕN a kγL2 (∂Ω) k∂y ϕN a k1−γ
L2 (∂Ω)
γ γ γ γ
≤Cε0 min(|k(λ − 1)| 2 , |k(λ + 1)| 2 ) + ν 6 |k| 3 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
γ γ γ

≤Cε0 k|k(y − λ)| 2 ∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + ν 6 |k| 3 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) .
Here we used the fact that for α ≥ 0,
min(|k(λ − 1)|α , |k(λ + 1)|α )kgkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ k|k(y − λ)|α gkL2 (∂Ω) .
This shows that for γ ∈ [0, 1],

(6.16) |k(y − λ)| γ2 ∂y ϕI 2 γ γ
≤ |k(y − λ)| 2 ∂y ϕN a L2 (∂Ω) + |k(y − λ)| 2 ∂y ϕ L2 (∂Ω)
L (∂Ω)
γ γ γ
≤ Cν 6 |k| 3 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + C |k(y − λ)| 2 ∂y ϕ L2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1
(6.17) k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 + |k|)∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1
≤ Ck(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 + |k|)∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
and
1 1 1
(6.18) k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1
≤ Ck(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) .
By (6.4), (6.9), (6.18), (6.7) and (6.14), we have
1
kwkL2 ≤kwN a kL2 + kwI kL2 ≤ C|ν/k|− 3 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2
1 1 1 1 1

+C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 k∂y ∂z ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1
1 1 1
≤C|ν/k|− 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1 1

+ (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 k∂y ∂z (ϕ − ϕN a )kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1 1
≤C|ν/k|− 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + C(k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1 1 1 1
+ (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ) + C(|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 ν − 2 |k| 2 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2
1 1 1 1 1

≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
which gives the first inequality.
Due to wN a |y=±1 = 0, we get by (6.10), (6.17), (6.7) and (6.14) , we have
1 1

kwkL2 (∂Ω) =kwI kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 + |k|)∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1

≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 + |k|)∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z (ϕ − ϕN a )kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1

≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 + |k|)∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1 1
+ ν − 2 |k| 2 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2
1 1

≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 + |k|)∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
It follows from (6.13) and (6.15) that
1 1
(6.19) k(1 − y 2 )2 wI kL2 ≤C|ν/k| 2 k∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C|ν/k| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) .
By (6.5), (6.11), (6.15), (6.14) and (6.19), we have
k∇ϕkL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wkL2
≤ k∇ϕN a kL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wN a kL2 + k∇ϕI kL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2
1
1
≤ C |ν/k|− 3 k(1 − y 2 )2 wI kL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 + C|ν/k| 6 k∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1
1
≤ C |ν/k|− 3 k(1 − y 2 )2 wI kL2 + k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 + C|ν/k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1
≤ C|ν/k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
which gives the third inequality.
By (6.5), (6.12), (6.15), (6.14)and (6.19), we get
1 1 1
|k| 2 kϕkL2 ≤|k| 2 kϕN a kL2 + |k| 2 kϕI kL2
1 1
1
≤C |ν/k|− 6 k(1 − y 2 )2 wI kL2 + |ν/k| 6 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 + C|ν/k| 3 k∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1
1
≤C |ν/k|− 6 k(1 − y 2 )2 wI kL2 + |ν/k| 6 k(1 − y 2 )wI kL2 + C|ν/k| 3 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1
≤C|ν/k| 3 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
which gives the fourth inequality.
6.3. Resolvent estimates with general V and F . The following proposition gives the
resolvent estimates for the inhomogeneous equation.
Proposition 6.3. Let νk 2 ≤ 1, and w ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (6.1) with F ∈ L2 (Ω) and
F = F1 + F2 . Then it holds that
1 4
1
(6.20) ν 6 |k| 3 kϕkL2 ≤ C k(1 − y 2 )F1 kL2 + |ν/k| 3 kF1 kL2
1 1 1 1

+ |ν/k|− 3 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )kF2 kH −1 + |νk| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 4
1 1 7

(6.21) ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕkL2 ≤ C kF1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1 1
(6.22) kwkL2 ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
5

2 − 12 − 43 − 12
+ (νk ) kF1 kL2 + ν |k| kF2 kH −1 ,
1 1
(6.23) kwkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
2 5 1

+ ν − 3 |k|− 6 kF1 kL2 + ν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 .
(1) (2) (j)
Proof. We decompose the solution w as w = wN a + wN a + wI , where wN a (j = 1, 2), wI solve

 − ν∆w(j) + ik(V (y, z) − λ)w(j) − a(νk2 )1/3 w(j) = Fj ,
Na Na Na
 w(j) = ∆ϕ(j) , ϕ(j) | (j) (j) (j)
Na Na N a y=±1 = 0, wN a |y=±1 = 0, ∂x wN a = ik∂x wN a ,
and
(
− ν∆wI + ik(V (y, z) − λ)wI − a(νk2 )1/3 wI = 0,
wI = ∆ϕI , ϕI |y=±1 = 0, ∂x wI = ik∂x wI .
Step 1. Proof of (6.20) and (6.21).
1 (1) 1
|νk| 2 k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C|ν/k| 3 kF1 kL2 ,
1 7 (1) 1
ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C(νk 2 ) 6 kF1 kL2 ≤ CkF1 kL2 ,
and by Proposition 4.6, we have

1 (2) 1 1 1
|νk| 2 k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ CkF2 kH −1 ≤ C|ν/k|− 3 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )kF2 kH −1 ,
1 7 (2) 1 2 1
ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 6 |k| 3 kF2 kH −1 ≤ C|ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 .
1 4 1
ν 6 |k| 3 kϕI kL2 ≤C|νk| 2 k∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 (1) (2)
≤C|νk| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) )
1 1 1 1 1
(6.24) ≤C|νk| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + C|ν/k| 3 kF1 kL2 + C|ν/k|− 3 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )kF2 kH −1 ,
and
1 4 1 7
ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕI kL2 ≤Cν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 7 (1) (2)
≤Cν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω)
1 7 1
(6.25) ≤Cν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + CkF1 kL2 + C|ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 .
By Proposition 4.5 and Proposition 4.1, we have
1 4 (1) 1
ν 6 |k| 3 kϕN a kL2 ≤ C(k(1 − y 2 )F1 kL2 + |ν/k| 3 kF1 kL2 ),
1 4 (1)
ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕN a kL2 ≤ CkF1 kL2 ,
and by Proposition 4.6, we have
1 4 (2) 1 1 1
ν 6 |k| 3 kϕN a kL2 ≤ C|ν/k|− 3 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )kF2 kH −1 ,
1 4 (2) 1
ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕN a kL2 ≤ C|ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 ,
which together with (6.24) and (6.25) show that
1 4 1 4 (1) (2)
ν 6 |k| 3 kϕkL2 ≤ν 6 |k| 3 kϕI kL2 + kϕN a kL2 + kϕN a kL2
1 1 1 1
≤C k(1 − y 2 )F1 kL2 + |ν/k| 3 kF1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )kF2 kH −1
1

+ |νk| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
and
1 4 1 4 (1) (2)
ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕkL2 ≤ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕI kL2 + k∇ϕN a kL2 + k∇ϕN a kL2
1 1 7
≤C kF1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) .
Step 2. Proof of (6.22).
1 1 (1) 1 1 (1)
k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 4 k(|k(y − λ)| 4 + 1)∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω)
1 (1) 5
≤ Cν − 4 k(|k(y − λ)| + 1)∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C(νk 2 )− 12 kF1 kL2 ,
1 (1) 1 5
|ν/k| 6 k∂z ∂y ϕN a kL2 ≤ C(νk 2 )− 3 kF1 kL2 ≤ C(νk 2 )− 12 kF1 kL2 .
and by Proposition 4.6,
1 1 (2) 1 1 (2)
1 3 (2) 3 1
≤ Cν − 4 k(|k(y − λ)| 4 + 1)∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 ,
1 (2) 2 1 3 1
|ν/k| 6 k∂z ∂y ϕN a kL2 ≤ Cν − 3 |k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 ≤ Cν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 ,
which together with Proposition 6.2 show that
1 1 1 1 1
kwI kL2 ≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + |k| 2 )∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) + (|k/ν| 3 + |k|)− 2 k∂y ∂z ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1
≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1
≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 (1) 1 (1)
+ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 (2) 1 (2)
+ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1
≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
5 3 1
+ C (νk2 )− 12 kF1 kL2 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 .
(1) (2) 1 2 1
kwN a kL2 + kwN a k ≤C((νk 2 )− 3 kF1 kL2 + ν − 3 |k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 )
5 3 1
≤C((νk 2 )− 12 kF1 kL2 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 ).
This shows that
(1) (2)
kwkL2 ≤kwI kL2 + kwN a kL2 + kwN a kL2
1 1 1
≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
5 3 1
+ C (νk2 )− 12 kF1 kL2 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 .
Step 3. Proof of (6.23).
1 1 (1) 1 1 (1)
1 (1) 2 5
≤ Cν − 2 k(|k(y − λ)| + 1)∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 3 |k|− 6 kF1 kL2 ,
(1) 1 2 5
k∂z ∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C|νk|− 2 kF1 kL2 ≤ Cν − 3 |k|− 6 kF1 kL2 ,
and by Proposition 4.6,
1 1 (2) 1 1 (2)
1 3 (2) 1
≤ Cν − 2 k(|k(y − λ)| 4 + 1)∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 ,
(2) 5 1 1
k∂z ∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 kF2 kH −1 ≤ Cν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 ,
which together with Proposition 6.2 show that
1 1
kwI kL2 (∂Ω) ≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 + |k|)∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1
≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕI kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕI kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1
≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 (1) (1)
+ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 (2) (2)
+ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕN a kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1
≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
2 5 1
+ C ν − 3 |k|− 6 kF1 kL2 + ν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 .
(j)
Due to wN a |y=±1 = 0(j = 1, 2), we have
1 1
kwkL2 (∂Ω) = kwI kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
2 5 1
+ C ν − 3 |k|− 6 kF1 kL2 + ν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 .

The following proposition gives some resolvent estimates relating to the inviscid damping
effect. In what follows, we always assume νk2 ≤ 1.
Proposition 6.4. Let νk 2 ≤ 1, and w ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (6.1) with F ∈ L2 (Ω) and
F = F1 + F2 . Then it holds that
1 4
1 2 1 2 1 1
ν 6 |k| 3 kϕkL2 ≤ C ν 6 |k|− 3 kF1 kL2 + ν 6 |k|− 3 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )k∇F1 kL2
1 1 1 1

+ |ν/k|− 3 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )kF2 kH −1 + |νk| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 4
1 2 1 1 7

ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕkL2 ≤ C ν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1 1
kwkL2 ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1 3 3 1

+ ν − 4 |k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 ,
1 1
kwkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1 3 1

+ ν − 2 |k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2 + ν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 .
We need the following lemmas.

Lemma 6.1. Let F ∈ H 1 (Ω), w1 = χ1 F, χ1 = (V − λ − iδ)−1 , ∂x F = ikF . Then it holds
that for f0 ∈ H01 (Ω) with ∂x f0 = ikf0 ,

|hw1 , f0 i| ≤ Ck∂y f0 kL2 max(1 − |λ|, 0)k∇F kL2 + kF kL2 ,
|hw1 , f0 i| ≤ C|k|−1 k∇f0 kL2 k∇F kL2 ,
3
|hw1 , f0 i| ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇f0 kL2x,z L∞
y
k∇F kL2 .
Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume λ ≥ 0. If 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1, let yλ (z) ∈ [−1, 1] so

that V (yλ (z), z) = λ. Then we have
1 − yλ
(6.26) 1 − yλ = (1 − λ) ≤ (1 − λ)k[∂y V ]−1 kL∞ ≤ C(1 − λ).
V (1, z) − V (yλ , z)
First of all, we have
Z Z 1
F f¯0
|hw1 , f0 i| = dydxdz
T2 −1 V − λ − iδ
Z Z 1
F (x, y, z)(f¯0 (x, y, z) − f¯0 (x, yλ , z))
≤ dydxdz
T2 −1 V − λ − iδ
Z Z 1
F (x, y, z) f¯0 (x, yλ , z)
+ dydxdz
T2 −1 V − λ − iδ
Z Z
f0 (x, y, z) − f0 (x, yλ , z) 1
F (x, y, z)f¯0 (x, yλ , z)
≤ kF kL2
V (y, z) − V (yλ , z)
+ dydxdz .
L2 T2 −1 V − λ − iδ
By Hardy’s inequality, we get

f0 (x, y, z) − f0 (x, yλ , z) f0 (x, y, z) − f0 (x, yλ , z) y − yλ

≤
V (y, z) − V (yλ , z) y − yλ V (y, z) − V (yλ , z)
L2 L 2 L∞
−1
≤ Ck∂y f0 kL2 k[∂y V ] kL∞ ≤ Ck∂y f0 kL2 .
By Lemma 16.11 (with δ∗ = 1 − λ) and (6.26), we have
Z Z 1 1

F (x, y, z)f¯0 (x, yλ , z)
≤ C − 12
2 dydxdz δ ∗
2
k∂y F k 2
Ly + δ∗ kF k 2
Ly |f 0 (x, y λ , z)| 1
T −1 V − λ − iδ Lx,z
1
− 1
≤ C δ∗2 k∂y F kL2 + δ∗ 2 kF kL2 kf0 (x, yλ , z)kL2x,z
Z
1
− 12 1
≤ C δ∗ k∇F kL2 + δ∗ kF kL2
2 ∂y f0 (x, y1 , z)dy1

yλ L2x,z
1
−1 1
≤ C δ∗2 k∇F kL2 + δ∗ 2 kF kL2 k(1 − yλ ) 2 ∂y f0 kL2 ≤ C (1 − λ)k∇F kL2 + kF kL2 k∂y f0 kL2 .
This shows that for λ ∈ [0, 1],

|hw1 , f0 i| ≤ C (1 − λ)k∇F kL2 + kF kL2 k∂y f0 kL2 .
If λ ≥ 1, by Hardy’s inequality and Lemma 4.1, we get
Z Z 1

F f¯0 f0 f0
|hw1 , f0 i| =
dydxdz ≤ kF kL2
1 − V

≤ CkF kL2
T2 −1 V − λ − iδ L2 1 − y L2
≤ CkF kL2 k∂y f0 kL2 .
Combining two cases, we obtain

|hw1 , f0 i| ≤ C max(1 − |λ|, 0)k∇F kL2 + kF kL2 k∂y f0 kL2 .
Using Lemma 16.11 with δ∗ = |k|−1 ) and Lemma 16.1, we get

Z Z 1 Z Z 1

F f¯0

F f¯0
|hw1 , f0 i| = dydxdz ≤ dy dxdz
T2 −1 V − λ − iδ T2 −1 V − λ − iδ

1
≤ C|k|− 2 k∂y (F f¯0 )kL2y L1 + |k| kF f¯0 kL2y L1
x,z x,z

− 12
≤ C|k| k∂y F kL2 kf0 kL2x,z L∞
y
+ kF k 2
Lx,z Ly
∞ k∂ f k
y 0 L 2 + |k|kF k 2
Lx,z Ly
∞ kf k
0 L 2
≤ C|k|−1 k∇F kL2 k∇f0 kL2 .

Finally, we have

1
|hw1 , f0 i| ≤ C|k|− 2 k∂y (F f¯0 )kL2y L1 + |k| kF f¯0 kL2y L1
x,z x,z
1

≤ C|k|− 2 k∂y F kL2 kf0 kL2x,z L∞
y
+ kF kL 2 k∂y f0 kL2 L∞ + |k|kF kL2 kf0 kL2 L∞
x,z y x,z y
3
≤ C|k|− 2 k∇F kL2 k∇f0 kL2x,z L∞
y
,
here we used ∂x f0 = ikf0 .
Lemma 6.2. Let F ∈ H 1 (Ω), ∆ϕ = w1 = χ1 F , ϕ|y=±1 = 0, χ1 = (V −λ−iδ)−1 , ∂x F = ikF .

Then it holds that
1 1
k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 k∇F kL2 ,
1 1 1
k(1 − y 2 )w1 kL2 ≤ CkF kL2 + C|νk2 |− 6 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )k∇F kL2 ,
1 1
kϕkL2 ≤ C|k|−1 kF kL2 + max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )k∇F kL2 ,
k∇ϕkL2 ≤ C|k|−1 k∇F kL2 ,
1 1
k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 3 |k|− 6 k∇F kL2 ,
1
(1 + |k(λ − j)|)k∂y ϕkL2 (Γj ) ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇F kL2
1
+ C ln(2 + (|k(λ − j)| + (νk 2 ) 3 )−1 )kF kL2x,z L∞
y
, j ∈ {±1}.
Proof. By Lemma 16.1 and νk 2 ≤ 1, we have

1
k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2
1
−
≤ k∇χ1 kL∞ 2 kF kL2 L∞ + kχ1 kL∞ k∇F kL2 + |ν/k| 3 kχ1 kL∞ L2 kF kL2 L∞
x,z Ly x,z y x,z y x,z y
3 1 1 1
≤ Cδ− 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 + Cδ−1 k∇F kL2 + Cδ−1 δ− 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2
1
≤ Cν − 2 k∇F kL2 .
Without loss of generality. we may assume λ ≥ 0. Using the fact that
|1 − y 2 | ≤ C(1 − |y|) ≤ C(1 − V ) = C[(1 − λ) + (λ − V )] ≤ C(max(1 − λ, 0) + |V − λ|),
we deduce that

k(1 − y 2 )w1 kL2 ≤ C max(1 − λ, 0)kw1 kL2 + k(V − λ)w1 kL2
1 1
≤ C max(1 − |λ|, 0)δ− 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 + k(V − λ)χ1 kL∞ kF kL2
1 1 1
≤ C max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )|νk2 |− 6 k∇F kL2 + kF kL2 .
Let φ be the unique solution to ∆φ = ϕ, φ|y=±1 = 0. Using Lemma 6.1 with f0 = φ, we
get

kϕk2L2 = |hw1 , φi| ≤C max(1 − |λ|, 0)k∇F kL2 + kF kL2 k∂y φkL2

≤C|k|−1 max(1 − |λ|, 0)k∇F kL2 + kF kL2 kϕkL2
1
≤C|k|−1 max(1 − |λ|, |ν/k| 3 )k∇F kL2 + kF kL2 kϕkL2 ,
and
k∇ϕk2L2 =|hw1 , ϕi| ≤ C|k|−1 k∇F kL2 k∇ϕkL2 .
This shows that
1
kϕkL2 ≤ C|k|−1 kF kL2 + max(1 − |λ|, |ν/k| 3 )k∇F kL2 ,
k∇ϕkL2 ≤ C|k|−1 k∇F kL2 .
Using the first inequality of this lemma, we get
1 1 1 1
k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ≤ k∂y ∂z ϕkL2x,z L∞
y
≤ Ck∂y ∂z ϕkL2 2 k∂y2 ∂z ϕkL2 2 ≤ Ckw1 kL2 2 k∇w1 kL2 2
1 1
≤ Cν − 3 |k|− 6 k∇F kL2 .
Finally, let us estimate k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) . Recalling (4.24), we have

1
(6.27) k∂y ϕkL2 (Γ1 ) = sup | hw1 , f i |.
(2π)2 f ∈F1
The estimate hw1 , f i will be split into three cases.
Case 1. δ ≤ 1 − λ ≤ |k|−1 .
Let χ4 = max(1 − |(V − λ)/(1 − λ)|, 0). Then χ4 ∈ H 1 (Ω) and it follows from Lemma 4.1
that
kχ4 kL∞ = 1, |∇χ4 | ≤ |∇V /(1 − λ)| ≤ C/(1 − λ), χ4 |y=1 = χ4 |y≤1−4(1−λ) = 0,
1
kχ4 /(1 − y)kL∞ ≤ k∇χ4 kL∞ ≤ C/(1 − λ), kχ4 kL2y L∞
x,z
≤ C(1 − λ) 2 ,
1
kχ4 /(1 − y)kL2y L∞
x,z
+ k∇χ4 kL2y L∞
x,z
≤ C(1 − λ)− 2 .
Due to δ ≤ 1 − λ ≤ |k|−1 , we get by Lemma 16.1 that
k∇(χ4 F )kL2 ≤k∇χ4 kL2y L∞
x,z
kF kL∞ 2
y Lx,z
+ kχ4 kL∞ k∇F kL2
1 1 1 1
≤C(1 − λ)− 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 + k∇F kL2 ≤ C(1 − λ)− 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 ,
1 1
kχ4 F kL2 ≤kχ4 kL2y L∞
x,z
kF kL∞ 2
y Lx,z
≤ C(1 − λ) 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 .
For f ∈ F1 , we get by Lemma 4.3 that
k∂y (χ4 f )kL2 ≤k(∂y χ4 )f kL2 + kχ4 ∂y f kL2
≤k∇χ4 kL2y L∞
x,z
kf kL∞ 2
y Lx,z
+ kχ4 /(1 − y)kL2y L∞
x,z
k(1 − y)∂y f kL∞ 2
y Lx,z
1 1
≤C(1 − λ)− 2 kf kL2x,z L∞ y
+ k(1 − y)∂y f kL∞ 2
y Lx,z
≤ C(1 − λ)− 2 .
Thus by Lemma 6.1, we have

|hχ4 F χ1 , χ4 f i| ≤ Ck∂y (χ4 f )kL2 max(1 − |λ|, 0)k∇(χ4 F )kL2 + kχ4 F kL2
1 1 1 1 1
≤ C(1 − λ)− 2 (1 − λ) · (1 − λ)− 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2 + (1 − λ) 2 |k|− 2 k∇F kL2
1
(6.28) ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇F kL2 .
Let Ω3 = T × [1 − 2|k|−1 , 1] × T and Ωc3 = T × [−1, 1 − 2|k|−1 ] × T. Then
|h(1 − χ24 )F χ1 , f i| ≤k(1 − χ24 )F χ1 f kL1 (Ωc3 ) + k(1 − χ24 )F χ1 f kL1 (Ω3 )
≤kF kL2 kf kL2 k(1 − χ24 )χ1 kL∞ (Ωc3 ) + kF kL2x,z L∞
y
kf kL2x,z L∞
y
k(1 − χ24 )χ1 kL∞ 1
x,z Ly (Ω3 )
.
Noticing that
|(1 − χ24 )χ1 | ≤ 2|(1 − χ4 )χ1 | ≤ 2|(V − λ)/(1 − λ)||χ1 | ≤ 2/(1 − λ),
|(1 − χ24 )χ1 | ≤ |χ1 | ≤ 1/|V − λ|,
we deduce that
|(1 − χ24 )χ1 | ≤ C/(1 − λ + |V − λ|) ≤ C/(1 − V ).
Let δ1 = 1 − λ, and then
k(1 − χ24 )χ1 kL∞ 1
x,z Ly (Ω3 )
Z
1 1

≤ k1/(|V − λ| + δ1 )kL∞ 1
x,z Ly (Ω3 )
= dy
1−2|k|−1 |V − λ| + δ1
L∞
Z Z
1 ∂y V 1 1

≤ dy [∂y V ]−1 L∞ ≤ C dy1
1−2|k|−1 |V − λ| + δ1 ∞ V (1−2|k|−1 ,z) |y1 − λ| + δ1 ∞
L L
Z 1
dy1
≤C = C ln((|1 − λ| + δ1 )/δ1 ) + C ln((|1 − λ − 4|k|−1 | + δ1 )/δ1 )
1−4|k| −1 |y 1 − λ| + δ1

≤ C ln((4|k| + δ1 )/δ1 ) = C ln(1 + 4|kδ1 |−1 ) = C ln 1 + 4/|k(λ − 1)| ,
−1
and
k(1 − χ24 )χ1 kL∞ (Ωc3 ) ≤ Ck(1 − V )−1 kL∞ (Ωc3 ) ≤ Ck(1 − y)−1 kL∞ (Ωc3 ) ≤ C|k|.
|h(1 − χ24 )F χ1 , f i| ≤ C|k|kF kL2 kf kL2 + C ln(1 + 4/|k(λ − 1)|)kF kL2x,z L∞
y
kf kL2x,z L∞
y
,
1
which along with (6.28) and the facts that |k|kF kL2 ≤ k∇F kL2 , 1 ≥ |k(λ−1)| ≥ kδ = (νk2 ) 3 ,
1
kf kL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 and kf kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C due to Lemma 4.3, gives
(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)|hw1 , f i| ≤ 2|hw1 , f i| ≤ 2|hχ4 F χ1 , χ4 f i| + 2|h(1 − χ24 )F χ1 , f i|
1 1
≤ C|k|− 2 k∇F kL2 + ln 2 + (|k(λ − 1)| + (νk 2 ) 3 )−1 kF kL2x,z L∞
y
.
Case 2. 1 − δ ≤ λ ≤ 1 + |k|−1 .
In this case, we have
|λ − 1| − (λ − 1) = 2 max(1 − λ, 0) ≤ 2δ, λ − 1 + 3δ ≥ |λ − 1| + δ.
Let δ1 = |λ − 1| + δ. By Lemma 4.1, we have
|V − λ| + 3δ ≥ λ − V + 3δ ≥ 1 − V + |λ − 1| + δ ≥ (1 − y)/2 + δ1 ,
|χ1 | ≤ [max(|V − λ|, δ)]−1 ≤ C(|V − λ| + 3δ)−1 ≤ C(1 − y + δ1 )−1 .
Let Ω3 and Ωc3 be defined as in Case 1, and then

(6.29) kχ1 kL∞ 1
x,z Ly (Ω3 )
≤ Ck(1 − y + δ1 )−1 kL1 ([1−2|k|−1 ,1]) = C ln (2|k|−1 + δ1 )/δ1 ,
(6.30) kχ1 kL∞ (Ωc3 ) ≤ Ck(1 − y)−1 kL∞ (Ωc3 ) ≤ C|k|,
which imply that
|hF χ1 , f i| ≤kF χ1 f kL1 (Ωc3 ) + kF χ1 f kL1 (Ω3 )
≤kF kL2 kf kL2 kχ1 kL∞ (Ωc3 ) + kF kL2x,z L∞
y
kf kL2x,z L∞
y
kχ1 kL∞ 1
x,z Ly (Ω3 )
≤C|k|kF kL2 kf kL2 + C ln(1 + 2|kδ1 |−1 )kF kL2x,z L∞

y
kf kL2x,z L∞
y
.
Using the facts that
1 1
|k|kF kL2 ≤ k∇F kL2 , kδ1 = |k(λ − 1)| + (νk 2 ) 3 , kf kL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 , kf kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C,
we deduce that
(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)|hw1 , f i| ≤ 2|hw1 , f i|
1 1
≤ C|k|− 2 k∇F kL2 + ln 2 + (|k(λ − 1)| + (νk 2 ) 3 )−1 kF kL2x,z L∞
y
.
Case 3. |λ − 1| ≥ |k|−1 .
Obviously, we have (1 − V )f ∈ H01 (Ω), and by Lemma 16.1 and Lemma 4.1, we have
k∇((1 − V )f )kL2 ≤k(1 − V )∇f kL2 + k∇V kL∞ kf kL2
1
≤C(k(1 − y)∇f kL2 + kf kL2 ) ≤ C|k|− 2 ,
and |(V − λ)w1 | = |(V − λ)χ1 F | ≤ |F |. Thus, it follows from Lemma 6.1 that
|(1 − λ)hw1 , f i| = |h(V − λ)w1 , f i + hw1 , (1 − V )f i|

≤ C k(V − λ)w1 kL2 kf kL2 + |k|−1 k∇F kL2 k∇((1 − V )f )kL2
1 1 3
≤ C kF kL2 |k|− 2 + |k|−1 k∇F kL2 |k|− 2 ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇F kL2 ,
which gives
1
(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)|hw1 , f i| ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇F kL2 .
Summing up Case 1-Case 3, we conclude that
1 1
(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)|hw1 , f i| ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇F kL2 + ln 2 + (|k(λ − 1)| + (νk 2 ) 3 )−1 kF kL2x,z L∞
y
.
This along with (6.27) shows that

(1 + |k(λ − 1)|)k∂y ϕkL2 (Γ1 ) ≤ C 1 + |k(λ − 1)| sup |hw1 , f i|
f ∈F1
− 12 1
≤ C|k| k∇F kL2 + ln 2 + (|k(λ − 1)| + (νk 2 ) 3 )−1 kF kL2x,z L∞
y
.
The proof of the case j = −1 is similar.
Proof. We decompose w as w = w1 + w2 , where w1 and w2 solve

 ik(V − λ − iδ)w1 = F1 ,

1 1
− ν∆w2 + ik(V − λ)w2 − a(νk2 ) 3 w2 = F2 + ν∆w1 + (a + 1)(νk 2 ) 3 w1 ,


wj = ∆ϕj , ϕj |y=±1 = 0, j = {1, 2}.
1
Let F1,∗ = (a + 1)(νk2 ) 3 w1 , F2,∗ = F2 + ν∆w1 . Then we have
1 1
kF1,∗ kL2 ≤ C(νk2 ) 3 kw1 kL2 , k(1 − y 2 )F1,∗ kL2 ≤ C(νk 2 ) 3 k(1 − y 2 )w1 kL2 ,
kF2,∗ kH −1 ≤ kF2 kH −1 + Cνk∇w1 kL2 .
1 4
1
ν |k| 3 kϕ2 kL2 ≤C k(1 − y 2 )F1,∗ kL2 + |ν/k| 3 kF1,∗ kL2
6
1 1 1 1

(6.31) + |ν/k|− 3 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )kF2,∗ kH −1 + |νk| 2 k∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω) ,
1 1
≤C (νk2 ) 3 k(1 − y 2 )w1 kL2 + |νk| 2 k∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1 2 1 1
+ max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 ) |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 3 (k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 )
1 4
1 1 7

(6.32) ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕ2 kL2 ≤C kF1,∗ kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kF2,∗ kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω)
2 1 1 1
≤C ν 3 |k| 3 (k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 ) + |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1
1 7

+ ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω) ,
and
1 1 1
(6.33) kw2 kL2 ≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω)
5 3 1

+ (νk2 )− 12 kF1,∗ kL2 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2,∗ kH −1 ,
1 1 1
≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1 3 1

+ ν 4 |k|− 2 (k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 ) + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 ,
1 1
kw2 kL2 (∂Ω) ≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω)
2 5 1

(6.34) + ν − 3 |k|− 6 kF1,∗ kL2 + ν −1 |k|− 2 kF2,∗ kH −1
1 1
≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1

+ |k|− 2 (k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 ) + ν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 .
Thanks to w1 = −ik −1 χ1 F1 , we get by Lemma 6.2 that

1 1
(6.35) k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 |k|−1 k∇F1 kL2 ,
1 4 1 1
(6.36) k(1 − y 2 )w1 kL2 ≤ C|k|−1 kF1 kL2 + Cν − 6 |k|− 3 max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )k∇F1 kL2 ,
1 1
(6.37) kϕ1 kL2 ≤ Ck−2 kF1 kL2 + max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )k∇F1 kL2 ,
(6.38) k∇ϕ1 kL2 ≤ Ck−2 k∇F1 kL2 ,
1 7
(6.39) k∂y ∂z ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 3 |k|− 6 k∇F1 kL2 ,
3
(6.40) (1 + |k(λ − j)|)k∂y ϕ1 kL2 (Γj ) ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2
1
+ C|k|−1 ln(2 + (|k(λ − j)| + (νk 2 ) 3 )−1 )kF1 kL2x,z L∞
y
, j ∈ {±1}.
1 1
Using the inequality kF1 kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ CkF1 kL2 2 k∇F1 kL2 2 , we find from (6.40) that
3 1
(6.41) k∂y ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2 + C(γ)|k|− 2 (νk2 )−γ kF1 kL2 , ∀γ > 0
Using (6.40) and the fact that for any 0 < γ1 ≤ 1,
1 2
ln(2 + (|k(λ − j)| + (νk 2 ) 3 )−1 ) ≤ C + Cν −γ1 (|k(λ − j)/ν| + |k/ν| 3 )−γ1 ,
we deduce that
2
(|k(λ − j)/ν|γ1 + |k/ν| 3 γ1 )k∂y ϕ1 kL2 (Γj )
2
3 |k(λ − j)/ν|γ1 + |k/ν| 3 γ1
≤ Cν −1 |k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2
|k(λ − j)/ν| + ν −1
2
−1 −1 |k(λ − j)/ν|γ1 + |k/ν| 3 γ1 2
+ Cν |k| −1
1 + ν −γ1 (|k(λ − j)/ν| + |k/ν| 3 )−γ1 kF1 kL2x,z L∞
|k(λ − j)/ν| + ν y
3 3
≤ Cν −γ1 |k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2 + Cν −γ1 |k|−1 kF1 kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ Cν −γ1 |k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2 ,
which implies that for 0 < γ1 ≤ 1,
2 3
(6.42) k(|k(λ − y)/ν|γ1 + |k/ν| 3 γ1 )∂y ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν −γ1 |k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2 .
We infer from (6.31), (6.35) and (6.36) that
1 4
1 1 1 1
ν 6 |k| 3 kϕ2 kL2 ≤C (νk2 ) 3 k(1 − y 2 )w1 kL2 + |νk| 2 k∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω) + max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )
1 2 1 1
× |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 3 (k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 ) ,
1 1 1
≤C |νk| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + |νk| 2 k∂y ϕ1 kL2 + |ν/k| 3 kF1 kL2
1 1 1 1 2

+ max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 )(|ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F1 kL2 ) ,
which along with with (6.37) and (6.41)(γ = 1/3) gives

1 4 1 4 1 4
ν 6 |k| 3 kϕkL2 ≤ν 6 |k| 3 kϕ1 kL2 + ν 6 |k| 3 kϕ2 kL2
1 1 1 2 1
≤C |νk| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + |νk| 2 k∂y ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω) + ν 6 |k|− 3 (1 + (νk2 ) 6 )kF1 kL2
1 1 1 1 2
+ max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 ) |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F1 kL2
1 1 1 2
≤C |νk| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + ν 2 |k|−1 k∇F1 kL2 + ν 6 |k|− 3 kF1 kL2
1 1 1 1 2
+ max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 ) |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F1 kL2
1 1 2
≤C |νk| 2 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + ν 6 |k|− 3 kF1 kL2
1 1 1 1 2
+ max(1 − |λ|, ν 3 |k|− 3 ) |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F1 kL2 .
This proves the first inequality of the proposition.
It follows from (6.32), (6.35), (6.38) and (6.41) with γ = 1/6 that
1 4 1 4 1 4
ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕkL2 ≤ ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕ2 kL2 + ν 6 |k| 3 k∇ϕ1 kL2
2 1 1 1 1 7

≤ C ν 3 |k| 3 k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 2
+ Cν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F1 kL2
1 2 1 1 7 1 7

≤ C ν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 7

≤ C ν 6 |k|− 3 (1 + (νk 2 ) 6 )k∇F1 kL2 + ν 6 |k| 3 kF1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1 2 1 1 7

≤ C ν 6 |k|− 3 k∇F1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kF2 kH −1 + ν 3 |k| 6 k∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) ,
which gives the second inequality of the proposition.
By (6.33) and (6.35), we have
kwkL2 ≤ kw2 kL2 + kw1 kL2
1 1 1
≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1 3 1 1 4

+ ν 4 |k|− 2 (k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 ) + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 + ν − 6 |k|− 3 k∇F1 kL2
1 1 1
≤ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1
+ k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 3 1 3 1

+ ν − 4 |k|− 2 (1 + (νk2 ) 12 )k∇F1 kL2 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 ,
while by (6.39),
1 1 3 1
|ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 4 |k|− 2 (νk2 ) 12 k∇F1 kL2 ,
and by (6.42) with γ1 = 1/4,

1 1 1 3
k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cν − 4 |k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2 .
1 1 1
kwkL2 ≤C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + |ν/k| 6 k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
3 1 1 3

+ ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2 ,
which gives the third inequality of the proposition.

1 1
Using the interpolation kw1 kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ Ckw1 kL2 2 k∂y w1 kL2 2 and (6.35), we get
kwkL2 (∂Ω) ≤kw1 kL2 (∂Ω) + kw2 kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ kw1 kL2x,z L∞
y
+ kw2 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1
≤C|ν/k| 6 k∂y w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 + kw2 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 7
≤Cν − 3 |k|− 6 k∇F1 kL2 + kw2 kL2 (∂Ω) .
Then by (6.34), (6.35), (6.39) and (6.42) with γ1 = 1/2, we get
1 7
kwkL2 (∂Ω) ≤Cν − 3 |k|− 6 k∇F1 kL2 + kw2 kL2 (∂Ω)

− 31 − 76 1 1
≤Cν |k| k∇F1 kL2 + C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1

+ k∂y ∂z ϕ2 kL2 (∂Ω) + |k|− 2 (k∇w1 kL2 + |ν/k|− 3 kw1 kL2 ) + ν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1
1 3 1
1 1
≤Cν − 2 |k|− 2 (1 + (νk 2 ) 6 )k∇F1 kL2 + C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1

+ k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + ν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1
1 1

+ C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂y ∂z ϕ1 kL2 (∂Ω)
1 3 1
1 1
≤Cν − 2 |k|− 2 (1 + (νk 2 ) 6 )k∇F1 kL2 + C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1

+ k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + ν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1
1 3
1 1
≤Cν − 2 |k|− 2 k∇F1 kL2 + C k(|k(y − λ)/ν| 2 + |k/ν| 3 )∂y ϕkL2 (∂Ω)
1

+ k∂y ∂z ϕkL2 (∂Ω) + ν −1 |k|− 2 kF2 kH −1 .
This proves the last inequality of the proposition.
7. Resolvent estimates when V = y

In this section, we consider the Orr-Sommerfeld equation when V = y:
(
− ν(∂y2 − η 2 )w + ik(y − λ)w − a(νk2 )1/3 w = F,
(7.1)
w|y=±1 = 0.
Here (7.1) is slightly different from one considered in [19] with k2 instead of η 2 . We will use
the results from last section to establish the resolvent estimates of (7.1).
In this section, we take λ ∈ R, a ∈ [0, ǫ1 ]. Let u = (∂y ϕ, −iηϕ) with ϕ solving (∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ =
w, ϕ|y=±1 = 0.
Notice that if V = y and (w(y), F (y)) solves (7.1), then (w(y)ei(kx+ℓz) , F (y)ei(kx+ℓz) )
solves (4.1). Thus, it follows from Proposition 4.1 that
Proposition 7.1. Let w ∈ H 2 (I) be a solution of (7.1) with F ∈ L2 (I). Then it holds that
1 5 2 1 1
ν 6 |k| 6 kwkL1 + ν 3 |k| 3 kw′ kL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kwkL2 + |k|k(y − λ)wkL2 ≤ CkF kL2 ,
2 1
νkw′ kL2 + ν 3 |k| 3 kwkL2 ≤ CkF kH −1 .
Proposition 7.2. Let w ∈ H 2 (I) be a solution of (7.1) with F = ikf1 + ∂y f2 + iℓf3 ∈ L2 (I).
If νη 3 ≤ |k|, then it holds that
1 5 1 1
ν 6 |k| 6 |η| 2 kukL2 ≤ CkF kL2 , (ν|kη|) 2 kukL2 ≤ Ck(f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 .
Proof. It follows from Lemma 16.4 and Proposition 7.1 that
1 5 1 1 5
ν 6 |k| 6 |η| 2 kukL2 ≤ Cν 6 |k| 6 kwkL1 ≤ CkF kL2 ,
Thanks to ν|k|2 ≤ νη 3 /|k| ≤ 1, η ≤ δ−1 . By Proposition 7.4 and Lemma 16.4, we get
3
kuk2L2 = h−w, ϕi ≤C|k|−1 k(f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 δ− 2 kϕkL∞ + δ−1 k(∂y ϕ, ηϕ)kL2
3 1
≤C|k|−1 k(f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 δ− 2 |η|− 2 + δ−1 kukL2
3 1
≤C|k|−1 k(f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 δ− 2 |η|− 2 kukL2 ,
which gives
1 3 1
(ν|kη|) 2 kukL2 = |k|δ 2 |η| 2 kukL2 ≤ Ck(f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 .

Proposition 7.3. Let w ∈ H 2 (I) be a solution of (7.1) with F = F1 + ∂y F2 . If νη 3 ≤ |k|,
then it holds that
1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
|kη|kukL2 + ν 6 η 2 |k| 6 kwkL2 + (ν|kη|) 2 kw′ kL2 ≤ C ν − 6 |k| 6 η 2 kF1 kL2 + ν − 2 |kη| 2 kF2 kL2 .
Proof. We decompose w = w1 + w2 , where w1 , w2 solves

 2 2 2 13
 − ν(∂y − η )w1 + ik(y − λ)w1 − a(νk ) w1 = F1 ,

1
 − ν(∂y2 − η 2 )w2 + ik(y − λ)w2 − a(νk2 ) 3 w2 = ∂y F2 ,



w1 |y=±1 = w2 |y=±1 = 0.
Then the proposition follows from Proposition 7.1 and Proposition 7.2.
Applying Proposition 4.4 to the case when
V = y, w = w0 (y)ei(kx+ℓz) , f = f0 (y)ei(kx+ℓz) ,

F = F0 (y)ei(kx+ℓz) = div (f1 (y), f2 (y), f3 (y))ei(kx+ℓz) ) ,
we can deduce that
Proposition 7.4. Let w ∈ H 2 (I) be a solution of (7.1) with F = ikf1 + ∂y f2 + iℓf3 ∈ L2 (I)
and νk 2 ≤ 1.Then it holds that for f ∈ H01 (I),
3 1

|hw, f i| ≤C|k|−1 k(f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 δ− 2 + δ− 2 η kf kL∞ + δ−1 k(∂y f, ηf )kL2 .
Applying Proposition 4.6 to the case when V = y, F = ∂y f2 (y)eikx+iℓz , w = w0 (y)eikx+iℓz ,

and applying Proposition 4.5 to the case when V = y, F = f1 (y)eikx+iℓz , w = w0 (y)eikx+iℓz ,
we can deduce that
Proposition 7.5. Let w ∈ H 2 (I) be a solution of (7.1) and νk2 ≤ 1. If F = ∂y f2 ∈ L2 (I),
then we have
3 1
|k(j − λ)| + 1 4 |∂y ϕ(j)| ≤ C|νk|− 2 kf2 kL2 , j = ±1.
If F = f1 ∈ L2 (I), then we have
1 5
|k(j − λ)| + 1 |∂y ϕ(j)| ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 6 kf1 kL2 , j = ±1.
In particular, if F = f1 + ∂y f2 , then we have
3 1 1 5
|k(j − λ)| + 1 4 |∂y ϕ(j)| ≤ C|νk|− 2 kf2 kL2 + Cν − 6 |k|− 6 kf1 kL2 .
Proposition 7.6. Let w ∈ H 2 (I) be a solution of (7.1) with F ∈ H 1 (I) and F (±1) = 0. If
νη 3 ≤ |k|. then it holds that
1 1 5 1
|kη|kukL2 + ν 6 η 2 |k| 6 kwkL2 + (ν|kη|) 2 kw′ kL2 ≤ C kF ′ kL2 + |η|kF kL2 .
Proof. We write w = w1 + w2 , where w1 = χ1 F/(ik) with χ1 (y) = (y − λ − iδ)−1 . Let
ϕj = (∂y2 − η 2 )−1 wj , uj = (∂y ϕj , −iηϕj ), j = 1, 2. Without lose of generality, we may assume
k > 0. It is easy to see that
1 3
kχ1 kL2 . δ− 2 , kχ1 kL∞ . δ−1 , kχ′1 kL2 . δ− 2 ,
ik(y − λ)w1 + (νk2 )1/3 w1 = F,
− ν(∂y2 − η 2 )w2 + ik(y − λ)w2 − a(νk2 )1/3 w2
= ν∂y2 w1 + ((a + 1)(νk 2 )1/3 − νη 2 )w1 ,
w1 (±1) = 0, w2 (±1) = 0.
1 1 5 1
|kη|ku2 kL2 + ν 6 η 2 |k| 6 kw2 kL2 + (ν|kη|) 2 kw2′ kL2
1 1 1 1 1

≤ C ν − 6 |k| 6 η 2 k((a + 1)(νk2 )1/3 − νη 2 )w1 kL2 + ν − 2 |kη| 2 kν∂y w1 kL2
1 1 1 1

≤ C ν − 6 |k| 6 η 2 (νk2 )1/3 kw1 kL2 + (ν|kη|) 2 kw1′ kL2 .
1 1 1 1 1 5
As ν − 6 |k| 6 η 2 (νk 2 )1/3 = ν 6 η 2 |k| 6 and w = w1 + w2 , u = u1 + u2 , we conclude that
1 1 5 1
|kη|kukL2 + ν 6 η 2 |k| 6 kwkL2 + (ν|kη|) 2 kw′ kL2
1 1 5 1

≤ C |kη|ku1 kL2 + ν 6 η 2 |k| 6 kw1 kL2 + (ν|kη|) 2 kw1′ kL2 .
1
Let G = kF ′ kL2 + ηkF kL2 . Using the fact that kF kL∞ ≤ C|η|− 2 G by Lemma 16.4, we get
1 1 1 1 5
kw1 kL2 = kχ1 F/(ik)kL2 ≤ kχ1 kL2 kF kL∞ /|k| ≤ Cδ− 2 |η|− 2 G/|k| = CG/(ν 6 η 2 |k| 6 ),
and by δ ≤ η −1 ,

kw1′ kL2 =k(χ1 F )′ /(ik)kL2 ≤ kχ′1 kL2 kF kL∞ + kχ1 kL∞ kF ′ kL2 /|k|
3 1 3 1 1
≤C δ− 2 |η|− 2 G + δ−1 G /|k| ≤ Cδ− 2 |η|− 2 G/|k| = CG/(ν|kη|) 2 .
Thanks to the definition of ϕ1 , w1 , we have

(y − λ − iδ)(ϕ′′1 − η 2 ϕ1 ) = (y − λ − iδ)w1 = F1 /(ik), ϕ1 (±1) = 0.

ku1 kL2 ≤ k∂y ϕ1 kL2 + ηkϕ1 kL2 ≤ Cη −1 k∂y F1 /(ik)kL2 + ηkF1 /(ik)kL2 = Cη −1 G/|k|.
Summing up we conclude that
1 1 5 1
|kη|kukL2 + ν 6 η 2 |k| 6 kwkL2 + (ν|kη|) 2 kw′ kL2
1 1 5 1
≤ C |kη|ku1 kL2 + ν 6 η 2 |k| 6 kw1 kL2 + (ν|kη|) 2 kw1′ kL2

≤ CG = C kF ′ kL2 + |η|kF kL2 .
This finishes the proof of the proposition.
Now we consider the linear equation with non-vanishing boundary Neumann data:
( 1
− ν(∂y2 − η 2 )w + ik(y − λ)w − a(νk2 ) 3 w = F,
(7.2)
(∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ = w, ϕ|y=±1 = 0.
Applying Proposition 6.3 to the case F1 = f1 (y)eikx+iℓz , F2 = ∂y f2 (y)eikx+iℓz , V = y, and
w = w0 (y)eikx+iℓz , we deduce that
Proposition 7.7. Let w ∈ H 2 (I) be a solution of (7.2) with F = f1 + ∂y f2 . If νη 3 ≤ |k|,
then it holds that
X 1 1 1
kwkL2 ≤C |k(j − λ)/ν| 4 + |k/ν| 6 + η|ν/k| 6 |∂y ϕ(j)|
j∈{±1}
5 3 1
+ C (νk2 )− 12 kf1 kL2 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kf2 kL2
1 1 1
≤Cν − 4 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) 4 |∂y ϕ(1)| + (|k(1 + λ)| + 1) 4 |∂y ϕ(−1)|
5 3 1
+ C (νk2 )− 12 kf1 kL2 + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kf2 kL2 .
Proposition 7.8. Let w ∈ H 2 (I) be a solution of (7.2) with F = f1 + ∂y f2 . If νη 3 ≤ |k|,
then it holds that
1
1 1 1 5

η 2 kukL2 ≤ C ν − 2 |k|− 2 kf2 kL2 + ν − 6 |k|− 6 kf1 kL2 + |∂y ϕ(1)| + |∂y ϕ(−1)| ,
where u = (∂y ϕ, −iηϕ).

Proof. Let wN a , ϕN a solve
( 1
− ν(∂y2 − η 2 )wN a + ik(y − λ)wN a − a(νk2 ) 3 wN a = F,
(∂y2 − η 2 )ϕN a = wN a , wN a |y=±1 = ϕN a |y=±1 = 0,
and c1 = ϕ′ (1) − ϕ′N a (1), c2 = ϕ′ (−1) − ϕ′N a (−1). By Proposition 7.5, we have
1 1 1 5
|c1 | + |c2 | . ν − 2 |k|− 2 kf2 kL2 + ν − 6 |k|− 6 kf1 kL2 + |∂y ϕ(1)| + |∂y ϕ(−1)|.
Then we have w = wN a + c1 w1,ℓ + c2 w2,ℓ and
u = uN a + c1 u1,ℓ + c2 u2,ℓ ,
where uN a = (∂y ϕN a , −iηϕN a ) and uj,l = (∂y ϕj,ℓ , −iηϕj,ℓ ) and (∂y2 − η 2 )ϕj,ℓ = wj,ℓ with
ϕj,ℓ (±1) = 0, j = 1, 2.
Now we infer from Proposition 7.3, Lemma 16.4 and Proposition 5.1 that
kukL2 ≤ kuN a kL2 + |c1 |ku1,ℓ kL2 + |c2 |ku2,ℓ kL2
1 1 5 1 1
≤ C |νkη|− 2 kf2 kL2 + ν − 6 |k|− 6 |η|− 2 kf1 kL2 ) + C|η|− 2 (|c1 |kw1,ℓ kL1 + |c2 |kw2,ℓ kL1
1 1 1 1 5
≤ C|η|− 2 ν − 2 |k|− 2 kf2 kL2 + ν − 6 |k|− 6 kf1 kL2 + |∂y ϕ(1)| + |∂y ϕ(−1)| .
The proof is completed.
8. Resolvent estimates for the simplified linearized NS system

In this section, we prove the resolvent estimates for a slightly simplified linearized NS
system when νk 2 ≤ 1:


 − ν∆W + ik(V (y, z) − λ)W − a(νk2 )1/3 W + (∂y + κ∂z ) pL(0) + pL(1)



 + G + ν(∆κ)U + 2ν∇κ · ∇U = 0,


(8.1) − ν∆U + ik(V (y, z) − λ)U − a(νk 2 )1/3 U + ∂z pL(0) = 0,





 ∆pL(0) = −2ik∂y V W, ∂y pL(0) |y=±1 = 0, ∆pL(1) = 0,


W |y=±1 = ∂y W |y=±1 = U |y=±1 = 0,
where
∂x W = ikW, ∂x U = ikU, ∂x pL(0) = ikpL(0) , ∂x pL(1) = ikpL(1) .
In this section, we always assume νk2 ≤ 1, λ ∈ R, a ∈ [0, ǫ1 ] and V satisfies (4.2).
Proposition 8.1. Let W ∈ H 4 (Ω) and U ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (8.1). Then it holds that
1
1 5
+ ν 3 k∂x ∇W k2L2 + νk∂x ∆W k2L2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆U k2L2 + ν −1 k∂x ∇pL(1) k2L2 ≤ Cν −1 k∇Gk2L2 .
8.1. Resolvent estimates for a toy model. Let us first study the following toy model:
(
− ν∆W + ik(V (y, z) − λ)W − a(νk2 )1/3 W + (∂y + κ∂z )pL = F,
(8.2)
∆pL1 = −2ik∂y V W, W |y=±1 = 0, ∂x W = ikW.
We can decompose pL = pL(0) + pL(1) , where

∆pL(0) = −2ik∂y V W, ∂y pL(0) |y=±1 = 0,
∆pL(1) = 0, (∂y pL(1) − ν∆W − F )|y=±1 = 0.
Proposition 8.2. Let W ∈ H 4 (Ω) be a solution of (8.2). Then it holds that

1 3 1 1
ν 2 |k|k∇W kL2 + ν 4 |k| 2 k∆W kL2 + ν|k| 2 k∆W kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂x ∇pL(1) kL2
1 1 1 11 1

≤ C k∇F kL2 + ν 2 |k| 2 k(|k(y − λ)| + 1) 2 ∂y W kL2 (∂Ω) + ν 12 |k| 3 k∂y ∂z W kL2 (∂Ω) ,
and
1 1
1 1 1
ν 2 |k|kW kL2 ≤C max(1 − |λ|, |ν/k| 3 ) k∇F kL2 + ν 2 |k|− 2 k(|k(y − λ)| + 1) 2 ∂y W kL2 (∂Ω)
11 2
5 1
+ ν 12 |k|− 3 k∂y ∂z W kL2 (∂Ω) + Cν 6 |k| 6 k∂y W kL2 (∂Ω) .
Proof. We introduce
h1 (y, z) = ∆V − 2(∂y + κ∂z )∂y V,
h2 (x, y, z) = 2∇κ · ∇∂z pL(0) + (∆κ)∂z pL(0) ,
h3 (x, y, z) = 2∇κ · ∇∂z pL(1) + (∆κ)∂z pL(1) .
Let w = ∆W , which satisfies
( 1
− ν∆w + ik(V − λ)w − a(νk 2 ) 3 w = −ikh1 W − h2 − h3 + ∆F,
(8.3)
W |y=±1 = 0, ∂x W = ikW.
Thanks to kκkH 3 ≤ Cε0 , it is easy to see that
kh1 kH 2 ≤ Ck∇2 V kH 2 + kκ∂z ∂y V kH 2 ≤ Ck(V − y)kH 4 + CkκkH 2 k∂z ∂y V kH 2 ≤ Cε0 ,
kh2 kH 1 ≤ Ck∇κkH 2 k∇∂z pL(0) kH 1 + Ck∆κkH 1 k∂z pL(0) kH 2 ≤ CkκkH 3 k∆pL(0) kH 1
≤ Cε0 |k|k∂y V kH 2 kW kH 1 ≤ Cε0 |k|k∇W kL2 ,
kh2 kL2 ≤ 2k∇κ · ∇∂z pL(0) kL2 + k(∆κ)∂z pL(0) kL2 ≤ 2k∇κkL∞ k∇∂z pL(0) kL2
+ Ck∆κkH 1 k∂z pL(0) kH 1 ≤ Cεk∆pL(0) kL2 ≤ Cε0 |k|kW kL2 .
and for any f ∈ H 1 ,
|h(∆κ)∂z pL(1) , f i| ≤k∂z pL(1) kL2 k(∆κ)f kL2 ≤ k∇pL(1) kL2 k∆κkH 1 kf kH 1
≤Cε0 k∇pL(1) kL2 kf kH 1 ,
which gives
k(∆κ)∂z pL(1) kH −1 ≤ Cε0 k∇pL(1) kL2 .
Then we have
(8.4) kh2 kH 1 + k∇(kh1 W )kL2 ≤ Cε0 |k|k∇W kL2 + C|k|kh1 kH 2 kW kH 1 ≤ Cε0 |k|k∇W kL2 ,
(8.5) kh2 kL2 + kkh1 W kL2 ≤ Cε0 |k|kW kL2 ,
(8.6) kh3 kH −1 ≤ 2kdiv(∂z pL(1) ∇κ)kH −1 + k(∆κ)∂z pL(1) kH −1

≤ C k∂z pL(1) ∇κkL2 + ε0 k∇pL(1) kL2 ≤ Cε0 k∇pL(1) kL2 .
We get by integration by parts that
k∇pL(1) k2L2 ≤ |h∆pL(1) , pL(1) i| + |h∂y pL(1) , pL(1) i∂Ω | ≤ k∂y pL(1) kL2 (∂Ω) kpL(1) kL2 (∂Ω)
1
≤ k∂y pL(1) kL2 (∂Ω) kpL(1) kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C|k|− 2 k∂y pL(1) kL2 (∂Ω) k∇pL(1) kL2 ,
then by (∂y pL(1) − ν∆W − F )|∂Ω = 0, we have

1 1
k∂x ∇pL(1) kL2 ≤ C|k| 2 k∂y pL(1) kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ C|k| 2 νk∆W kL2 (∂Ω) + kF kL2 (∂Ω)
1
≤ Cν|k| 2 k∆W kL2 (∂Ω) + Ck∇F kL2 .
Now it follows from Proposition 6.4, (8.4) and (8.6) that
1 3 1 1
ν 2 |k|k∇W kL2 + ν 4 |k| 2 k∆W kL2 + ν|k| 2 k∆W kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂x ∇pL(1) kL2
1 3 1 1
≤ ν 2 |k|k∇W kL2 + ν 4 |k| 2 k∆W kL2 + Cν|k| 2 k∆W kL2 (∂Ω) + Ck∇F kL2
1 2 5
≤ Cν 2 |k|−1 k∇(kh1 W )kL2 + k∇h2 kL2 + C k∆F kH −1 + kh3 kH −1 + Cν 3 |k| 6 k∂y W kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1 1 11 1
+ Cν 2 |k| 2 k(|k(y − λ)| 4 + (νk2 ) 12 )∂y W kL2 (∂Ω) + Cν 12 |k| 3 k∂y ∂z W kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1 1 1 1
+ Cν 2 |k| 2 k(|k(y − λ)| 2 + (νk2 ) 6 )∂y W kL2 (∂Ω) + Cν|k| 2 k∂y ∂z W kL2 (∂Ω) + Ck∇F kL2
1 1 1 1
≤ Cε0 ν 2 k∇W kL2 + k∇pL(1) kL2 + Ck∇F kL2 + Cν 2 |k| 2 k(|k(y − λ)| + 1) 2 ∂y W kL2 (∂Ω)
11 1
+ Cν 12 |k| 3 k∂y ∂z W kL2 (∂Ω) .
Taking ε0 small enough so that Cε0 ≤ 1/2, we conclude that
1 3 1 1
(8.7) ν 2 |k|k∇W kL2 + ν 4 |k| 2 k∆W kL2 + ν|k| 2 k∆W kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂x ∇pL(1) kL2
1 1 1 11 1

≤ C k∇F kL2 + ν 2 |k| 2 k(|k(y − λ)| + 1) 2 ∂y W kL2 (∂Ω) + ν 12 |k| 3 k∂y ∂z W kL2 (∂Ω) .
By Proposition 6.4, (8.4), (8.5) and (8.7), we get
1 1 1 1
ν 2 |k|kW kL2 ≤Cν 2 |k|−1 max(1 − |λ|, |ν/k| 3 ) k∇(kh1 W )kL2 + k∇h2 kL2 + Cν 2 |k|−1 ×
1
kkh1 W kL2 + kh2 kL2 + C max(1 − |λ|, |ν/k| 3 ) k∆F kH −1 + kh3 kH −1
5 1
+ Cν 6 |k| 6 k∂y W kL2 (∂Ω)
1 1
≤ C max(1 − |λ|, |ν/k| 3 )(ν 2 k∇W kL2 + k∇F kL2 + |k|−1 k∂x ∇pL(1) kL2 )
1 5 1
+ Cε0 ν 2 kW kL2 + Cν 6 |k| 6 k∂y W kL2 (∂Ω)
1
1 1 1
≤C max(1 − |λ|, |ν/k| 3 ) k∇F kL2 + ν 2 |k|− 2 k(|k(y − λ)| + 1) 2 ∂y W kL2 (∂Ω)
11 2
1 5 1
+ ν 12 |k|− 3 k∂y ∂z W kL2 (∂Ω) + Cε0 ν 2 kW kL2 + Cν 6 |k| 6 k∂y W kL2 (∂Ω) .
which gives by taking ε0 small enough so that Cε0 ≤ 1/2 that
1 1
1 1 1
ν 2 |k|kW kL2 ≤ C max(1 − |λ|, |ν/k| 3 ) k∇F kL2 + ν 2 |k|− 2 k(|k(y − λ)| + 1) 2 ∂y W kL2 (∂Ω)
11 2
5 1
+ ν 12 |k|− 3 k∂y ∂z W kL2 (∂Ω) + Cν 6 |k| 6 k∂y W kL2 (∂Ω) .
1
− 13
8.2. Proof of Proposition 8.1 when |λ| ≥ 1 − ν |k| 3 . Let
G3 = G1 + ν(∆κ)U + 2ν∇κ · ∇U.
1 3 1 1
ν|k|k∆W kL2 + ν 2 |k|k∇W kL2 ≤ ν 4 |k| 2 k∆W kL2 + ν 2 |k|k∇W kL2 ≤ Ck∇G3 kL2 ,
1 1 1
ν 2 |k|kW kL2 ≤ Cν 3 |k|− 3 k∇G3 kL2 ,
k∂x ∇pL(1) kL2 ≤ Ck∇G3 kL2 ,
1 1
where we used |λ| ≥ 1 − ν 3 |k|− 3 for the second inequality.
Since ∆pL(0) = −2ik∂y V W, ∂y pL(0) |y=±1 = 0 and k∇V kL∞ + k∇2 V kL∞ ≤ C, we can
deduce that
1 1
(8.8) k∇∂z pL(0) kL2 ≤ Ck∆pL(0) kL2 ≤ C|k|kW kL2 ≤ Cν − 6 |k|− 3 k∇G3 kL2 ,
1
(8.9) k∂z pL(0) kH 2 ≤ Ck∆∂z pL(0) kL2 ≤ C|k|k∇W kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 k∇G3 kL2 .
1 2
νk∆U kL2 ≤ Cν 6 |k|− 3 k∇∂z pL(0) kL2 ≤ C|k|−1 k∇G3 kL2 .
Thanks to kκkH 3 ≤ Cε0 , we have

k∇G3 kL2 ≤k∇G1 kL2 + Cνk∆κkH 1 kU kH 2 + Cνk∇κkH 2 k∇U kH 1
≤k∇G1 kL2 + Cνε0 k∆U kL2 ≤ k∇GkL2 + Cε0 |k|−1 k∇G3 kL2 .
Taking ε0 small enough so that Cε0 < 1/2, we conclude that
k∇G3 kL2 ≤ 2k∇G1 kL2 , νk∆U kL2 ≤ C|k|−1 k∇G1 kL2 .
Summing up, we obtain
k∂x ∇W k2L2 + νk∂x ∆W k2L2 + νk∂x ∆U k2L2 + ν −1 k∂x ∇pL(1) k2L2 ≤ Cν −1 k∇G1 k2L2 .
1
ν 3 k∂x2 U k2L2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U k2L2 ) + ν k∇∂x2 U k2L2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U k2L2
≤ Ck∂z pL(0) k2H 2 ≤ Cν −1 k∇G3 k2L2 ≤ Cν −1 k∇G1 k2L2 .
1 1
This finished the proof of Proposition 8.1 when |λ| ≥ 1 − ν 3 |k|− 3 .
1 1
Remark 8.1. We assume |λ| ≤ 1 − ν 3 |k|− 3 in section 8.3-8.6. Then (8.9) still holds true
1
since ν 2 |k|k∇W kL2 ≤ Ck∇G3 kL2 by Proposition 8.2. Thus, we get by Proposition 4.1 that
2 1 1 1 2
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇U kL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kU kL2 + νk∆U kL2 ≤ Cν 6 |k|− 3 k∇∂z pL(0) kL2
1 2 1 1
(8.10) ≤ Cν 6 |k|− 3 k∆pL(0) kL2 ≤ Cν 6 |k| 3 kW kL2 .
8.3. Singular part of W . To deal with main trouble term −2ν∇κ · ∇U appeared in (8.1),
we introduce the singular part of W . Let
(8.11) ρ1 = 2
, ρ2 = .
∂y V (1 + κ ) 1 + κ2
fs defined by
We introduce Ws and W


 − ν∆Ws + ik(V (y, z) − λ)Ws − a(νk2 )1/3 Ws + ρ1 ∇V · ∇U = 0,

(8.12) − ν∆Wfs + ik(V (y, z) − λ)W
fs − a(νk2 )1/3 W
fs + ∇V · ∇U = 0,


 fs |y=±1 = 0, ∂x Ws = ikWs , ∂x Wfs = ikW
fs .
Ws |y=±1 = W
2 1 1
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇Ws kL2 + (νk2 ) 3 kWs kL2 + νk∆Ws kL2 + |k|k(V − λ)Ws kL2
(8.13) ≤ Ckρ1 ∇V · ∇U kL2 ≤ Ckρ1 kL∞ k∇V kL∞ k∇U kL2 ≤ Cε0 k∇U kL2 ,
and
2 1 1
fs kL2 + (νk 2 ) 3 kW
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇W fs kL2 + νk∆W
fs kL2 + |k|k(V − λ)W
fs kL2
(8.14) ≤ Ck∇V · ∇U kL2 ≤ Ck∇V kL∞ k∇U kL2 ≤ Ck∇U kL2 .
Thanks to ∂x V = 0, we have
∂x (∂z − κ∂y )(∇V · ∇U ) = (∂z − κ∂y )(∇V ) · (∇∂x U ) + ∇V · ∂x (∂z − κ∂y )∇U,
∂x (∂z − κ∂y )∇U = ∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U + (∇κ)∂x ∂y U,
∂x2 (∇V · ∇U ) = ∇V · (∇∂x2 U ),
and

(8.15) k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )∇U kL2 ≤ C k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 + k∇∂x2 U kL2 .
Then we infer from Proposition 4.3 that

1
fs kL2 = |k|−1 (νk2 ) 13 k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )W
(νk2 ) 3 k(∂z − κ∂y )W fs kL2

≤ C|k|−1 k∂x2 (∇V · ∇U )kL2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )(∇V · ∇U )kL2

≤ C|k|−1 k∇V · ∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇V · [∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U ]kL2 + k∂x ∂y U ∇κ · ∇V kL2

+ k(∂z − κ∂y )(∇V ) · (∇∂x U )kL2

−1 2
≤ C|k| k∇V kL k∇∂x U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 + k∇κkL k∇∂x U kL2
∞ ∞
+ C|k|−1 k(∂z − κ∂y )(∇V )kL∞ k(∇∂x U )kL2

≤ C|k|−1 k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2

(8.16) = C k∇∂x U kL2 + k∇(∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 .
Furthermore, we find that

 − ν∆(Ws − ρ1 Wfs ) + ik(V (y, z) − λ)(Ws − ρ1 W
fs ) − a(νk2 )1/3 (Ws − ρ1 W
fs )


= −ν(∆ρ1 )W fs + 2νdiv(W fs ∇ρ1 ),


 fs )|y=±1 = 0, ∂x (Ws − ρ1 Wfs ) = ik(Ws − ρ1 W
fs ).
(Ws − ρ1 W
fs , h1 |y=±1 = 0. By Proposition 4.1 and Lemma 11.4, we have
Let h1 solve ∆h1 = ν(∆ρ1 )W
k∇(Ws − ρ1 Wfs )kL2 + ν − 13 |k| 13 k(Ws − ρ1 W

fs )kL2

fs ∇ρ1 kL2 ≤ Ckρ1 kH 2 kW
≤ C ν −1 k∇h1 kL2 + kW fs kL2
fs kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )W

≤ Cε0 kWfs kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )W fs kL2 ,
which along with (8.16) and (8.14) gives

(8.17) fs )kL2 + |ν/k|− 13 k(Ws − ρ1 W
k∇(Ws − ρ1 W fs )kL2
1
≤ Cε0 (νk2 )− 3 k∇∂x U kL2 + k∇(∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 .
8.4. Boundary corrector of U .

1
Lemma 8.1. If νk2 ≤ 1, |λ| ≤ 1 − |ν/k| 3 , then there exists Ub so that


 − ν∆Ub + ik(V (y, z) − λ)Ub − a(νk2 )1/3 Ub = fb ,



 2 2 1/3
 − ν∆ Ub + ik(V (y, z) − λ)∆Ub − a(νk ) ∆Ub = Fb ,

2 1/3 L(0)
 (ik(V (y, z) − λ)Ub − a(νk ) Ub + ∂z p )|y=±1 = 0,



 ∆(U − Ub )|y=±1 = 0,



Ub = 0 for |y| ≤ (3 + |λ|)/4,
where fb |y=±1 = 0 and
3 1 7
(8.18) kfb kL2 + k(1 − |y|)∇fb kL2 + |k|k(1 − |y|)Ub kL2 ≤ Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
1 3 3
(8.19) kFb kL2 ≤ Cν − 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
1 1 5
(8.20) k∇Gb kL2 ≤ Cν 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
with Gb solving ∆Gb = Fb , Gb |y=±1 = 0. Moreover,

1 3 5
kκUb kH 1 ≤ Cε0 ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
1 1 3
kκUb kH 2 ≤ Cε0 ν − 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
Proof. We introduce
q
2
2
φ−1 (k, y, ℓ) = exp − (1 + y) η − a|k/ν| 3 − ik(1 + λ)/ν ,
q
2
2
φ1 (k, y, ℓ) = exp − (1 − y) η − a|k/ν| 3 + ik(1 − λ)/ν ,
√ √
here η = k2 + ℓ2 and z be the branch of the square root defined on the complement of
the non-positive real numbers. Then for j ∈ {±1}, φj satisfies
(
− ν(∂y2 − η 2 )φj + ik(j − λ)φj − a(νk2 )1/3 φj = 0,
φj |y=j = 1.
2
Furthermore, due to 2a|k/ν| 3 ≤ |k(1 ± λ)/ν|, we deduce from Lemma 16.12 that
1 1
|φ−1 (k, y, ℓ)| ≤ exp − c(1 + y)(η 2 + |k(1 + λ)/ν|) 2 ≤ C exp − c(1 − |y|)|k(1 + λ)/ν| 2 ,
1 1
|φ1 (k, y, ℓ)| ≤ exp − c(1 − y)(η 2 + |k(1 − λ)/ν|) 2 ≤ C exp − c(1 − |y|)|k(1 − λ)/ν| 2 ,
m 1
|(k, ∂y , ℓ)m φj (k, y, ℓ)| ≤ C(η 2 + |k(1 − λ)/ν|) 2 exp − c|j − y|(η 2 + |k(j − λ)/ν|) 2 ,
and for m ∈ N, α ≥ 0, j ∈ {±1},
(8.21) k(1 − |y|)α (k, ∂y , l)m φj (k, y, l)kL2y
m 1
≤ C η 2 + |k(j − λ)/ν| 2 k|j − y|α exp − c|j − y|(η 2 + |k(j − λ)/ν|) 2 kL2 (I)
m−α−1
≤ C η 2 + |k(j − λ)/ν| 2 2 4 .
We denote
Z
(j) ∂z pL(0) (x, j, z) (j) 1
w (x, z) = 1 , ŵ (k, ℓ) = w(j) (x, z)e−ikx−iℓz dxdz,
ik(j − λ) − a(νk2 ) 3 (2π)2 T2
and let w1,j be defined by

X
w1,j (x, y, z) = φj (k, y, ℓ)ŵ(j) (k, l)eikx+iℓz .
ℓ∈Z
Then we have
(
− ν∆w1,j + ik(j − λ)w1,j − a(νk2 )1/3 w1,j = 0,
(8.22) 1
(ik(V − λ)w1,j − a(νk2 ) 3 w1,j − ∂z pL(0) )|y=j = 0.
Using the fact that
k∂z pL(0) kH 1/2 (Γj ) ≤kpL(0) kH 3/2 (Γj ) ≤ CkpL(0) kH 2
≤Ck∆pL(0) kL2 ≤ C|k|k∂y V kL∞ kW kL2 ≤ C|k|kW kL2 ,
we deduce that
(8.23) kw(j) kH 1/2 ≤ |k|−1 (1 − |λ|)−1 k∂z pL(0) kH 1/2 (Γj ) ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 ,
1 1
(8.24) kw(j) kL2 ≤ |k|− 2 kw(j) kH 1/2 ≤ C|k|− 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 .
Thus, by Plancherel’s theorem, (8.21) and (8.24), we deduce that for α ≥ m,

X 1
2
k(1 − |y|)α ∇m w1,j kL2 =C k(1 − |y|)α (k, ∂y , l)m φj (k, y, ℓ)k2L2y |ŵ(j) (k, l)|2
ℓ∈Z
X 1
1
2
≤C (η 2 + |k(1 − λ)/ν|)m−α− 2 |ŵ(j) (k, ℓ)|2
ℓ∈Z
m−α
X 1
− 41 2
≤C|k(1 − λ)/ν| 2 |ŵj (k, ℓ)|2
ℓ∈Z
m−α
− 41
≤C|k(1 − λ)/ν| 2 kw(j) kL2
m−α
− 41 1
≤C|k(1 − λ)/ν| 2 |k|− 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2
α−m 1 α−m α−m
+4 − 43 − 54
(8.25) =Cν 2 |k|− 2 (1 − |λ|)− 2 kW kL2 .
For m ∈ Z+ , we get by (8.21) with α = m − 1, (8.23) and (8.24) that
X 1
2
k(1 − |y|)m−1 ∇m w1,j kL2 =C k(1 − |y|)m−1 (k, ∂y , ℓ)m φj (k, y, ℓ)k2L2y |ŵ(j) (k, l)|2
ℓ∈Z
X 1
1
2
≤C (η 2 + |k(1 − λ)/ν|) 2 |ŵ(j) (k, ℓ)|2
ℓ∈Z
1
≤Ckw(j) kH 1/2 + C|k(1 − λ)/ν| 4 kw(j) kL2
1 1 3
≤C(1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 + Cν − 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2
1 1 3
(8.26) ≤Cν − 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
1 2
Here we used the fact that (1 − |λ|)/|νk| ≥ |ν/k| 3 /|νk| = (νk 2 )− 3 ≥ 1.
Take θ0 ∈ C0∞ (R) so that θ0 (y) = 1 for |y| ≤ 1/4 and θ0 (y) = 0 for |y| ≥ 1/2. Let
θj (y) = θj (x, y, z) = θ0 (2|y − j|/(1 − |λ|)), j ∈ {±1}.
Then θj (x, y, z) = 1 for |y − j| ≤ (1 − |λ|)/8, θj (x, y, z) = 0 for |y − j| ≥ (1 − |λ|)/4, and there
holds that
|∇m θj | ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−m , |∇m+1 θj | ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−m1 (1 − |y|)m1 −m−1 , m, m1 ∈ N.
Now we construct
X
(8.27) Ub = θj (y)w1,j (x, y, z).
j=±1
We find from (8.22) that

− ν∆Ub + ik(V − λ)Ub − a(νk2 )1/3 Ub = fb ,
where
X
fb = − ν∆θj w1,j − 2ν∇θj · ∇w1,j + ik(V − j)θj w1,j ,
j=±1
and
1 1
(ik(V − λ)Ub − a(νk2 ) 3 Ub )|y=j = (ik(V − λ)w1,j − a(νk2 ) 3 w1,j )|y=j = ∂z pL(0) |y=j .
It is obvious that fb |y=±1 = 0, which implies that

(−ν∆Ub + ∂z pL(0) )|y=±1 = 0.
On the other hand, (−ν∆U + ∂z pL(0) )|y=±1 = 0. This shows that
∆(U − Ub )|y=±1 = 0.
For |y| ≤ (3 + |λ|)/4, j ∈ {±1}, we have |y − j| ≥ (1 − |λ|)/4, θj (x, y, z) = 0, and then
Ub (x, y, z) = 0 for |y| ≤ (3 + |λ|)/4.
Now we estimate Ub and fb . By (8.25), we have
X 1 3 5
kUb kL2 ≤ C kθj w1,j kL2 ≤ Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
j=±1
X 3 5 7
k(1 − |y|)Ub kL2 ≤ C k(1 − |y|)w1,j kL2 ≤ Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
j=±1
By (8.25) and the fact that (1 − |y|)|∇θj | ≤ C, we have

X
k(1 − |y|)∇Ub kL2 ≤C k(1 − |y|)∇(θj w1,j )kL2
j=±1
X
≤C k(1 − |y|)∇w1,j kL2 + kw1,j kL2
j=±1
1 3 5
≤Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
Then we also have
1 3 5
kθj w1,j kL2 ≤ Ckw1,j kL2 ≤ Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
1 3 13
k(∆θj )w1,j kL2 ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−2 kw1,j kL2 ≤ Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
1 3 13
k∇θj · ∇w1,j kL2 ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−2 k(1 − |y|)∇w1,j kL2 ≤ Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
3 1 7
kk(V − j)θj w1,j kL2 ≤ C|k|k(1 − |y|)w1,j kL2 ≤ Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
Here we used |(V (y, z) − j)θj (y)| ≤ C(1 − |y|). Summing up, we obtain
X
kfb kL2 = k−ν∆θj w1,j − 2ν∇θj · ∇w1,j + ik(V − j)θj w1,j kL2
j=±1
X
≤C νk(∆θj )w1,j kL2 + νk∇θj · ∇w1,j kL2 + kk(V − j)θj w1,j kL2
j=±1
5 3 13 3 1 7
≤C ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 + ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2
3 1 7
≤Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
Using the fact that |∇m θj | ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−2 (1 − |y|)2−m , m ∈ Z+ , we get by (8.25) that
3
X
k(1 − |y|)∇(∆θj w1,j + 2∇θj · ∇w1,j )kL2 ≤ C k(1 − |y|)|∇m2 θj ||∇3−m2 w1,j |kL2
m2 =1
3
X 1 3 13
≤ C(1 − |λ|)−2 k(1 − |y|)3−m2 ∇3−m2 w1,j kL2 ≤ Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |y|)− 4 kW kL2 .
m2 =1
Using |(V − j)θj | ≤ C(1 − |y|) and |(∇V )θj | + |(V − j)∇θj | ≤ C and (8.25), we get
kik(1 − |y|)∇[(V − j)θj w1,j ]kL2

≤ C|k| k(1 − |y|)(V − j)θj ∇w1,j kL2 + k(1 − |y|)(V − j)(∇θj )w1,j kL2

+ k(1 − |y|)(∇V )θj w1,j kL2

≤ C|k| k(1 − |y|)2 ∇w1,j kL2 + k(1 − |y|)w1,j kL2
3 5 7 3 1 7
≤ C|k| ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 = Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
Thus, we have
X
k(1 − |y|)∇fb kL2 ≤ νk(1 − |y|)∇(∆θj w1,j + 2∇θj · ∇w1,j )kL2
j=±1

+ kik(1 − |y|)∇[(V − j)θj w1,j ]kL2
5 3 13 3 1 7
≤C ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 + ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2
3 1 7
≤Cν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
This finished the proof of (8.18).
It is easy to see that

kκUb kH 1 ≤kκ(∇Ub )kL2 + k(∇κ)Ub kL2 + kκUb kL2 ≤ Cε0 k(1 − |y|)∇Ub kL2 + kUb kL2
1 3 5
≤Cε0 ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
and by (8.26) and (8.25), we have

kκUb kH 2 ≤Ck∆(κUb )kL2 ≤ C kκ(∆Ub )kL2 + k(∇κ)∇Ub kL2 + k(∆κ)Ub kL2

≤Cε0 k(1 − |y|)∆Ub kL2 + k∇Ub kL2 + kUb kH 1
X
≤Cε0 k(1 − |y|)∆w1,j kL2 + k∇w1,j kL2 + (1 − |λ|)−1 kw1,j kL2
j=±1
1 1 − 3 1 3 9
≤Cε0 ν − 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ| 4 + ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 )kW kL2
1 1 3
≤Cε0 ν − 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
1
Here we used the facts that Ub = θ1 w1,1 + θ−1 w1,1 , 1 − |λ| ≥ |ν/k| 3 , and that
kκ/(1 − |y|)kL∞ ≤ k∇κkL∞ + kκkL∞ ≤ CkκkH 3 ≤ Cε0 ,
k(∆κ)Ub kL2 ≤ Ck(∆κ)kH 1 kUb kH 1 ≤ CkκkH 3 kUb kH 1 ≤ Cε0 kUb kH 1 ,

k(1 − |y|)∆(θj w1,j )kL2 ≤ C k(1 − |y|)∆w1,j kL2 + k∇w1,j kL2 + (1 − |λ|)−1 kw1,j kL2 ,

k∇(θj w1,j )kL2 ≤ C k∇w1,j kL2 + (1 − |λ|)−1 kw1,j kL2 .
Direct calculations show that
− ν∆2 Ub + ik(V − λ)∆Ub − a(νk2 )1/3 ∆Ub = Fb ,
where
Fb =∆fb − ik(∆V )Ub − 2ik∇V · ∇Ub
X h
= ∆(−ν∆θj w1,j − 2ν∇θj · ∇w1,j ) + ik∆ (V − j)θj w1,j − ik(∆V )θj w1,j
j=±1
i
− 2ik∇V · ∇(θj w1,j )
X
= ∆(−ν∆θj w1,j − 2ν∇θj · ∇w1,j ) + ik(V − j)∆(θj w1,j ) .
j=±1
Using the fact |∇m θj | ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−4 (1 − |y|)4−m , m ∈ Z+ , we get by (8.25) with α = m =
4 − m2 that
4
X
k∆(∆θj w1,j + 2∇θj · ∇w1,j )kL2 ≤C k|∇m2 θj ||∇4−m2 w1,j |kL2
m2 =1
4
X
≤C(1 − |λ|)−4 k(1 − |y|)4−m2 ∇4−m2 w1,j kL2
m2 =1
1
− 34 21
≤Cν |k|4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
and using the facts that |(V − j)θj | ≤ C(1 − |y|), |(V − j)∇θj | ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−1 (1 − |y|),
|(V − j)∇2 θj | ≤ C(1 − λ)−1 , we get by (8.25) with α = m ∈ {0, 1} and (8.26) with m = 2
that
kik(V − j)∆(θj w1,j )kL2

≤ C|k| k(1 − |y|)∇2 w1,j kL2 + (1 − |λ|)−1 k(1 − |y|)∇w1,j kL2 + (1 − |λ|)−1 kw1,j kL2
1 3 3 1 1 9 1 3 3
≤ C(ν − 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 + ν 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 )kW kL2 ≤ Cν − 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
1
Here we used 1 − |λ| ≥ |ν/k| 3 . This shows that
kFb kL2 ≤νk∆(∆θj w1,j + 2∇θj · ∇w1,j )kL2 + kik(V − j)∆(θj w1,j )kL2
5 3 21 1 3 3
≤C ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 + ν − 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2
1 3 3
≤Cν − 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
Since ∆Gb = Fb , Gb |y=±1 = 0, by Hardy’s inequality, we get
k∇Gb k2L2 = −hGb , Fb i ≤ kGb /(1 − |y|)kL2 k(1 − |y|)Fb kL2 ≤ Ck∇Gb kL2 k(1 − |y|)Fb kL2 ,
which gives
k∇Gb kL2 ≤ Ck(1 − |y|)Fb kL2
X
≤C νk(1 − |y|)∆(∆θj w1,j + 2∇θj · ∇w1,j )kL2 + kik(1 − |y|)(V − j)θj ∆w1,j kL2
j=±1
7 5 23 1 1 5
≤ C ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 + ν 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2
1 1 5
≤ Cν 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .
Here we used the facts that
4
X
k(1 − |y|)∆(∆θj w1,j + 2∇θj · ∇w1,j )kL2 ≤C k(1 − |y|)|∇m2 θj ||∇4−m2 w1,j |kL2
m2 =1
4
X
≤C(1 − |λ|)−4 k(1 − |y|)5−m2 ∇4−m2 w1,j kL2
m2 =1
3
− 54 23
≤Cν |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ,
and

kk(1 − |y|)(V − j)∆(θj w1,j )kL2 ≤C|k| k(1 − |y|)2 ∆w1,j kL2 + k(1 − |y|)∇w1,j kL2 + kw1,j kL2
1 1 5
≤Cν 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 .

1 1
(νk2 ) 3 k∆(U − Ub )kL2 + |k|k(V − λ)∆(U − Ub )kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 |k|kW kL2 + C|k|k∇W kL2 ,
1
fs kL2 ≤ Cν − 61 |k| 23 (1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 + C|k|k∇W kL2 ,
(νk2 ) 3 k∆(U − Ub ) − 2ik W
1
|k|k∇2 [(1 − θ)(U − Ub )]kL2 ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−1 ν − 2 |k|kW kL2 + |k|k∇W kL2 .
Here θ(x, y, z) = θ0 (|y − λ|/(1 − |λ|)) with θ0 ∈ C0∞ (R)) so that θ0 (y) = 1 for |y| ≤ 1/4,
θ0 (y) = 0 for |y| ≥ 1/2.
fs ) satisfies
Proof. Recall that (U, Ub , W


 − ν∆2 U + ik(V − λ)∆U − a(νk 2 )1/3 ∆U + ik 2∇V · ∇U + (∆V )U + ∂z ∆pL(0) = 0,



 − ν∆2 Ub + ik(V − λ)∆Ub − a(νk2 )1/3 ∆Ub = Fb ,

 − ν∆Wfs + ik(V (y, z) − λ)W
fs − a(νk2 )1/3 W
fs + ∇V · ∇U = 0,




∆(U − Ub )|y=±1 = 0, W fs |y=±1 = 0.
By Proposition 4.1, (8.9), (8.10) and Lemma 8.1, we have

1
(νk 2 ) 3 k∆(U − Ub )kL2 + |k|k(V − λ)∆(U − Ub )kL2
≤ Ckik(2∇V · ∇U + (∆V )U ) + ∂z ∆pL(0) + Fb kL2
≤ C|k|k∇V kL∞ k∇U kL2 + C|k|k∆V kL∞ kU kL2 + C|k|k∇W kL2 + CkFb kL2
1 1 2 1 3 3
≤ C ν − 2 |k|kW kL2 + ν − 6 |k| 3 kW kL2 + C |k|k∇W kL2 + ν − 4 |k| 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2
1
≤ Cν − 2 |k|kW kL2 + C|k|k∇W kL2 ,
and
1
fs kL2
(νk2 ) 3 k∆(U − Ub ) − 2ik W
1 1
≤ Ckik(∆V )U + ∂z ∆pL(0) kL2 + ν − 3 |k| 3 k∇Gb kL2
1 7 5
≤ C|k|kU kL2 + C|k|k∇W kL2 + Cν − 12 |k| 12 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2
1 2
≤ Cν − 6 |k| 3 (1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 + C|k|k∇W kL2 .
These show the first and second inequalities.
Let Ij = {|y − λ| ≤ (1 − |λ|)/2j }, Ijc = [−1, 1] \ Ij . If y ∈ I2c (i.e., |y − λ| > (1 − |λ|)/4),
then we have by Lemma 4.1 that
|V − λ| ≥ |y − λ| − |V − y| ≥ (1 − |λ|)/2 − Cε0 (1 − |y|)
≥ (1 − |λ|)/2 − Cε0 (1 − |λ| + |y − λ|) ≥ (1 − Cε0 )(1 − |λ|)/2,
1 − θ ≤ 1I2c ≤ 8(1 − |λ|)−1 |V − λ|.
Then by the first inequality of the lemma, we have

|k|k(1 − θ)∆(U − Ub )kL2 ≤ C|k|(1 − |λ|)−1 k(V − λ)∆(U − Ub )kL2
1
≤ C 1 − |λ|)−1 (ν − 2 |k|kϕkL2 + |k|k∇W kL2 .
1
Since (ik(V − λ)Ub − a(νk2 ) 3 Ub − ∂z pL(0) )|y=±1 = 0, we have
1
Ub = ∂z pL(0) /(k(j − λ) − a(νk2 ) 3 ) on Γj , j ∈ {±1}.
Thus, we get
X
kUb k 3 ≤ |k(j − λ)|−1 k∂z pL(0) k 3 ≤ 2|k(1 − |λ|)|−1 k∂z pL(0) k 3 ,
H 2 (∂Ω) H 2 (Γj ) H 2 (∂Ω)
j=±1
where
k∂z pL(0) k 3 ≤ Ck∂z pL(0) kH 2 ≤ CkpL(0) kH 3 ≤ Ck∇∆pL(0) kL2 ≤ C|k|k∇W kL2 .
H 2 (∂Ω)
This gives
(8.28) kUb k 3 ≤ 2|k(1 − |λ|)|−1 k∂z pL(0) k 3 ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−1 k∇W kL2 .
H 2 (∂Ω) H 2 (∂Ω)
As supp(θ) ⊆ I1 and Ub = 0 for |y| ≤ (3 + |λ|)/4, we have
|∇θ||∇Ub | = |∇2 θ||Ub | = 0.
Then by (8.10), (8.28) and standard elliptic estimate, we obtain
|k|k∇2 [(1 − θ)(U − Ub )]kL2
≤ C|k|k∆[(1 − θ)(U − Ub )]kL2 + C|k|k(1 − θ)(U − Ub )k 3
H 2 (∂Ω)
= C|k|k∆[(1 − θ)(U − Ub )]kL2 + C|k|kUb k 3
H 2 (∂Ω)

≤ C|k| k[(1 − θ)∆(U − Ub )]kL2 + k∇θ · ∇(U − Ub )kL2 + k(∆θ)(U − Ub )kL2
+ C|k|kUb k 3
H 2 (∂Ω)

≤ C|k| k[(1 − θ)∆(U − Ub )]kL2 + k∇θ · ∇U kL2 + k(∆θ)U kL2 + C|k|kUb k 3
H 2 (∂Ω)
1 1
≤ C(1 − |λ|)−1 (ν − 2 |k|kW kL2 + |k|k∇W kL2 ) + C(1 − |λ|)−1 ν − 2 |k|kW kL2
1 2
+ C(1 − |λ|)−2 ν − 6 |k| 3 kW kL2 + C|k|kUb k 23
H (∂Ω)
−1 − 12

≤ C(1 − |λ|) ν |k|kW kL2 + |k|k∇W kL2 .
This is the third inequality.
8.5. Construction of good unknown. We introduce the following good unknown
(8.29) Wg = W − νθWs − κUb ,
where θ = θ0 (|y − λ|/(1 − |λ|)) with a fixed θ0 ∈ C0∞ (R) so that θ0 (y) = 1 for |y| ≤ 1/4,
θ0 (y) = 0 for |y| ≥ 1/2.
Let us derive the equation of Wg . For this, we first introduce some notations. Let
p L(01) , pL(02) and pL(03) solve
∆pL(01) = −2ik∂y V (θWs ), ∂y pL(01) |y=±1 = 0,
∆pL(02) = −∂y V (θρ1 ∆U ), ∂y pL(02) |y=±1 = 0,
∆pL(03) = −2ik∂y V (κUb ), ∂y pL(03) |y=±1 = 0.
Let pL(2) = pL(0) − νpL(01) − pL(03) . Then we have

∆pL(2) = −2ik∂y V Wg , ∂y pL(2) |y=±1 = 0.
We denote
F1 = θρ1 ∇V · ∇U + (∂y + κ∂z )pL(01)
= (θρ1 ∂y V ∂y U + ∂y pL(01) ) + κ(θρ1 ∂y V ∂z U + ∂z pL(01) )
= F21 + κF31 ,
where
Fjl = (θρ1 ∂y V ∂j U + ∂j pL(0l) ), j ∈ {2, 3}, l ∈ {1, 2},
We denote
F2 = − ν(∆κ)(U − Ub ) − 2ν∇κ · ∇(U − Ub ) + 2νθρ1 ∇V · ∇U
= − ν(∆κ)(θU + U1 ) − 2ν∇κ · ∇(θU + U1 ) + 2νθρ1 ∇V · ∇U
= − ν((∆κ)θ + 2∇κ · ∇θ)U + 2νθ(ρ1 ∇V · ∇U − ∇κ · ∇U )
− ν(∆κ)U1 − 2ν∇κ · ∇U1
(8.30) = − ν((∆κ)θ + 2∇κ · ∇θ)U − 2νθρ2 (∂z − κ∂y )U − ν(∆κ)U1 − 2ν∇κ · ∇U1 ,
where
U1 = (1 − θ)U − Ub , U = θU + U1 + Ub .
We denote

(8.31) F3 = F2 + ν 2 2∇θ · ∇Ws + ∆θWs − κfb − νF1 − (∂y + κ∂z )pL(03) .
Now, direct calculations show that
− ν∆(W − Wg ) + ik(V (y, z) − λ)(W − Wg ) − a(νk2 )1/3 (W − Wg )

= νθ − ν∆Ws + ik(V (y, z) − λ)Ws − a(νk2 )1/3 Ws − ν 2 2∇θ · ∇Ws + ∆θWs

+ κ − ν∆Ub + ik(V (y, z) − λ)Ub − a(νk2 )1/3 Ub − ν(∆κ)Ub − 2ν∇κ · ∇Ub
= −νθρ1 ∇V · ∇U − ν 2 (2∇θ · ∇Ws + ∆θWs ) + κfb − ν(∆κ)Ub − 2ν∇κ · ∇Ub ,
which gives

− ν∆Wg + ik(V (y, z) − λ)Wg − a(νk2 )1/3 Wg + (∂y + κ∂z ) pL(0) − νpL(01) + pL(1)
= −ν(∆κ)(U − Ub ) − 2ν∇κ · ∇(U − Ub ) + νθρ1 ∇V · ∇U + ν 2 (2∇θ · ∇Ws + ∆θWs)
− κfb − ν(∂y + κ∂z )pL(01) − G1
(8.32) = F2 + ν 2 (2∇θ · ∇Ws + ∆θWs ) − κfb − νF1 − G1 .


 − ν∆Wg + ik(V (y, z) − λ)Wg − a(νk2 )1/3 Wg + (∂y + κ∂z )(pL(2) + pL(1) )


 + G1 − F3 = 0,
(8.33)

 ∆pL(2) = −2ik∂y V Wg , ∂y pL(2) |y=±1 = 0,



Wg |y=±1 = 0, ∂x Wg = ikWg .
Let us conclude this subsection by the following lemma.
1 1
Lemma 8.3. If |λ| ≤ 1 − ν 3 |k|− 3 , then we have
1 2
kνθWs kL2 + kκUb kL2 ≤ Cε0 ν 6 |k|− 3 kW kL2 ,
1 2
kW kL2 ≤ kWg kL2 + Cε0 ν 6 |k|− 3 kW kL2 ,
1 1
k∇W kL2 ≤ k∇Wg kL2 + Cε0 ν − 6 |k|− 3 kW kL2 ,
1
k∆W kL2 ≤ k∆Wg kL2 + Cε0 ν − 2 kW kL2 .
The second inequality implies that if ε0 is small enough, then kW kL2 ≤ 2kWg kL2 .
Proof. By (8.13), (8.10), (8.18) and the fact that |κ/(1 − |y|)| ≤ Ck∇κkL∞ ≤ CkκkH 3 ≤ Cε0 ,
we deduce that
kνθWs kL2 + kκUb kL2 ≤CνkWs kL2 + kκ/(1 − |y|)kL∞ k(1 − |y|)Ub kL2
1 3 5 7
≤Cε0 ν(νk 2 )− 3 k∇U kL2 + Cε0 ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2
1 2
≤Cε0 ν 6 |k|− 3 kW kL2 ,
which gives the first two inequalities.

By (8.13) and (8.10), we get
kνθWs kH 1 ≤ CνkθkL∞ k∇Ws kL2 + Cνk∇θkL∞ kWs kL2

2 1 1
≤ Cνε0 ν − 3 |k|− 3 + (1 − |λ|)−1 (νk2 )− 3 k∇U kL2
2 1 1 1
≤ Cνε0 ν − 3 |k|− 3 k∇U kL2 ≤ Cε0 ν − 6 |k|− 3 kW kL2 ,
and
kνθWs kH 2 ≤ Cν(kθkL∞ k∆Ws kL2 + k∇θkL∞ k∇Ws kL2 + k∇2 θkL∞ kWs kL2 )
2 1 1
≤ Cνε0 ν −1 + (1 − |λ|)−1 ν − 3 |k|− 3 + (1 − |λ|)−2 (νk2 )− 3 k∇U kL2
1
≤ Cε0 k∇U kL2 ≤ Cε0 ν − 2 kW kL2 .

k∇W kL2 ≤ k∇Wg kL2 + kνθWs kH 1 + kκUb kH 1
1 1 1 3 5
≤ k∇Wg kL2 + Cε0 ν − 6 |k|− 3 kW kL2 + Cε0 ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2
1 1
≤ k∇Wg kL2 + Cε0 ν − 6 |k|− 3 kW kL2 ,
and
k∆W kL2 ≤ k∆Wg kL2 + kνθWs kH 2 + kκUb kH 2

1 1 1 3
≤ k∆Wg kL2 + Cε0 ν − 2 + ν − 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2
1
≤ k∆Wg kL2 + Cε0 ν − 2 kW kL2 .

1 1
8.6. Proof of Proposition 8.1 when |λ| ≤ 1 − ν 3 |k|− 3 .
8.6.1. H 1 estimate of source term. Let us first estimate k∇F1 kL2 . Notice that

∆ pL(01) − pL(02) = −2ik∂y V θ(Ws − ρ1 W fs ) + ∂y V θρ1 (∆U − 2ikW
fs ).
Then by (8.17), Lemma 8.2, kρ1 kL∞ ≤ kρ1 kH 2 ≤ Cε0 and the fact that supp(Ub ) ∩ supp(θ) =
supp(Ub ) ∩ I1 = ∅, we deduce that
k∇2 (pL(01) − pL(02) )kL2 ≤ Ck∆(pL(01) − pL(02) )kL2
fs kL2 + Ckρ1 kL∞ kθ(∆U − 2ik W
≤ C|k|kWs − ρ1 W fs )kL2
≤ C|k|kWs − ρ1 W fs kL2 + Cε0 kθ(∆(U − Ub ) − 2ik W fs )kL2

fs kL2
≤ Cε0 |k|−1 k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 + Cε0 k∆(U − Ub ) − 2ikW

(8.34) ≤ Cε0 |k|−1 k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2
1 1 1
+ Cε0 ν − 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 + ν − 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2 .
Let φ1 = θρ1 ∂y V , and then
∆Fj2 = ∆(θρ1 ∂y V ∂j U ) + ∂j (∆pL(02) ) = ∆(φ1 ∂j U ) − ∂j (φ1 ∆U )
= div(∇φ1 ∂j U − ∂j φ1 ∇U ) + ∂j (∇φ1 · ∇U ),
with F2l |y=±1 = ∂y F3l |y=±1 = 0. Then we have

k∇Fj2 k2L2 = − ∆Fj2 , Fj2 = ∇φ1 ∂j U − ∂j φ1 ∇U, ∇Fj2 + ∇φ1 · ∇U, ∂j Fj2 ,
which gives
(8.35) k∇Fj2 kL2 ≤ Ck|∇φ1 ||∇U |kL2 .
Using the facts that 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1, |∇θ| ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−1 , |∇V | + |∇2 V | ≤ C, kρ1 kH 2 ≤ Cε0 , we
deduce that
|∇φ1 | ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−1 |ρ1 | + C|∇ρ1 |,
and hence,
k|∇φ1 ||∇U |kL2 ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−1 kρ1 kL∞ k∇U kL2 + Ck|∇ρ1 ||∇U |kL2

≤ C(1 − |λ|)−1 kρ1 kH 2 k∇U kL2 + Ck∇ρ1 kH 1 k∇U kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )∇U kL2

≤ Cε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 k∇U kL2 + Cε0 k∇U kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )∇U kL2
1
(8.36) ≤ Cε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 ν − 2 kW kL2 + Cε0 |k|−1 k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 ,
here we used Lemma 11.4, (8.15) and (8.10).
Note that for j ∈ {2, 3},

Fj1 − Fj2 = ∂j pL(01) − pL(02) , k∇(Fj1 − Fj2 )kL2 ≤ k∇2 (pL(01) − pL(02) )kL2 .
We infer from (8.35), (8.34) and (8.36) that
k∇F1 kL2 ≤k∇F21 kL2 + CkκkH 2 k∇F31 kL2

≤C k|∇φ1 ||∇u|kL2 + k∇2 (pL(01) − pL(02) )kL2

≤Cε0 |k|−1 k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2
1 1 1
(8.37) + Cε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 ν − 2 kW kL2 + ν − 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2 .
Next we estimate kF2 kH 1 . Using |∇j θ| ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−j and Lemma 11.4, we deduce that

kF2 kH 1 ≤ν k∆κU kH 1 kθkL∞ + k∆κU kL2 k∇θkL∞ + Cν k∇κU kH 1 k∇θkL∞

+ k∇κU kL2 k∇2 θkL∞ + 2ν kρ2 (∂z − κ∂y )U kH 1 kθkL∞

+ kρ2 (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 k∇θkL∞ + νk(∆κ)U1 kH 1 + 2νk∇κ · ∇U1 kH 1

≤Cνk∆κU kH 1 + Cν(1 − |λ|)−1 k∆κU kL2 + k∇κU kH 1 + Cν(1 − |λ|)−2 k∇κU kL2
+ Cνkρ2 (∂z − κ∂y )U kH 1 + Cν(1 − |λ|)−1 kρ2 (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2

+ Cν k∆κkH 1 kU1 kH 2 + k∇κkH 2 k∇U1 kH 1

≤Cνk∆κkH 1 kU kH 1 + k(∂z − κ∂y )U kH 1 + Cν(1 − |λ|)−2 k∇κkL∞ kU kL2

+ Cν(1 − |λ|)−1 k∆κkH 1 kU kH 1 + k∇κkH 2 kU kH 1
+ Cνkρ2 kH 2 k(∂z − κ∂y )U kH 1 + Cν(1 − |λ|)−1 kρ2 kL∞ k∇U kL2
+ CνkκkH 3 kU1 kH 2

(8.38) ≤Cν kκkH 3 + kρ2 kH 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 k∇U kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )U kH 1

+ (1 − |λ|)−2 kU kL2 + kU1 kH 2 .
Since supp(θ) ∩ supp(Ub ) = I1 ∩ supp(Ub ) = ∅, we have

U1 = (U − Ub ) − θU = (1 − θ)(U − Ub ),
which along with Lemma 8.2 gives
kU1 kH 2 = k(1 − θ)(U − Ub )kH 2 ≤ Ck∇2 [(1 − θ)(U − Ub )]kL2
1
(8.39) ≤ C(1 − |λ|)−1 ν − 2 |k|kW kL2 + |k|kW kL2 .
Then by the fact that kκkH 3 + kρ2 kH 2 ≤ Cε0 , (8.10) , (8.38) and (8.39), we get

kF2 kH 1 ≤Cν kκkH 3 + kρ2 kH 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 k∇U kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )U kH 1

+ (1 − |λ|)−2 kU kL2 + kU1 kH 2
1
≤Cνε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 ν − 2 kW kL2 + |k|−1 k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2
1 1 1
+ (1 − |λ|)−2 ν − 6 |k|− 3 kW kL2 + |k|−1 (1 − |λ|)−1 ν − 2 |k|kW kL2 + |k|k∇W kL2
1 1 1

(8.40) ≤Cνε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 ν − 2 kW kL2 + |k|−1 k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 + ν − 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2 .
Finally, let us estimate k∇F3 kL2 . By (8.13) and (8.10) , we have

(8.41) kν 2 (2∇θ · ∇Ws + ∆θWs )kH 1

≤ Cν 2 k∇θkL∞ k∇Ws kH 1 + k∇2 θkL∞ k∇Ws kL2 + k∆θkL∞ kWs kH 1

+ k∇∆θkL∞ kWs kL2
≤ Cν 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 kWs kH 2 + Cν 2 (1 − |λ|)−2 kWs kH 1 + Cν 2 (1 − |λ|)−3 kWs kL2
1 1 2 2
≤ Cν 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 k∆Ws kL2 + ν − 3 |k| 3 k∇Ws kL2 + ν − 3 |k| 3 kWs kL2
1
≤ Cνε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 k∇U kL2 ≤ Cε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 ν 2 kW kL2 .
Since kκ/(1 − |y|)kL∞ + k∇κkL∞ ≤ Ck∇κkL∞ ≤ Cε0 , we get by Lemma 8.1 that

kκfb kH 1 ≤ Cε0 kfb kL2 + k(1 − |y|)∇fb kL2
3 1 7 1
(8.42) ≤ Cε0 ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ≤ Cε0 ν 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 .
Since ∆pL(03) = −2ik∂y V (κUb ), ∂y pL(03) |y=±1 = 0, we get by Lemma 8.1 that
k(∂y + κ∂z )pL(03) kH 1 ≤CkpL(03) kH 2 ≤ Ck∆pL(03) kL2 ≤ C|k|kκUb kL2
≤C|k|kκ/(1 − |y|)kL∞ k(1 − |y|)Ub kL2
≤C|k|ε0 k(1 − |y|)Ub kL2
3 1 7 1
(8.43) ≤Cε0 ν 4 |k|− 4 (1 − |λ|)− 4 kW kL2 ≤ Cε0 ν 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 .
Recall that F3 := F2 + ν 2 (2∇θ · ∇Ws + ∆θWs ) − κfb − νF1 − (∂y + κ∂z )pL(03) . Then by (8.40),
(8.41), (8.42), (8.37) and (8.43), we conclude that

(8.44) k∇F3 kL2 ≤Cνε0 |k|−1 k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2
1 2 1
+ Cε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 ν 2 kW kL2 + ν 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2 .
8.6.2. Estimate of Neumann data ∂y Wg . Using the fact that
1
(ik(V − λ)Ub − a(νk2 ) 3 Ub − ∂z pL(0) )|y=±1 = (V − y)|y=±1 = 0,
we find that
|k(y − λ)Ub | ≤ |∂z pL(0) |, |k(y − λ)∂z Ub | ≤ |∂z2 pL(0) | on ∂Ω.
Then by Lemma 16.1, we get
kk(y − λ)Ub kL2 (∂Ω) ≤Ck∂z pL(0) kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Ck∂z pL(0) kL2x,z L∞
y
1 1
≤C|k|− 2 kpL(0) kH 2 ≤ C|k|− 2 k∆pL(0) kL2
1 1
≤C|k| 2 k∂y V kL∞ kW kL2 ≤ C|k| 2 kW kL2 ,
and
kk(y − λ)∂z Ub kL2 (∂Ω) ≤Ck∂z2 pL(0) kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Ck∂z2 pL(0) kL2x,z L∞
y
1 1
≤Ck(∂z2 ∂y , ∂z2 )pL(0) kL2 2 k∂z2 pL(0) kL2 2
1 1 1 1
≤Ck∇∆pL(0) kL2 2 k∆pL(0) kL2 2 ≤ C|k|k∂y V W kH
2
1 k∂y V W kL2
2
1 1
≤C|k| k∂y V kH 2 kW kH 1 2 k∂y V kL∞ kW kL2 2
1 1
≤C|k|k∇W kL2 2 kW kL2 2 .
Using the fact that
[∂y (θWs )]|y=±1 = ∂y W |y=±1 = κ|y=±1 = 0, Wg = W − νθWs − κUb ,
we deduce that
1
kk(y − λ)∂y Wg kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ k∂y κkL∞ kk(y − λ)Ub kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cε0 |k| 2 kU kL2 ,
which implies that
k∂y Wg kL2 (∂Ω) ≤C|k(1 − |λ|)|−1 kk(y − λ)∂y Wg kL2 (∂Ω)
1
≤Cε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 |k|− 2 kW kL2 .
By the interpolation, we get
k(1 + |k(y − λ)|)α ∂y Wg kL2 (∂Ω) ≤k(1 + |k(y − λ)|)∂y Wg kαL2 (∂Ω) k∂y Wg k1−α
L2 (∂Ω)
1
≤Cε0 |k|− 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 + |k|)α (1 − |λ|)α−1 kW kL2
1
(8.45) ≤Cε0 |k|− 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 |k|α kW kL2 , α ∈ [0, 1].
Due to κ|y=±1 = 0, we have
∂y ∂z (κUb )|y=j = (∂z ∂y κ)Ub |y=j + (∂y κ)∂z Ub |y=j j ∈ {±1},
which implies that
k∂y ∂z (κUb )kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ k(∂y ∂z κ)Ub kL2 (∂Ω) + k(∂y κ)∂z Ub kL2 (∂Ω)
≤ k∂y ∂z κkL2z (∂Ω) kUb kL2x L∞
z (∂Ω)
+ k∂y κkL∞ k∂z Ub kL2 (∂Ω)
≤ k∂y ∂z κkL∞ 2 k(1, ∂z )Ub kL2 (∂Ω) + CkκkH 3 k∂z Ub kL2 (∂Ω)
y Lz

≤ Cε0 kUb kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂z Ub kL2 (∂Ω) .
Thanks to [∂z ∂y (θWs )]|y=±1 = ∂z ∂y W |y=±1 = 0, we obtain

k∂y ∂z Wg kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ k∂y ∂z (κUb )kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Cε0 kUb kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂z Ub kL2 (∂Ω)
≤ Cε0 |k|−1 1 − |λ|)−1 (kk(y − λ)Ub kL2 (∂Ω) + kk(y − λ)∂z Ub kL2 (∂Ω) )
1 1
≤ Cε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 2 k∇W kL2 2 ,
1 2 1 1 2 1
which along with 1 − |λ| ≥ |ν/k| 3 = ν 3 |k| 3 (νk2 )− 3 ≥ ν 3 |k| 3 yields
11 1 11 1 1 1
(1 − |λ|)ν 12 |k| 3 k∂y ∂z Wg kL2 (∂Ω) ≤Cε0 ν 12 |k| 3 kW kL2 2 k∇W kL2 2
1 4 2
≤Cε0 ν 2 kW kL2 + ν 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2
1 2 1
(8.46) ≤Cε0 ν 2 kW kL2 + (1 − |λ|)ν 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2 .
8.6.3. Completion of the proof. By Proposition 8.2, (8.44), (8.45) and (8.46), we get
1
1 1 1

ν 2 |k|kWg kL2 ≤C(1 − |λ|) k∇(G1 − F3 )kL2 + ν 2 |k|− 2 k(1 + |k(y − λ)|) 2 ∂y Wg kL2 (∂Ω)
5 1 11 2
+ Cν 6 |k| 6 k∂y Wg kL2 (∂Ω) + (1 − |λ|)ν 12 |k|− 3 k∂y ∂z Wg kL2 (∂Ω)
(8.47) ≤C(1 − |λ|)k∇G1 kL2 + Cνε0 |k|−1 (1 − |λ|)(k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 )
1 2 1
+ Cε0 ν 2 kW kL2 + (1 − |λ|)ν 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2 ,
and
1 3 1 1
ν 2 |k|k∇Wg kL2 + ν 4 |k| 2 k∆Wg kL2 + ν|k| 2 k∆Wg kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂x ∇pL(1) kL2
1 1 1
≤ Ck∇(G1 − F3 )kL2 + Cν 2 |k| 2 k(1 + |k(y − λ)|) 2 ∂y Wg kL2 (∂Ω)
11 1
+ Cν 12 |k| 3 k∂y ∂z Wg kL2 (∂Ω)

≤ Ck∇G1 kL2 + Cνε0 |k|−1 k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2
1 1 1 2 1
+ Cε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 (ν 2 + ν 2 |k| 2 )kW kL2 + Cε0 ν 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2

(8.48) ≤ Ck∇G1 kL2 + Cνε0 |k|−1 k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2
1 1 2 1
+ Cε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 ν 2 |k| 2 kW kL2 + Cε0 ν 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2 .
Recalling that pL(0) = pL(2) + νpL(01) + pL(03) , we get by Proposition 4.3 and Lemma 8.3
that
1 2
ν 3 k∂x2 U kL2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 + ν 3 k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2
1 1

≤ Cν 6 k∂z pL(2) kH 2 + C|k|− 3 k∂x2 ∂z (νpL(01) + pL(03) )kL2

+ k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )∂z (νpL(01) + pL(03) )kL2
1 1
≤ Cν 6 k∂z pL(2) kH 2 + C|k|− 3 k∇∂x ∂z (νpL(01) + pL(03) )kL2
1 1
≤ Cν 6 k∆∂z pL(2) kL2 + C|k|− 3 |k|k∆(νpL(01) + pL(03) )kL2
1 1
≤ Cν 6 k∇Wg kL2 + C|k|− 3 |k|2 kνθWs kL2 + kκUb kL2
1 1
(8.49) ≤ Cν 6 k∇Wg kL2 + Cε0 ν 6 |k|kW kL2 .
Now we infer from (8.47), (8.49) and Lemma 8.3 that
1 1
ν 2 |k|(1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 ≤ Ck∇G1 kL2 + Cε0 ν 2 |k|−1 k∇Wg kL2 + |k|kW kL2 )
1 2 1
+ Cε0 ν 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 + Cε0 ν 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2
1 1
≤ Ck∇G1 kL2 + Cε0 ν 2 (1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 + Cν 2 ε0 k∇Wg kL2 ,
1 1
(8.50) ν 2 |k|(1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 ≤ C k∇G1 kL2 + ε0 ν 2 k∇Wg kL2 .
Then by (8.48), (8.49), (8.50) and Lemma 8.3, we get
1 3 1 1
ν 2 |k|k∇Wg kL2 + ν 4 |k| 2 k∆Wg kL2 + ν|k| 2 k∆Wg kL2 (∂Ω) + k∂x ∇pL(1) kL2
1
≤ Ck∇G1 kL2 + Cε0 ν 2 |k|−1 (k∇Wg kL2 + |k|kW kL2 )
1 1 2 1
+ Cε0 (1 − |λ|)−1 ν 2 |k| 2 kW kL2 + Cε0 ν 3 |k| 3 k∇W kL2
1 1
≤ Ck∇G1 kL2 + Cε0 ν 2 k∇Wg kL2 + Cε0 ν 2 kW kL2
1
≤ Ck∇G1 kL2 + Cε0 ν 2 k∇Wg kL2 ,
1 3 1
(8.51) ν 2 |k|k∇Wg kL2 + ν 4 |k| 2 k∆Wg kL2 + k∂x ∇pL(1) kL2 ≤ Ck∇G1 kL2 .
Now, by (8.51), (8.50) and (8.49), we get
1
(8.52) ν 2 |k|(1 − |λ|)−1 kW kL2 ≤ Ck∇G1 kL2 ,
1 2
(8.53) ν 3 k∂x2 U kL2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 ) + ν 3 k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2
1
≤ Cν − 3 k∇G1 kL2 .
and by Lemma 8.3,
1 1
(8.54) k∂x ∇W kL2 = |k|k∇W kL2 ≤ C|k| k∇Wg kL2 + ν − 6 |k|− 3 kW kL2
1 2 2
≤ Cν − 2 k∇G1 kL2 + Cν − 3 k∇G1 kL2 ≤ Cν − 3 k∇G1 kL2 .
By (8.51), (8.52) and Lemma 8.3, we have
1
(8.55) k∂x ∆W kL2 = |k|k∆W kL2 ≤ C|k| k∆Wg kL2 + ν − 2 kW kL2
3 1
≤ Cν − 4 |k| 2 k∇G1 kL2 + Cν −1 k∇G1 kL2 ≤ Cν −1 k∇G1 kL2 .
By (8.10), (8.51) and Lemma 8.3, we have

1 4 1 4
νk∂x ∆U kL2 ≤ Cν 6 |k| 3 kW kL2 ≤ Cν 6 |k| 3 kWg kL2
1 1
(8.56) ≤ Cν 6 |k|k∇Wg kL2 ≤ Cν − 3 k∇G1 kL2 .
Finally, we can conclude the proposition by (8.53)-(8.56) and (8.51).
9. Resolvent estimates for the full linearized NS system

In this section, we consider the full linearized NS system


 − ν∆W + ik(V (y, z) − λ)W − a(νk2 )1/3 W + (∂y + κ∂z )pL1


 + G1 + ν(∆κ)U + 2ν∇κ · ∇U = 0,
(9.1)

 − ν∆U + ik(V (y, z) − λ)U − a(νk 2 )1/3 U + G2 + ∂z pL1 = 0,



W |y=±1 = ∂y W |y=±1 = u|y=±1 = 0,
where
∆pL1 = −2ik∂y V W, ∂x W = ikW, ∂x U = ikU, ∂x pL1 = ikpL1 .
We assume that λ ∈ R, a ∈ [0, ǫ1 ] and V satisfies (4.2).
Proposition 9.1. Let W ∈ H 4 (Ω), U ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (9.1). Then it holds that
1
1 5
+ ν 3 k∂x ∇W k2L2 + νk∂x ∆W k2L2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆U k2L2

≤ Cν −1 k∇G1 k2L2 + k∂x G2 k2L2 .
The proof will be split into two cases: νk 2 ≥ 1 and νk 2 ≤ 1.
9.1. Case of νk2 ≥ 1. First of all, we consider the following system


 − ν∆W + ik(V (y, z) − λ)W − a(νk2 )1/3 W + ∂y pL1 + G = 0,


 − ν∆U + ik(V (y, z) − λ)U − a(νk2 )1/3 U + ∂ pL1 = 0,
z
(9.2)
 W |y=±1 = ∂y W |y=±1 = U |y=±1 = 0,




∂x W = ikW, ∂x U = ikU, ∂x pL1 = ikpL1 .
where ∆pL1 = −2ik(∂y V W + ∂z V U ).
Lemma 9.1. Let νk2 ≥ 1, and W ∈ H 4 (Ω), U ∈ H 2 (Ω) be a solution of (9.2). Then it
holds that

ν k∂x ∆U kL2 + k∂x ∆W kL2 ≤ Ck∇GkL2 .
Proof. We get by integration by parts that

ik(V − λ)W + ∂y pL1 , ∆W + ik(V − λ)∇W, ∇W + ik(∇V )W, ∇W

= ∂y ∆pL1 , W = − ∆pL1 , ∂y W = 2ik(∂y V W + ∂z V U ), ∂y W ,
and

ik(V − λ)W + ∂y pL1 , ∆W = ν∆W + a(νk2 )1/3 W − G, ∆W

= νk∆W k2L2 − a(νk2 )1/3 k∇W k2L2 − G, ∆W ,
from which, we infer that

νk∆W k2L2 − a(νk2 )1/3 k∇W k2L2 − G, ∆W + ik(V − λ)∇W, ∇W

= ik(∂y V, −∂z V )W, (∂y , ∂z )W + 2ik∂z V U, ∂y W .
Taking the real part, we get
νk∆W k2L2 − a(νk2 )1/3 k∇W k2L2 − kGkL2 k∆W kL2 − 2|k|k∂z V kL∞ kU kL2 k∂y W kL2
≤ |k|k∇V kL∞ kW kL2 k(∂y , ∂z )W kL2 ≤ k∇V kL∞ (|k|2 kW k2L2 + k(∂y , ∂z )W k2L2 )/2
= k∇V kL∞ k∇W k2L2 /2.
Notice that
k∆W k2L2 = k[(∂y2 + ∂z2 ) − k2 ]W k2L2 = k2 kW k2L2 + 2|k|k(∂y , ∂z )W k2L2 + k(∂y2 + ∂z2 )W k2L2 ,
⇒ k2 kW kL2 ≤ k∆W kL2 , |k|k∇W kL2 ≤ k∆W kL2 ,
and k∇V kL∞ ≤ k∇(y)kL∞ + k∇(V − y)kL∞ ≤ 1 + Cε0 and νk 2 ≥ 1. Take ε0 , ǫ1 sufficiently
small so that k∇V kL∞ /2 + a ≤ (1 + Cε0 )/2 + ǫ1 ≤ 3/4, and then

k∇V kL∞ /2 + a(νk 2 )1/3 k∇W k2L2 ≤ k∇V kL∞ /2 + a (νk2 )k∇W k2L2 ≤ (3/4)νk∆W k2L2 .
Thus, we deduce that that
νk∆W k2L2 /4 − kGkL2 k∆W kL2 ≤ 2|k|k∂z V kL∞ kU kL2 k∂y W kL2 ≤ Cε0 kU kL2 k∆W kL2 ,
which gives
(9.3) νk∆W kL2 ≤ CkGkL2 + Cε0 kU kL2 .
To proceed, we need to estimate the pressure pL1 . Let F1 = (V − λ)W , which satisfies
∆F1 = (V − λ)∆W + 2∇V · ∇W + ∆V W, F1 |y=±1 = ∂y F1 |y=±1 = 0.
We get by integration by parts that

L1

∂y p , ∆F1 = ∂y ∆pL1 , F1 = − ∆pL1 , ∂y F1 ,

ik(V − λ)W, ∆F1 = ikF1 , ∆F1 = −ikk∇F1 k2L2 ,

ν∆W, ∆F1 = ν∆W, (V − λ)∆W + ν∆W, 2∇V · ∇W + ∆V W ,

− a(νk2 )1/3 W + G, ∆F1 = a(νk2 )1/3 ∇W, ∇F1 − ∇G, ∇F1 .
Then by (9.2), we get

− ν∆W, (V − λ)∆W − ν∆W, 2∇V · ∇W + ∆V W − ikk∇F1 k2L2

+ a(νk2 )1/3 ∇W, ∇F1 − ∇G, ∇F1 − ∆pL1 , ∂y F1 = 0.
Taking the imaginary part, we get
|k|k∇F1 k2L2 − a(νk2 )1/3 k∇W kL2 k∇F1 kL2 − k∆pL1 kL2 k∇F1 kL2 − k∇GkL2 k∇F1 kL2
≤ νk∆W kL2 k2∇V · ∇W + ∆V W kL2 ≤ Cνk∆W kL2 (k∇W kL2 + kW kL2 ) ≤ Cν|k|−1 k∆W k2L2 .
which implies that
1 1
k∇F1 kL2 ≤ C(νk 2 ) 3 |k|−1 k∇W kL2 + C|k|−1 (k∆pL1 kL2 + k∇GkL2 ) + Cν 2 |k|−1 k∆W kL2
≤ C|k|−1 (k∆pL1 kL2 + k∇GkL2 ) + Cνk∆W kL2 .
Here we used νk2 ≥ 1 and
1 1 1 1
(νk 2 ) 3 |k|−1 k∇W kL2 ≤ (νk2 ) 2 |k|−1 k∇W kL2 = ν 2 k∇W kL2 ≤ ν 2 |k|−1 k∆W kL2 ≤ νk∆W kL2 .
Since −ν∆W + ikF1 − a(νk2 )1/3 W + ∂y pL1 + G = 0, we have

k∂y pL1 kL2 ≤ νk∆W kL2 + a(νk2 )1/3 kW kL2 + kkF1 kL2 + kGkL2
≤ 2νk∆W kL2 + k∇F1 kL2 + |k|−1 k∇GkL2

≤ Cνk∆W kL2 + C|k|−1 k∆pL1 kL2 + k∇GkL2 .
Here we used (νk2 )1/3 kW kL2 ≤ νk2 kW kL2 ≤ νk∆W kL2 . On the other hand, we have
|k|−1 k∆pL1 kL2 =|k|−1 k2ik(∂y V W + ∂z V U )kL2
≤2k∂y V kL∞ kW kL2 + 2k∂z V kL∞ kukL2 ≤ C(kW kL2 + ε0 kU kL2 )
Thus, by Lemma 16.6, we have

k∂z pL1 kL2 ≤ C k∂y pL1 kL2 + |k|−1 k∆pL1 kL2
≤ Cνk∆W kL2 + C|k|−1 (k∆pL1 kL2 + k∇GkL2 )
≤ Cνk∆W kL2 + C(kW kL2 + ε0 kU kL2 + |k|−1 k∇GkL2 )
≤ CkGkL2 + Cε0 kU kL2 + C|k|−1 k∇GkL2
≤ Cε0 kU kL2 + C|k|−1 k∇GkL2 .
Here we used
kW kL2 ≤ |k|−2 k∆W kL2 ≤ νk∆W kL2 ≤ CkGkL2 + Cε0 kU kL2 .
Now, by Proposition 4.1, we have
νk2 kU kL2 ≤ νk∆U kL2 ≤ Ck∂z pL1 kL2 ≤ Cε0 kU kL2 + C|k|−1 k∇GkL2 .
Due to νk 2 ≥ 1, taking ε0 small enough so that Cε0 ≤ 1/2, we obtain
kU kL2 ≤ νk 2 kU kL2 ≤ C|k|−1 k∇GkL2 , νk∆U kL2 ≤ C|k|−1 k∇GkL2 ,

νk∂x ∆U kL2 + νk∂x ∆W kL2 =|k| νk∆U kL2 + νk∆W kL2

≤Ck∇GkL2 + C|k| kGkL2 + ε0 kU kL2 ≤ Ck∇GkL2 .
This proves the lemma.
Now let us prove Proposition 9.1 when νk 2 ≥ 1.
Proof. We decompose U = U1 + U2 , where (U1 , U2 ) solves


 − ν∆U1 + ik(V (y, z) − λ)U1 − a(νk2 )1/3 U1 + ∂z pL1 = 0,



− ν∆U2 + ik(V (y, z) − λ)U2 − a(νk2 )1/3 U2 + G2 = 0,

 U1 |y=±1 = U2 |y=±1 = 0,



∂x U1 = ikU1 , ∂x U2 = ikU2 .
Let G3 = G1 + ν(∆κ)U2 + 2ν∇κ · ∇U2 . Then we find that


 − ν∆(W − κU1 ) + ik(V (y, z) − λ)(W − κU1 ) − a(νk2 )1/3 (W − κU1 ) + ∂y pL1 + G3 = 0,


 − ν∆U + ik(V (y, z) − λ)U − a(νk2 )1/3 U + ∂ pL1 = 0,
1 1 1 z

 ∆p = −2ik ∂y V (W − κU1 ) + ∂z V U1 ,
L1





(W − κU1 )|y=±1 = ∂y (W − κU1 )|y=±1 = U1 |y=±1 = 0.
Then we infer from Lemma 9.1 that

ν k∂x ∆U1 kL2 + k∂x ∆W kL2 ≤ Cν k∂x ∆U1 kL2 + k∂x ∆(W − κU1 )kL2 ≤ Ck∇G3 kL2 .
And by Proposition 4.1, we have
νk∆U2 kL2 ≤ CkG2 kL2 .
Thanks to the definition of G3 , we have
k∇G3 kL2 ≤ k∇G1 kL2 + Cνk∇[(∆κ)U2 ]kL2 + Cνk∇(∇κ · ∇U2 )kL2

≤ k∇G1 kL2 + Cν k∆κkH 1 kU2 kH 2 + k∇κkH 2 k∇U2 kH 1
≤ k∇G1 kL2 + Cνε0 k∆U2 kL2 ≤ k∇G1 kL2 + Cε0 kG2 kL2 .
This shows that

ν k∂x ∆U kL2 + k∂x ∆W kL2 ≤ Ck∇G1 kL2 + C|k|kG2 kL2 ≤ C k∇G1 kL2 + k∂x G2 kL2 ,
from which and νk 2 ≥ 1, we infer that
2
ν 3 k∂x2 U kL2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2 + ν k∇∂x2 U kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U kL2
2 4
+ ν 3 k∂x ∇W kL2 + νk∂x ∆W kL2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆U kL2
2 2 4

≤ C ν 3 |k|−1 k∂x ∆U kL2 + νk∂x ∆U kL2 + ν 3 |k|−1 k∂x ∆W kL2 + νk∂x ∆W kL2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆U kL2

≤ Cν(k∂x ∆U kL2 + k∂x ∆W kL2 ) ≤ C k∂x G2 kL2 + k∇G1 kL2 .
This completes the proof when νk 2 ≥ 1.
9.2. Case of νk2 ≤ 1. First of all, we decompose U = U1 + U2 and pL1 = pL(0) + pL(1) , where
U1 , U2 , W solve


 − ν∆W + ik(V (y, z) − λ)W − a(νk2 )1/3 W + (∂y + κ∂z )pL1



 + G1 + ν(∆κ)U + 2ν∇κ · ∇U = 0,




 − ν∆U1 + ik(V (y, z) − λ)U1 − a(νk2 )1/3 U1 + ∂z pL(0) = 0,
(9.4)

 − ν∆U2 + ik(V (y, z) − λ)U2 − a(νk2 )1/3 U2 + G2 + ∂z pL(1) = 0,






 ∆pL(0) = −2ik∂y V W, ∂y pL(0) |y=±1 = 0, ∆pL(1) = 0,


W |y=±1 = ∂y W |y=±1 = U1 |y=±1 = U2 |y=±1 = 0.
With this decomposition, we can apply Proposition 8.1 with G = G1 + ν(∆κ)U2 + 2ν∇κ ·
∇U2 to the system (9.4) of (W, U1 ) to obtain
1
(9.5) ν 3 k∂x2 U1 k2L2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U1 k2L2 + ν k∇∂x2 U1 k2L2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U1 k2L2
1 5
+ ν 3 k∂x ∇W k2L2 + νk∂x ∆W k2L2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆U1 k2L2 + ν −1 k∂x ∇pL(1) k2L2
≤ Cν −1 k∇Gk2L2 .
By Proposition 4.1 and (9.5), we get
2 1
ν 3 |k| 3 k∇U2 kL2 + νk∆U2 kL2 ≤ C kG2 kL2 + k∇pL(1) kL2

≤ C|k|−1 k∂x G2 kL2 + k∇GkL2 .
As in the case above, we have

k∇GkL2 ≤ k∇G1 kL2 + Cνε0 k∆U2 kL2 ≤ k∇G1 kL2 + Cε0 |k|−1 k∂x G2 kL2 + k∇GkL2 ,

(9.6) k∇GkL2 ≤ C k∇G1 kL2 + k∂x G2 kL2 .
Then we obtain
2
ν 3 k∂x2 U2 kL2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U2 kL2 + ν k∇∂x2 U2 kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )U2 kL2
4 2
+ ν 3 k∂x ∆U2 kL2 ≤ C ν 3 k∂x ∇U2 kL2 + νk∂x ∆U2 kL2
2
(9.7) ≤ C|k| ν 3 k∇U2 kL2 + νk∆U2 kL2 ≤ C k∂x G2 kL2 + k∇GkL2 .
It follows from (9.5), (9.7) and (9.6) that
1
1 5
+ ν 3 k∂x ∇W k2L2 + νk∂x ∆W k2L2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆U k2L2 ≤ Cν −1 k∂x G2 k2L2 + k∇G1 k2L2 .
This proves the case of νk 2 ≤ 1.
10. Space-time estimates of the linearized equation

In this section, we denote kF kLq Lp = kF kLq (0,T ;Lp (I)) or kF kLq (0,+∞;Lp (I)) when the func-
tion F is extended to t ≥ T .
10.1. Space-time estimates with Navier-slip boundary condition. In this subsection,
we study the space-time estimate of the following linearized equation:
(
∂t ω − ν(∂y2 − η 2 )ω + ikyω = −ikf1 − ∂y f2 − iℓf3 − f4 ,
(10.1)
ω|y=±1 = 0, ω|t=0 = ωin .
In what follows, we assume a ∈ [0, ǫ1 ].
Proposition 10.1. Let ω be a solution of (10.1) with f4 (t, ±1) = 0 and ωin (±1) = 0. Then
it holds that
1/3 t 1/3 t 1/3 t
keaν ωk2L∞ L2 + νkeaν ω ′ k2L2 L2 + (νη 2 + (νk2 )1/3 )keaν
ωk2L2 L2
1/3 1/3 1/3
≤ C kωin k2L2 + ν −1 keaν t f2 k2L2 L2 + (η|k|)−1 keaν t ∂y f4 k2L2 L2 + η|k|−1 keaν t f4 k2L2 L2
1/3

+ min((νη 2 )−1 , (νk2 )−1/3 )keaν t (kf1 + ℓf3 )k2L2 L2 .
Moreover, we have
1/3 t 1/3 t 1/3 t
keaν ω ′ k2L∞ L2 + νkeaν ω ′′ k2L2 L2 + νη 2 keaν ω ′ k2L2 L2
2 2
1/3 1/3

′ 2
≤ Ckωin kL2 + Cν − 3 |k| 3 kωin k2L2 + (η|k|)−1 keaν t ∂y f4 k2L2 L2 + η|k|−1 keaν t f4 k2L2 L2
1/3 2 2 1/3 1/3

+ Cν −1 keaν t (kf1 + ℓf3 )k2L2 L2 + ν − 3 |k| 3 keaν t f2 k2L2 L2 + keaν t ∂y f2 k2L2 L2 .
1/3 t 1/3
e = eaν
Let ω ω and fej = eaν t fj . Then ω
e satisfies
(
e − ν(∂y2 − η 2 )e
∂t ω e = −ik fe1 − ∂y fe2 − iℓfe3 − fe4 ,
ω − aν 1/3 ω
ω + ikye
(10.2)
e |y=±1 = 0,
ω e |t=0 = ωin .
ω
We decompose ω
e as ωe = ωI + ωH , where ωH and ωI solve
(
∂t ωI − ν(∂y2 − η 2 )ωI + ikyωI − aν 1/3 ωI = −ik fe1 − ∂y fe2 − iℓfe3 − fe4 ,
(10.3)
ωI |y=±1 = 0, ωI |t=0 = 0,
and
(
∂t ωH − ν(∂y2 − η 2 )ωH + ikyωH − aν 1/3 ωH = 0,
(10.4)
ωH |y=±1 = 0, ωH |t=0 = ωin .
Lemma 10.1. Let ωH be a solution of (10.4) with ωin (±1) = 0. Then it holds that
kωH k2L∞ L2 + νkωH kL2 L2 + (νη 2 + (νk 2 )1/3 )kωH k2L2 L2 ≤ Ckωin k2L2 .
′ 2
Proof. Let Lk,ℓ = ν(k2 + ℓ2 − ∂y2 ) + iky with D(Lk,ℓ ) = H 2 ∩ H01 (−1, 1). Then we have
1/3
ωH (t) = e−tLk,ℓ +taν ωin .
Thanks to the fact that for f ∈ D(Lk,ℓ )
(10.5) RehLk,ℓ f, f i = ν(k2 + ℓ2 )kf k2L2 + νkf ′ k2L2 ,
the operator Lk,ℓ is accretive for any k, ℓ ∈ Z.
Thanks to Proposition 7.3, when νη 3 ≤ |k|, there exists c > 0 so that for any k ∈ Z,
1 1
Ψ(Lk,ℓ ) ≥ c(νk2 ) 3 ≥ 2aν 3
for 0 ≤ a ≤ ǫ1 small enough, and when νη 3 ≥ |k|, we get by (10.5) that
1 2 1
Ψ(Lk,ℓ ) ≥ νη 2 ≥ ν 3 |k| 3 ≥ 2aν 3 .
Then it follows from Lemma 16.13 that
ct 1
1/3 2) 3
kωH (t)kL2 ≤ e−tΨ(Lk,ℓ )+π/2+taν kωin kL2 ≤ Ce− 2 (νk kωin kL2 ,
which gives
(10.6) kωH k2L∞ L2 + (νk2 )1/3 kωH k2L2 L2 ≤ Ckωin k2L2 .
The basic energy estimate yields that
1d
kωH k2L2 + νkωH
′ 2
kL2 + νη 2 kωH k2L2 = aν 1/3 kωH k2L2 ,
2 dt
which gives

(10.7) kL2 L2 + νη 2 kωH k2L2 L2 ≤ C kωin k2L2 + aν 1/3 kωH k2L2 L2 .
′ 2
kωH k2L∞ L2 + νkωH
1 1
Now the result follows from (10.6), (10.7) and the fact that aν 3 ≤ (νk2 ) 3 .
Lemma 10.2. Let ωI be a solution of (10.3) with fe4 (t, ±1) = 0. If νη 3 ≤ |k|, then we have
kωI k2L∞ L2 + νkωI′ k2L2 L2 + (νη 2 + (νk2 )1/3 )kωI k2L2 L2 + η|k|kuI k2L2 L2
1
≤ C (νk2 )− 3 kkfe1 + ℓfe3 k2L2 L2 + ν −1 kfe2 k2L2 L2

+ (η|k|)−1 k∂y fe4 k2L2 L2 + η|k|−1 kfe4 k2L2 L2 .
Here uI = (∂y ϕI , −iηϕI ) and ϕI = (∂y2 − η 2 )−1 ωI .
Proof. We first extend the solution ωI to t > T by solving (10.3) with fej = 0 for t > T . Let
Z Z
1 −iλt 1
û(λ, y) = uI (t, y)e dt, w(λ, y) = ωI (t, y)e−iλt dt,
2π R+ 2π R+
Z
ˆ 1
fj (λ, y) = fej (t, y)e−iλt dt, j = 1, 2, 3, 4.
2π R+
Then we have
(
− ν(∂y2 − η 2 )w + ik(y + λ/k)w − aν 1/3 w = −ik fˆ1 − ∂y fˆ2 − ilfˆ3 − fˆ4 ,
w|y=±1 = 0.
It follows from Proposition 7.3 and Proposition 7.6 that
νkw′ k2L2 + (νk2 )1/3 kwk2L2 + η|k|kûk2L2

≤ C (νk2 )−1/3 kkfˆ1 + ℓfˆ3 k2L2 + ν −1 kfˆ2 k2L2 + (η|k|)−1 (k∂y fˆ4 k2L2 + η 2 kfˆ4 k2L2 ) ,
from which and Plancherel’s theorem, we deduce that
νkωI′ k2L2 L2 + (νk 2 )1/3 kωI k2L2 L2 + η|k|kuI k2L2 L2
t t t

uk2L2 L2
≤ C νkw′ k2L2 L2 + (νk 2 )1/3 kwk2L2 L2 + η|k|kb
λ λ λ

2 −1/3
≤ C (νk ) kkf1 + lf3 kL2 L2 + ν kf2 kL2 L2 + (η|k|)−1 (k∂y fˆ4 k2L2 L2 + η 2 kfˆ4 k2L2 L2 )
ˆ ˆ 2 −1 ˆ
λ λ λ λ

2 − 13 e e 2 −1 e 2 −1 e 2 2 e 2
≤ C (νk ) kkf1 + lf3 kL2 L2 + ν kf2 kL2 L2 + (η|k|) (k∂y f4 kL2 L2 + η kf4 kL2 L2 ) .
t t t t
On the other hand, the basic energy estimate yields that

1 d
kωI k2L2 + νkωI′ k2L2 + νη 2 kωI k2L2 − aν 1/3 kωI k2L2
2 dt
≤ kkfe1 + ℓfe3 kL2 kωI kL2 + kfe2 kL2 k∂y ωI kL2 + k∂y fe4 kL2 k∂y ϕI kL2 + η 2 kfe4 kL2 kϕI kL2
1
≤ (νk 2 )− 3 kkfe1 + lfe3 k2L2 + ν −1 kfe2 k2L2 + (η|k|)−1 (k∂y fe4 k2L2 + η 2 kfe4 k2L2 )
1
+ (νk2 ) 3 kωI k2L2 + νk∂y ωI k2L2 + η|k|kuI k2L2 /4,
here we used |hfe4 , ωI i| = |hfe4 , (∂y2 − η 2 )ϕI i| ≤ k∂y fe4 kL2 k∂y ϕI kL2 + η 2 kfe4 kL2 kϕI kL2 . This
shows that
kωI k2L∞ L2 + νkωI′ k2L2 L2 + νη 2 kωI k2L2 L2
1

≤ C (νk 2 )− 3 kkfe1 + ℓfe3 k2L2 L2 + ν −1 kfe2 k2L2 L2 + (η|k|)−1 (k∂y fe4 k2L2 L2 + η 2 kfe4 k2L2 L2 )
1 1
+ C((νk 2 ) 3 + aν 3 )kωI k2L2 L2 + Cη|k|kuI k2L2 L2 .
1 1
Summing up and noting that aν 3 ≤ (νk2 ) 3 , we conclude the proof of the lemma.
Proof. We first consider the case of νη 3 ≤ |k|. In this case, we have νη 2 ≤ (νk2 )1/3 . It follows
from Lemma 10.1 and lemma 10.2 that
ω k2L∞ L2 + νke
ke ω ′ k2L2 L2 + (νη 2 + (νk 2 )1/3 )ke
ω k2L2 L2

≤ C kωin k2L2 + ν −1 kfe2 k2L2 L2 + (η|k|)−1 k∂y fe4 k2L2 L2 + η|k|−1 kfe4 k2L2 L2

2 −1/3
+ (νk ) e e 2
kkf1 + ℓf3 kL2 L2 .
For the case of νη 3 ≥ |k|, we have νη 2 ≥ (νk 2 )1/3 , (νη 2 )−1 ≤ η|k|−1 . The basic energy
estimate yields that
1 d
ke ω ′ k2L2 + (νη 2 − aν 1/3 )ke
ω k2L2 + νke ω k2L2
2 dt
≤ kikfe1 + iℓfe3 + fe4 kL2 keω kL2 + kfe2 kL2 k∂y ω
e kL2

≤ (νη 2 )−1 kik fe1 + iℓfe3 + fe4 k2L2 + ν −1 kfe2 k2L2

+ νη 2 keω k2L2 + νk∂y ω e k2L2 /4,
which shows that
ω k2L∞ L2 + νke
ke ω ′ k2L2 L2 + νη 2 ke
ω k2L2 L2

′ 2
≤ C kωin kL2 + (νη 2 )−1 kikfe1 + iℓfe3 + fe4 k2L2 L2 + ν −1 kfe2 k2L2 L2

′ 2
≤ C kωin kL2 + (νη 2 )−1 kikfe1 + iℓfe3 k2L2 L2 + η|k|−1 kfe4 k2L2 L2 + ν −1 kfe2 k2L2 L2 .
This shows the first inequality of the proposition.
It remains to prove the second inequality. The basic energy estimate yields that
1 d ′ 2 Z 1
1 ′
ke ω ′′ k2L2 + (νη 2 − aν 3 )ke
ω kL2 + νke ω ′ k2L2 + Re ik ω
eωē dy
2 dt −1

e e e e
= Re hikf1 + ∂y f2 + iℓf3 + f4 , ∂ ω 2
e i = Re hikf1 + ∂y fe2 + iℓfe3 , ∂ 2 ω
e e i − h∂y fe4 , ∂y ω
ei
y y
≤ν −1
kikfe1 + ∂y fe2 + iℓfe3 k2L2 + ω ′′ k2L2 /4
νke + k∂y fe4 kL2 k∂y ω
e k2L2 ,
which implies that
d ′ 2
ke
ω kL2 + νke ω ′′ k2L2 + 2νη 2 ke
ω ′ k2L2
dt
1
≤ C |k|ke ω ′ kL2 + aν 3 k∂y ω
ω kL2 ke e k2L2 + ν −1 kik fe1 + ∂y fe2 + iℓfe3 k2L2 + 2k∂y fe4 kL2 k∂y ω
e k2L2
1 4 1 1
ω k2L2 + (νk2 ) 3 ke
≤ C ν − 3 |k| 3 ke ω ′ k2L2 + ν −1 kik fe1 + ∂y fe2 + iℓfe3 k2L2
ω ′ k2L2 + aν 3 ke
1 1 1
+ (νη 2 )− 2 (νk2 )− 6 k∂y fe4 k2L2 + (νη 2 + (νk2 ) 3 )k∂y ω
e k2L2 /2.
and hence,
d ′ 2
ke ω ′′ k2L2 + νη 2 ke
ω k 2 + νke ω ′ k2L2
dt L
1 4 1 2 1
ω ′ k2L2 + ν −1 kikfe1 + ∂y fe2 + iℓfe3 k2L2 + ν − 3 η −1 |k|− 3 k∂y fe4 k2L2 ,
ω k2L2 + (νk2 ) 3 ke
≤ C ν − 3 |k| 3 ke
from which and the first inequality of the proposition, we deduce that
ω ′ k2L∞ L2 + νke
ke ω ′′ k2L2 L2 + νη 2 ke ω ′ k2L2 L2
1 4 1 2 1
≤ C kωin kL2 + ν − 3 |k| 3 ke
′ 2
ω ′ k2L2 L2 + ν − 3 η −1 |k|− 3 k∂y fe4 k2L2 L2
ω k2L2 L2 + (νk2 ) 3 ke

+ ν −1 kik fe1 + ∂y fe2 + iℓfe3 k2L2 L2
2 2
≤ Ckωin ′ 2
kL2 + Cν − 3 |k| 3 ke ω k2Y 0 + |ηk|−1 k∂y fe4 k2L2 + Cν −1 kikfe1 + ∂y fe2 + iℓfe3 k2L2 L2
k,ℓ

− 32 2
≤ Ckωin kL2 + Cν |k| 3 kωin k2L2 + ν −1 kfe2 k2L2 L2 + (η|k|)−1 k∂y fe4 k2L2 L2 + η|k|−1 kfe4 k2L2 L2
′ 2

+ (νk 2 )−1/3 kkfe1 + lfe3 k2L2 L2 + Cν −1 kikfe1 + ∂y fe2 + iℓfe3 k2L2 L2
2 2
≤ Ckωin ′ 2
kL2 + Cν − 3 |k| 3 kωin k2L2 + (η|k|)−1 k∂y fe4 k2L2 L2 + η|k|−1 kfe4 k2L2 L2
2 2
+ Cν −1 kkfe1 + ℓfe3 k2L2 L2 + ν − 3 |k| 3 kfe2 k2L2 L2 + k∂y fe2 k2L2 L2 .
This proves the second inequality of the proposition.(See section 13 for the definition of the
norm k · kY 0 ).
k,ℓ
10.2. Space-time estimates with non-slip boundary condition. In this subsection, we

study the space-time estimate of the following linearized equation with non-slip boundary
condition:
 2 2
 ∂t ω − ν(∂y − η )ω + ikyω = F,

(10.8) (∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ = ω, ∂y ϕ|y=±1 = ϕ|y=±1 = 0,


ω|t=0 = ωin .
Here η ≥ k and 0 < ν ≤ ν0 , 0 ≤ a ≤ ǫ1 ≤ 1/8.
Proposition 10.2. Let ω solve (10.8) with ∂y ϕin |y=±1 = 0 and F = ikf1 + ∂y f2 + iℓf3 . Then
it holds that
1 1 3 1 1 1 1
|kη| 2 keaν 3 t (∂y , η)ϕkL2 L2 + ν 4 keaν 3 t ∂y ωkL2 L2 + ν 2 ηkeaν 3 t ωkL2 L2 + ηkeaν 3 t (∂y , η)ϕkL∞ L2
1 1 1 1
+ ν 4 keaν 3 t ωkL∞ L2 ≤ Cν − 2 keaν 3 t (f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 L2 + C η −1 k∂y ωin kL2 + kωin kL2 .
The proof is based on the following lemmas.
Lemma 10.3. Let ω solve (10.8) with ∂y ϕin |y=±1 = 0 and F = f1 + ∂y f2 . If νη 3 ≤ |k|, then
we have
1 1 1 1 1
|kη| 2 keaν 3 t (∂y , η)ϕkL2 L2 + ν 4 |k| 2 keaν 3 t ωkL2 L2
1 1 1 1
≤ Cν − 2 keaν 3 t f2 kL2 L2 + |ν/k| 3 keaν 3 t f1 kL2 L2 + C η −1 k∂y ωin kL2 + kωin kL2 .
Proof. We first extend the solution ω to t > T by solving (10.8) with F = 0 for t > T , and
extend the solution ω to t < 0 by
2 )1/3 t
ω(t, y) = e−itky+(νk ωin (y) t < 0,
i.e., ∂t ω + ikyω − (νk2 )1/3 ω = 0 for t < 0, and extend ϕ to t < 0 by
(∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ = ω, ϕ|y=±1 = 0 for t < 0,
and extend F, f1 , f2 to t < 0 by
F = −ν(∂y2 − η 2 )ω + (νk2 )1/3 ω, f1 = (νη 2 + (νk2 )1/3 )ω, f2 = −ν∂y ω for t < 0.
Then it holds that for t ∈ R, (∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ = ω, ϕ|y=±1 = 0 and
∂t ω − ν(∂y2 − η 2 )ω + ikyω = F = f1 + ∂y f2 .
We denote
Z Z
1 1/3 1 1/3
ϕ̂(λ, y) = ϕ(t, y)eaν t−iλt dt, w(λ, y) = ω(t, y)eaν t−iλt dt,
2π R 2π R
Z
1 1/3
Fj (λ, y) = fj (t, y)eaν t−iλt dt j = 1, 2.
2π R
Then we have
(
− ν(∂y2 − η 2 )w + ik(y + λ/k)w − aν 1/3 w = F1 + ∂y F2 ,
(∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ̂ = w, ϕ̂|y=±1 = 0.
It follows from Proposition 7.7 and Proposition 7.8 that
1 1 1 1 5
η 2 k(∂y , η)ϕ̂kL2y ≤ C ν − 2 |k|− 2 kF2 kL2y + ν − 6 |k|− 6 kF1 kL2y + |∂y ϕ̂(λ, 1)| + |∂y ϕ̂(λ, −1)| ,
1 1 1
kwkL2y ≤ Cν − 4 (|k(1 + λ/k)| + 1) 4 |∂y ϕ̂(λ, 1)| + (|k(1 − λ/k)| + 1) 4 |∂y ϕ̂(λ, −1)|
5 3 1
+ C (νk2 )− 12 kF1 kL2y + ν − 4 |k|− 2 kF2 kL2y .
Thus, we have
1 1 1 1 1 5
η 2 k(∂y , η)ϕ̂kL2y + ν 4 kwkL2y ≤C(ν − 2 |k|− 2 kF2 kL2y + ν − 6 |k|− 6 kF1 kL2y )
1 1
+ C (|k + λ| + 1) 4 |∂y ϕ̂(λ, 1)| + (|k − λ| + 1) 4 |∂y ϕ̂(λ, −1)| .
from which and Plancherel’s theorem, we deduce that
1 1/3 t 1 1/3 t
η 2 keaν (∂y , η)ϕ(t, y)kL2 2 + ν 4 keaν ω(t, y)kL2 2
t∈R Ly t∈R Ly
1 1
≤ η k(∂y , η)ϕ̂(λ, y)kL2 L2y + ν kw(λ, y)kL2 L2y
2 4
λ λ
− 12 − 12 − 61 − 56
≤ C(ν |k| kF2 kL2 L2y + ν |k| kF1 kL2 L2y )
λ λ
1 1
+ C k(|k + λ| + 1) ∂y ϕ̂(λ, 1)kL2 + k(|k − λ| + 1) 4 ∂y ϕ̂(λ, −1)kL2
4
λ λ
− 21 − 12 aν 1/3 t − 16 − 56 aν 1/3 t

≤ C ν |k| ke f2 kL2 L2y + ν |k| ke f1 kL2 L2y
t∈R
t∈R
+ C k(|k + λ| + 1)c1 kL2 (R) + k(|k − λ| + 1)c2 kL2 (R) ,
here we denote
Z 1
sinh(η(1 + y))
c1 (λ) = ∂y ϕ̂(λ, 1) = w(λ, y)dy,
−1 sinh(2η)
Z 1
sinh(η(1 − y))
c2 (λ) = −∂y ϕ̂(λ, −1) = w(λ, y)dy.
−1 sinh(2η)
Since f1 = (νη 2 + (νk 2 )1/3 )ω, f2 = −ν∂y ω for t < 0, νη 3 ≤ |k|, νη 2 ≤ (νk2 )1/3 , we have
1 1 1/3 t 1 5 1/3 t
ν − 2 |k|− 2 keaν f2 kL2t (−∞,0) + ν − 6 |k|− 6 keaν f1 kL2t (−∞,0)
1 1 1 1
≤ ν 2 |k|− 2 k∂y ωkL2t (−∞,0) + Cν 6 |k|− 6 kωkL2t (−∞,0)

1
− 12 1 1 2
−ikty+ν 3 |k| 3 t
≤ Cν |k| ((−ikt, |k/ν| )ωin (y), ∂y ωin (y))e
2 3

L2t (−∞,0])
1
− 12 − 21 − 16 − 13

≤ Cν |k| 2 ν |ωin | + ν
|k| |∂y ωin |
− 12
1 1
≤ C|k| |ωin | + |ν/k| |∂y ωin | ≤ C|k|− 2 |ωin | + η −1 |∂y ωin | ,
3
which shows that

1 1 1/3 t 1 5 1/3 t 1
ν − 2 |k|− 2 keaν f2 kL2t<0 L2y + ν − 6 |k|− 6 keaν f1 kL2t<0 L2y ≤ C|k|− 2 kωin kL2 + η −1 k∂y ωin kL2 .
and then,
1 1 1/3 t 1 5 1/3 t 1
ν − 2 |k|− 2 keaν f2 kL2 2 + ν − 6 |k|− 6 keaν f1 kL2 2 ≤ C|k|− 2 kωin kL2 + η −1 k∂y ωin kL2
t∈R Ly t∈R Ly
1 1 1/3 t 1 5 1/3 t
+ ν − 2 |k|− 2 keaν f2 kL2 L2 + ν − 6 |k|− 6 keaν f1 kL2 L2 .
It remains to estimate c1 (λ) and c2 (λ). Let
Z 1
1
sinh(η(1 + y))
a1 (t) = eaν 3 t ω(t, y)dy,
−1 sinh(2η)
Z 1
1 1 2
(aν 3 +ν 3 |k| 3 )t sinh(η(1 + y))
e
a1 (t) = e ωin (y)eikt(1−y) dy.
−1 sinh(2η)
Then we have
Z
1
c1 (λ) = a1 (t)e−iλt dt, a1 (t) = eikte
a1 (t) for t < 0,
2π R
and due to ∂y ϕ|y=±1 = ϕ|y=±1 = 0 for t > 0, we have a1 (t) = 0 for t > 0. By Plancherel’s
theorem, we get
Z 2
1 1 2
2π 1 sinh(η(1 + y))
2
ka1 (t)kL2 (−∞,0) ≤ ke−(aν 3 +ν 3 |k| 3 )t 2
a1 (t)kL2 (R) =
e ωin (y) dy
|k| −1 sinh(2η)
≤ C|k|−1 kωin k2L2 .
1 1 2 1 2
Let b = (aν 3 + ν 3 |k| 3 ) ≤ 2ν 3 |k| 3 ≤ 2. For t ≤ 0, we have
Z 1
1 1 2 sinh(η(1 + y))
e−(aν 3 +ν 3 |k| 3 )t ∂te
a1 (t) − be
a1 (t) = ωin (y)ik(1 − y)eikt(1−y) dy,
−1 sinh(2η)
hence,
Z 1
2
2π sinh(η(1 + y))
k∂t e a1 (t)k2L2 (−∞,0]
− be ≤
a1 (t)
|k| sinh(2η) ik(1 − y)ωin (y) dy
−1
≤ C|k|η −2 kωin k2L2 ≤ C|k|−1 kωin k2L2 .
Then we infer that

ke−ikt a1 (t)kH 1 (−∞,0) ≤C k∂t e
a1 (t) − be
a1 (t)kL2 (−∞,0) + (1 + b)ka1 (t)kL2 (−∞,0)
1
≤C|k|− 2 kωin kL2 .
As h sinh(η(1+y)) a1 (0) = 0, using also a1 (t) = eikte

sinh(2η) , ωin i = 0, we have e a1 (t) for t < 0, a1 (t) = 0
for t > 0, we know that a1 is continuous at t = 0, and that e −ikt a1 (t) ∈ H 1 (R) and then
1
ke−ikt a1 (t)kH 1 (R) = ke−ikt a1 (t)kH 1 (−∞,0) ≤ C|k|− 2 kωin kL2 .
1
R −iλt dt, we have
Recalling that c1 (λ) = 2π R a1 (t)e
1
k(1 + |λ + k|)c1 (λ)kL2 = k(1 + |λ|)c1 (λ − k)kL2 = Cke−ikt a1 (t)kH 1 (R) ≤ C|k|− 2 kωin kL2 .
Similarly, we have
1
k(1 + |λ − k|)c2 (λ)kL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 kωin kL2 .

1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1/3 1 1/3

≤ |k| 2 η 2 keaν t (∂y , η)ϕ(t, y)kL2 L2y + ν 4 keaν t ω(t, y)kL2 L2y
t∈R t∈R
−1
− 21 aν 1/3 t 1 1 1/3
≤ C kωin kL2 + η k∂y ωin kL2 + Cν ke f2 kL2 L2 + Cν − 6 |k|− 3 keaν t f1 kL2 L2 .

Lemma 10.4. Let ω solve (10.8) with ∂y ϕin |y=±1 = 0 and F = ikf1 + ∂y f2 + iℓf3 . Then it
holds that
1/3 t 1/3
νη 2 keaν ωk2L2 L2 + η 2 keaν t (∂y , η)ϕk2L∞ L2
1 1 1
≤ |kη| + 2aν 3 η 2 keaν 3 t (∂y , η)ϕk2L2 L2 + Cν −1 keaν 3 t (f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 L2 + Ckωin k2L2 ,
and
1 1 1
keaν 3 t ωk2L∞ L2 + νkeaν 3 t (∂y , η)ωk2L2 L2 ≤ C kωin k2L2 + ν −1 keaν 3 t (f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 L2
1 3 1 1
+ Cν − 2 |kη| 2 keaν 3 t ϕk2L2 L2 + C(|k/η| + νη 2 )keaν 3 t ωk2L2 L2 .
Proof. Taking L2 inner product between (10.8) and ϕ, we get

(∂t − ν(∂y2 − η 2 ) + iky)ω, −ϕ = ikf1 + ∂y f2 + iℓf3 , −ϕ ,
which gives
Z 1 Z 1 Z 1

2 ′ ′ 2 2
∂t (∂y , η)ϕ, (∂y , η)ϕ + νkωkL2 + ik ϕ ϕdy + ik y|ϕ | dy + ikη y|ϕ|2 dy
−1 −1 −1

= ikf1 + ∂y f2 + iℓf3 , −ϕ = − ikf1 + iℓf3 , ϕ + f2 , ∂y ϕ .
Taking the real part, we get
1 d
k(∂y , η)ϕk2L2 + νkωk2L2
2 dt
Z 1
1 νη 4 1 νη 2 ′ 2
≤ |k| |ϕ′ ϕ|dy + 2 k(f1 , f3 )k2L2 + kϕk2L2 + 2 kf2 k2L2 + kϕ kL2
−1 νη 4 νη 4
|k| νη 2 1
≤ kϕ′ k2L2 + η 2 kϕk2L2 + (kϕ′ k2L2 + η 2 kϕk2L2 ) + 2 k(f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2
2η 4 νη
|k| ν 1
≤ k(∂y , η)ϕk2L2 + kωk2L2 + 2 k(f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 .
2η 4 νη
This shows that
d aν 1/3 t 3ν aν 1/3 t 2
(10.9) ke (∂y , η)ϕk2L2 + ke ωkL2
dt 2
1 1/3 1/3
≤ |k/η| + 2aν 3 keaν t (∂y , η)ϕk2L2 + 2/(νη 2 )keaν t (f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 ,
which gives
Z t
1/3 t 1/3 s
keaν (∂y , η)ϕ(t)k2L2 + ν keaν ω(s)k2L2 ds
0
1
aν 1/3 t 1/3 t
≤ |k/η| + 2aν )ke 3 (∂y , η)ϕk2L2 L2 + 2/(νη 2 )keaν (f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 L2 + k(∂y , η)ϕ(0)k2L2 .
This gives the first inequality by noting that η 2 k(∂y , η)ϕ(0)k2L2 ≤ kω(0)k2L2 = kωin k2L2 .
Taking L2 inner product between (10.8) and ω, we get

(∂t − ν(∂y2 − η 2 ) + iky)ω, ω = ikf1 + ∂y f2 + iℓf3 , ω ,
which gives
Z 1

∂t ω, ω + νk(∂y , η)ωk2L2 + ik y|ω|2 dy = f4 , ω − f2 , ∂y ω + (ν∂y ω + f2 )ω̄|y=1
y=−1 ,
−1
here f4 = ikf1 + iℓf3 . Taking the real part, we get

1 d
kωk2L2 + νk(∂y , η)ωk2L2 ≤ k(f2 , η −1 f4 )kL2 k(∂y , η)ωkL2 + kν∂y ω + f2 kl1 ({±1}) kωkL∞ .
2 dt
Here kf kl1 ({±1}) := |f (t, 1)| + |f (t, −1)|. Thus,
d
kωk2L2 + νk(∂y , η)ωk2L2 ≤ ν −1 k(f2 , η −1 f4 )k2L2 + 2kν∂y ω + f2 kl1 ({±1}) kωkL∞ .
dt
Let
sinh(η(y + 1)) sinh(η(1 − y))
(10.10) γ1 (y) = , γ−1 (y) = .
sinh(2η) sinh(2η)
Since (∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ = ω, ∂y ϕ|y=±1 = ϕ|y=±1 = 0, we find that
hω, γj i = h(∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ, γj i = hϕ, (∂y2 − η 2 )γj i = 0, j ∈ {±1},
and h∂t ω, γj i = 0 for j ∈ {±1}, which implies that

0 = h∂t ω, γj i = ν(∂y2 − η 2 )ω − ikyω + ikf1 + ∂y f2 + ilf3 , γj

= νω, (∂y2 − η 2 )γj + ω, ikyγj + hf4 , γj − f2 , ∂y γj + ((ν∂y ω + f2 )γj − νω∂y γj )|1−1

= 0 + (∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ, ikyγj + hf4 , γj − f2 , ∂y γj + j(ν∂y ω + f2 )(t, j) − (νω∂y γj )|1−1 ,
and we also have

(∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ, ikyγj = ϕ, (∂y2 − η 2 )(ikyγj ) = ϕ, 2ik∂y γj .
Thanks to |γj′ (−j)| = |γj′ (j)| = η coth(2η) ≤ Cη for j ∈ {±1}, we get
kγj′ k2L2 + η 2 kγj k2L2 = −hγj , (∂y2 − η 2 )γj i + γj′ γj |1−1 = |γj′ γj (j)| = |γj′ (j)| ≤ Cη.
Thus, we obtain

|(ν∂y ω + f2 )(t, j)| = ϕ, 2ik∂y γj + hf4 , γj − f2 , ∂y γj − (νω∂y γj )|1−1
≤ 2|k|kϕkL2 kγj′ kL2 + k(f2 , η −1 f4 )kL2 k(∂y , η)γj kL2 + νkγj′ kl1 ({±1}) kωkL∞
1 1
≤ C|k|η 2 kϕkL2 + Cη 2 k(f2 , η −1 f4 )kL2 + CνηkωkL∞ ,
and then
d
kωk2L2 + νk(∂y , η)ωk2L2 ≤ ν −1 k(f2 , η −1 f4 )k2L2 + 2kν∂y ω + f2 kl1 ({±1}) kωkL∞
dt
1 1
≤ ν −1 k(f2 , η −1 f4 )k2L2 + C |k|η 2 kϕkL2 + η 2 k(f2 , η −1 f4 )kL2 + νηkωkL∞ kωkL∞
1 3 1
≤ C ν −1 k(f2 , η −1 f4 )k2L2 + ν − 2 |kη| 2 kϕk2L2 + (|νk/η| 2 + νη)kωk2L∞
1 3 1
≤ C ν −1 k(f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 + ν − 2 |kη| 2 kϕk2L2 + (|νk/η| 2 + νη)kωkL2 k(∂y , η)ωkL2 ,
and
d aν 13 t 2 ν 1
ke ωkL2 + keaν 3 t (∂y , η)ωk2L2
dt 2
1 1 3 1 1
−1 aν 3 t
≤ C ν ke (f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 + ν − 2 |kη| 2 keaν 3 t ϕk2L2 + (|k/η| + νη 2 )keaν 3 t ωk2L2 ,
1
here we used the fact that ν 3 ≤ |1/η| + νη 2 ≤ |k/η| + νη 2 . This shows that
1 1 1
keaν 3 t ωk2L∞ L2 + νkeaν 3 t (∂y , η)ωk2L2 L2 ≤ C kωin k2L2 + ν −1 keaν 3 t (f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 L2
1 3 1 1
+ Cν − 2 |kη| 2 keaν 3 t ϕk2L2 L2 + C(|k/η| + νη 2 )keaν 3 t ωk2L2 L2 .

Now let us prove Proposition 10.2.
Proof. We denote
1 1
[RHS] = ν − 2 keaν 3 t (f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 L2 + η −1 k∂y ωin kL2 + kωin kL2 .
We first consider the case of νη 3 ≤ |k|. By Lemma 10.3, we have
1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1
≤ Cν − 2 keaν 3 t f2 kL2 L2 + |ν/k| 3 keaν 3 t (ikf1 + iℓf3 )kL2 L2 + C η −1 k∂y ωin kL2 + kωin kL2
1 1
≤ Cν − 2 keaν 3 t (f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 L2 + C η −1 k∂y ωin kL2 + kωin kL2 = C[RHS],
1
which along with Lemma 10.4 and ν 3 η ≤ |k| implies that
1 1 1
(10.11) νη 2 keaν 3 t ωk2L2 L2 + η 2 keaν 3 t (∂y , η)ϕk2L∞ L2 + |kη|keaν 3 t (∂y , η)ϕk2L2 L2 ≤ C[RHS]2 .
3
Thanks to 1 ≤ |k| ≤ η, νη 3 ≤ |k|, |kη| 2 ≤ η 3 , νη 2 ≤ |k/η| ≤ 1, we get by Lemma 10.4 that
1 1 1
keaν 3 t ωk2L∞ L2 + νkeaν 3 t ∂y ωk2L2 L2 ≤ C kωin k2L2 + ν −1 keaν 3 t (f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 L2
1 3 1 1
+ Cν − 2 |kη| 2 keaν 3 t ϕk2L2 L2 + C(|k/η| + νη 2 )keaν 3 t ωk2L2 L2
1 1 1
≤ C[RHS]2 + Cν − 2 η 3 keaν 3 t ϕk2L2 L2 + Ckeaν 3 t ωk2L2 L2
1 1
≤ C[RHS]2 + Cν − 2 |k|−1 [RHS]2 ≤ Cν − 2 [RHS]2 ,
which along with (10.11) gives our result when νη 3 ≤ |k|.
Next we consider the case of νη 3 ≥ |k|. In this case, we have (for 0 ≤ a ≤ 1/8)
1 1/3 1 1/3 5ν aν 1/3 t 2
|k/η| + 2aν 3 keaν t (∂y , η)ϕk2L2 ≤ |k/η 3 | + 2aν 3 η −2 |keaν t ωk2L2 ≤ ke ωkL2 ,
4
from which and (10.9), we infer that
d aν 1/3 t ν 1/3 1/3
ke (∂y , η)ϕk2L2 + keaν t ωk2L2 ≤ 2/(νη 2 )keaν t (f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 ,
dt 4
and then
1
1/3 t
νη 2 keaν ωk2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −1 keaν 3 t (f1 , f2 , f3 )kL2 L2 + Ckωin k2L2 .
This in turn gives
1 1/3 1/3
|kη| + ν 3 η 2 keaν t (∂y , η)ϕk2L2 L2 ≤ Cνη 2 keaν t ωk2L2 L2
1
≤ Cν −1 keaν 3 t (f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 L2 + Ckωin k2L2 ,
which along with Lemma 10.4 gives (10.11). Due to νη 3 ≥ |k|, we have |k/η| ≤ νη 2 and
1 3
ν − 2 |kη| 2 ≤ |kη 3 |. Then we get by Lemma 10.4 that
1 1 1
keaν 3 t ωk2L∞ L2 + νkeaν 3 t ∂y ωk2L2 L2 ≤ C(kωin k2L2 + ν −1 keaν 3 t (f1 , f2 , f3 )k2L2 L2 )
1 3 1 1
+ Cν − 2 |kη| 2 keaν 3 t ϕk2L2 L2 + C(|k/η| + νη 2 )keaν 3 t ωk2L2 L2
1 1
≤ C[RHS]2 + C|kη 3 |keaν 3 t ϕk2L2 L2 + Cνη 2 keaν 3 t ωk2L2 L2 ≤ C[RHS]2 ,
which along with (10.11) gives our result when νη 3 ≥ |k|.
11. Nonlinear interactions

11.1. Anisotropic bilinear estimates.
Lemma 11.1. For {j, k} = {1, 3}, it holds that

(11.1) kf1 f2 kL2 ≤ C k∂k f1 kH 1 + kf1 kH 1 k∂j f2 kL2 + kf2 kL2 ,
(11.2) kf1 f2 kL2 + k∂j (f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ Ck(∂x ∂z f1 , ∂x f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 )kH 1 k(∂j f2 , f2 )kL2 ,
(11.3) kf1 f2 kL2 + k∂j (f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ Ck(∂j f1 , f1 )kH 1 k(∂x ∂z f2 , ∂x f2 , ∂z f2 , f2 )kL2 ,
(11.4) k∇(f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ Ck(∂x ∂z f1 , ∂x f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 )kH 1 kf2 kH 1 ,

(11.5) k∇(f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ C k∂k f1 kH 1 + kf1 kH 1 )(k∂j f2 kH 1 + kf2 kH 1 ,
and
(11.6) k∇(f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ C k(∂k f1 , f1 )kH 2 k(∂j f2 , f2 )kL2

+ k(∂x ∂z f1 , ∂z f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 )kL2 kf2 kH 2 .
Proof. By Hölder inequality and Sobolev embedding, we get

kf1 f2 kL2 ≤ kf1 kL∞y
kf k
2 Ly2 ≤ C k∂ f k
y 1 Ly2 + kf k
1 Ly2 kf k
2 Ly 2
2
L2x,z Lx,z

≤C k∂y f1 kL∞ z Ly
2 + kf1 kL∞ L2 kf2 kL2
z y z,y
L2x

≤C k(∂z ∂y f1 , ∂y f1 )kL2z L2y + k(∂z f1 , f1 )kL2z L2y kf2 kL2z,y 2
Lx

≤C (∂z ∂y f1 , ∂z f1 , ∂y f1 , f1 ) L2 kf2 kL∞ 2
x Lz,y

≤C k∂z f1 kH 1 + kf1 kH 1 k∂x f2 kL2 + kf2 kL2 .
This proves the (11.1) for the case of (j, k) = (1, 3), and the case of (j, k) = (3, 1) is similar.
Using the fact that

kf kL∞ 2
x,z Ly
= kf k 2
Lx Ly
∞ ≤ C k(∂ x f, f )kLx Ly ∞ ≤ C (∂x ∂z f, ∂x f, ∂z f, f ) L2 ,
2 2
∞ Lz Lz
we infer that

k(∂y f, f )kL∞ 2 ≤ C (∂x ∂z f, ∂x f, ∂z f, f ) 1 ,
x,z Ly H
which gives

(11.7) kf1 f2 kL2 ≤C k(∂y f1 , f1 )kL2y kf2 kL2y 2 ≤ Ck(∂y f1 , f1 )kL∞ 2 kf2 kL2
x,z Ly
Lx,z

≤C (∂x ∂z f1 , ∂x f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 ) H 1 kf2 kL2 ,
and

(11.8) kf1 f2 kL2 ≤C k(∂y f1 , f1 )kL2y kf2 kL2y 2 ≤ Ck(∂y f1 , f1 )kL2 kf2 kL∞ 2
x,z Ly
Lx,z

≤Ckf1 kH 1 (∂x ∂z f2 , ∂x f2 , ∂z f2 , f2 ) L2 .
By (11.1) and (11.7), we have
k∂j (f1 f2 )kL2 ≤k∂j f1 f2 kL2 + kf1 ∂j f2 kL2
≤Ck(∂k ∂j f1 , ∂j f1 )kH 1 k(∂j f2 , f2 )kL2 + Ck(∂x ∂z f1 , ∂x f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 )kH 1 k∂j f2 kL2
≤Ck(∂x ∂z f1 , ∂x f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 )kH 1 k(∂j f2 , f2 )kL2 ,

which gives (11.2).
By (11.8) and (11.1), we have
k∂j (f1 f2 )kL2 ≤k∂j f1 f2 kL2 + kf1 ∂j f2 kL2
≤Ck∂j f1 kH 1 k(∂x ∂z f2 , ∂x f2 , ∂z f2 , f2 )kL2 + Ck(∂j f1 , f1 )kH 1 k(∂k ∂j f2 , ∂j f2 )kL2
≤Ck(∂j f1 , f1 )kH 1 k(∂x ∂z f2 , ∂x f2 , ∂z f2 , f2 )kL2 ,
which gives (11.3).
By (11.7) and (11.8), we get
k∇(f1 f2 )kL2 ≤kf1 ∇f2 kL2 + k(∇f1 )f2 kL2
≤Ck(∂x ∂z f1 , ∂x f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 )kH 1 k∇f2 kL2 + Ck∇(∂x ∂z f1 , ∂x f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 )kL2 kf2 kH 1
≤Ck(∂x ∂z f1 , ∂x f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 )kH 1 kf2 kH 1 ,
which gives (11.4).
By (11.1), we have
kf1 ∇f2 kL2 ≤ C(k∂k f1 kH 1 + kf1 kH 1 )(k∂j ∇f2 kL2 + k∇f2 kL2 ),
k(∇f1 )f2 kL2 ≤ C(k∂k ∇f1 kL2 + k∇f1 kL2 )(k∂j f2 kH 1 + kf2 kH 1 ),
which give (11.5). By (11.1) and (11.8), we have
k(∇f1 )f2 kL2 ≤ C(k∂k ∇f1 kH 1 + k∇f1 kH 1 )(k∂j f2 kL2 + kf2 kL2 ),
kf1 ∇f2 kL2 ≤ Ck(∂x ∂z f1 , ∂x f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 )kL2 k∇f2 kH 1 ,
which give (11.6). This completes the proof.
Lemma 11.2. If ∂x f1 = 0, then it holds that
kf1 f2 kL2 ≤ Ckf1 kH 1 (kf2 kL2 + k∂z f2 kL2 ),

k(∂x , ∂z )(f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ C kf1 kH 1 + k∂z f1 kH 1 kf2 kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )f2 kL2 ,

k(∂x , ∂z )(f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ C kf1 kL2 + k∂z f1 kL2 kf2 kH 1 + k(∂x , ∂z )f2 kH 1 ,

k∂x (f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ Ckf1 kH 1 k∂x f2 kL2 + k∂z ∂x f2 kL2 .
Proof. The first inequality follows from (11.1) in Lemma 11.1 by taking (j, k) = (3, 1) and
using ∂x f1 = 0. The second and third inequality follows from (11.2) and (11.3) in Lemma
11.1 by noting that
k(∂x ∂z f1 , ∂x f1 , ∂z f1 , f1 )kH k = k(∂z f1 , f1 )kH k , k = 0, 1.
As ∂x (f1 f2 ) = f1 ∂x f2 , the fourth inequality follows from the first inequality.
Lemma 11.3. If ∂x f1 = 0, then it holds that

kf1 kL∞ ≤ C kf1 kH 1 + k∂z f1 kH 1 ,
k∇(f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ C(kf1 kH 1 + k∂z f1 kH 1 )kf2 kH 1 ,
k∇(f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ Ckf1 kH 1 (kf2 kH 1 + k∂z f2 kH 1 ).
Proof. The first inequality follows by noting that

kf1 kL∞ ≤C (k∂y f1 kL2 + kf1 kL2 ) ∞
y y Lz

≤C k∂z ∂y f1 kL2 + k∂y f1 kL2 + k∂z f1 kL2 + kf1 kL2 ≤ C kf1 kH 1 + k∂z f1 kH 1 .
The second and third inequality follows from (11.4) and (11.5) in Lemma 11.1 by taking
(j, k) = (3, 1) and using ∂x f1 = 0.
Lemma 11.4. Let V satisfy kV − ykH 4 ≤ ε0 , ∂x V = 0, (V − y)|y=±1 = 0 and κ = ∂z V /∂y V .
If ∂x f1 = 0, P0 f2 = 0, then we have

kf1 f2 kL2 ≤ Ckf1 kH 1 kf2 kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )f2 kL2 ,

k∇(f1 f2 )kL2 ≤ Ckf1 kH 1 kf2 kH 1 + k(∂z − κ∂y )f2 kH 1 .
Let h solve ∆h = f1 f2 , h|y=±1 = 0, and assume ∂x f2 = ikf2 , k ∈ Z \ {0}. Then we have

k∇hkL2 ≤ Ckf1 kL2 kf2 kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )f2 kL2 .
Proof. Take Fl (X, Y, Z) so that Fl (x, V (t, y, z), z) = fl (x, y, z). Using the facts that (∂z −
κ∂y )f2 (x, y, z) = ∂Z F2 x, V (t, y, z), z and for k = 0, 1,
kFl kH k ∼ kfl kH k , k∇(F1 F2 )kL2 ∼ k∇(f1 f2 )kL2 , k∂z F2 kH k ∼ k(∂z − κ∂y )f2 kH k ,
we can deduce the first two inequalities from Lemma 11.2 and Lemma 11.3.
Since ∂x f1 = 0, ∂x f2 = ikf2 , we have ∂x h = ikh, and we can write h(x, y, z) = eikx hk (y, z),.
Thus, k∇hkL2 ≥ khkL2 and
k∇hk2L2 = − h∆h, hi = −hf1 f2 , hi ≤ kf1 kL2 kf2 hkL2 = kf1 kL2 kf2 hk kL2 .
By the first inequality of the lemma, we get

kf2 hk kL2 ≤ Ckhk kH 1 kf2 kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )f2 kL2

≤ Ck∇hkL2 kf2 kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )f2 kL2 .
Then we have

k∇hk2L2 ≤ kf1 kL2 kf2 hk kL2 ≤ Ckf1 kL2 k∇hkL2 kf2 kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )f2 kL2 ,
11.2. The velocity estimates in terms of the energy.

Lemma 11.5. It holds that for k ≥ 0,

k∇k (∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2 ≤ C k∇k (∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= kL2 + k∇k+1 (∂x , ∂z )u26= kL2 ,
2
k∆(∂x , ∂z )u6= kL2 ≤ k∆ω6= kL2 + k∇∆u26= kL2 .
Proof. Thanks to divu6= = ∂x u16= + ∂y u26= + ∂z u36= = 0, we have
k∇k (∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2 ≤k∇k (∂x , ∂z )∂x u16= kL2 + k∇k (∂x , ∂z )∂x u26= kL2 + k∇k (∂x , ∂z )∂x u36= kL2
≤k∇k (∂x , ∂z )∂y u26= kL2 + k∇k (∂x , ∂z )∂z u36= kL2
+ k∇k (∂x , ∂z )∂x u26= kL2 + k∇k (∂x , ∂z )∂x u36= kL2

≤C k∇k+1 (∂x , ∂z )u26= kL2 + k∇k (∂x2 , ∂x ∂z , ∂z2 )u36= kL2

≤C k∇k (∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= kL2 + k∇k+1 (∂x , ∂z )u26= kL2 .
Using the formula k(∂x , ∂z )(f1 , f2 )k2L2 = k(∂z f1 − ∂x f2 , ∂x f1 + ∂z f2 )k2L2 , we can deduce that
k∆(∂x , ∂z )(u16= , u36= )k2L2 = k∆ω6=
2 2
kL2 + k∆∂y u26= k2L2 ,
which implies the second inequality.
kū1 kH 2 ≤ CE1 min(νt + ν 2/3 , 1).
Proof. As ū1,0 |t=0 = 0, we have

Z t
1,0
kū kH 2 ≤ k∂t ū1,0 (s)kH 2 ds ≤ CνtE1 ,
0
on the other hand, kū1,0 kH 2 ≤ kū1,0 kL∞ H 4 ≤ E1 . Thus, we get
kū1,0 kH 2 ≤ CE1 min(νt, 1).
As kū1,6= kH 2 ≤ E1,6= ≤ ν 2/3 E1 , we get

kū1 kH 2 ≤kū1,0 kH 2 + kū1,6= kH 2 ≤ CE1 min(νt, 1) + ν 2/3 ≤ CE1 min(νt + ν 2/3 , 1).

2
∂z ū1,0

1 2
≤ C kū1,0 k2L∞ H 4 + ν −2 k∂t ū1,0 k2L∞ H 2 ≤ CE1,0 .
min((νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 ) ∞ ∞
L L
Proof. As ū1,0 |y=±1 = 0, ∂z ū1,0 |y=±1 = 0, and then

∂z ū1,0 2
1,0 2 1,0 2 1,0 2
1 − y 2 ∞ ≤Ck∂y ∂z ū kL∞ ≤ Ck∂y ∂z ū kH 2 ≤ Ckū kH 4 ,
L
which gives

∂z ū1,0 2
1,0 2
(11.9) 1 − y 2 ∞ ∞ ≤ Ckū kL∞ H 4 .
L L
k∂z ū1,0 k2L∞ ≤ Ck∂z ū1,0 k2H 2 ≤ Ckū1,0 k2H 3 ≤ Ckū1,0 kH 4 kū1,0 kH 2 ,
and due to ū1,0 |t=0 = 0, we have

Z t
1,0
kū (t)kH 2 ≤ k∂s ū1,0 (s)kH 2 ds ≤ tk∂t ū1,0 kL∞ H 2 .
0
This along with (11.9) gives

2
∂ ū1,0
z
1 ≤C kū1,0 k2L∞ H 4 + kū1,0 kL∞ H 4 kū1,0 /(νt)kL∞ H 2
min((νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 ) ∞ ∞
L L

≤C kū1,0 kL∞ H 4 + (ν −1 k∂t ū1,0 kL∞ H 2 )2 ≤ CE1,0 2
.

Lemma 11.8. It holds that for k ∈ {2, 3},

kū2 kH 2 + k∇ū2 kH 1 + kū3 kH 1 + k∂z ū3 kH 1 ≤ CE2 ,
kūk kL∞ L∞ + ν 1/2 k∇ūk kL2 L∞ ≤ CE2 ,
k∇(ūk f )kL2 + kūk ∇f kL2 ≤ CE2 kf kH 1 .
Proof. Thanks to ∂y ū2 + ∂z ū3 = 0, we have

kū2 kH 2 + k∇ū2 kH 1 + kū3 kH 1 + k∂z ū3 kH 1 ≤ C k∆ū2 kL2 + k∇ū3 kL2 + k∂y ū2 kH 1

≤ C k∆ū2 kL2 + k∇ū3 kL2 ≤ CE2 .
Thanks to Lemma 11.3, we have

kū2 kL∞ + kū3 kL∞ ≤ C kū2 kH 1 + k∂z ū2 kH 1 + kū3 kH 1 + k∂z ū3 kH 1 ≤ CE2 ,
for any t ∈ [0, T ], and
k∇ū2 kL2 L∞ ≤ Ck∇ū2 kL2 H 2 ≤ Ck∇∆ū2 kL2 L2 ≤ Cν −1/2 E2 ,

k∇ū3 kL∞ ≤ C k∂z ∇ū3 kH 1 + k∇ū3 kH 1 ≤ C k∇∆ū2 kL2 + k∆ū3 kL2 ,
for any t ∈ [0, T ], and then

k∇ū3 kL2 L∞ ≤ C k∇∆ū2 kL2 L2 + k∆ū3 kL2 L2 ≤ Cν −1/2 E2 .
By Lemma 11.3 again, we get

k∇(ūk f )kL2 + kūk ∇f kL2 ≤ kūk kH 1 + k∂z ūk kH 1 kf kH 1 + kūk kL∞ k∇f kL2
≤ CE2 kf kH 1 k ∈ {2, 3}.

9 1/3 t 1 3
ν 1/6 ke 4 ǫν ∂x ∇u26= kL2 L2 ≤ E54 E34 ,
9 1/3 t 1 1
ν 1/6 ke 4 ǫν ∂x (∂x , ∂z )uk6= kL2 L2 ≤ CE52 E32 , k ∈ {2, 3},
9 1/3 1 3 1 1
ν 1/6 ke 4 ǫν t ∂x2 u16= kL2 L2 ≤ C E54 E34 + E52 E32 ,
17 1/3 17 1/3
1 7 1 3
ν 1/2 ke 8 ǫν t ∂x ∇u6= kL2 L2 + ke 8 ǫν t ∂z ∇(u26= , u36= )kL2 L2 ≤ C E58 E38 + E54 E34 .
1/3 t
Proof. Since ke2ǫν ∂x ∇u26= kL2 L2 ≤ E3,0 ≤ E3 , and
5 1/3 t 1/3 t 1 1/3 t 1
ke 2 ǫν ∂x ∇u26= kL2 L2 ≤ke2ǫν ∆u26= kL2 2 L2 ke3ǫν ∂x2 u26= kL2 2 L2
1/3 t 1 1
≤ke2ǫν ∂x ∆u26= kL2 2 L2 (ν −1/6 E5 ) 2
1 1 1 1
≤(ν −1/2 E3 ) 2 (ν −1/6 E5 ) 2 = ν −1/3 E52 E32 ,
we get
9 1/3 t 1/3 t 1 5 1/3 t 1
ν 1/6 ke 4 ǫν ∂x ∇u26= kL2 L2 ≤ν 1/6 ke2ǫν ∂x ∇u26= kL2 2 L2 ke 2 ǫν ∂x ∇u26= kL2 2 L2
1 1 1 1 1 3
≤ν 1/6 E32 (ν −1/3 E52 E32 ) 2 = E54 E34 .
For k ∈ {2, 3}, we have
1/3 t
k∂x (∂x , ∂z )uk6= k2L2 ≤ k∂x2 uk6= kL2 k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )uk6= kL2 ≤ k∂x2 uk6= kL2 e−2ǫν E3 ,
which gives
9 1/3 t 5 1/3 t
ke 4 ǫν ∂x (∂x , ∂z )uk6= k2L2 L2 ≤ke 2 ǫν ∂x2 uk6= kL1 L2 E3
1/3 t 1 1/3 t
≤ke3ǫν ∂x2 uk6= kL2 L2 ke− 2 ǫν kL2 (0,T ) E3
≤(ν −1/6 E5 )(Cν −1/6 )E3 = Cν −1/3 E5 E3 .
Due to ∂x2 u16= = −∂x ∂y u26= −∂x ∂z u36= , the third inequality follows from the first two inequalities.
Notice that
k∂x ∇u6= k2L2 + k∂z ∇(u26= , u36= )k2L2 ≤ k∂x2 u6= kL2 k∆u6= kL2 + k∂z ∆(u26= , u36= )kL2 k∂z (u26= , u36= )kL2

≤ Ck(∂x , ∂z )∆u6= kL2 k∂x2 u6= kL2 + k∂x ∂z (u26= , u36= )kL2 ,
17 1/3 17 1/3

ν ke 8 ǫν t ∂x ∇u6= k2L2 L2 + ke 8 ǫν t ∂z ∇(u26= , u36= )k2L2 L2
1/3
9 1/3 9 1/3

≤ Cνke2ǫν t ∂x , ∂z )∆u6= kL2 L2 ke 4 ǫν t ∂x2 u6= kL2 L2 + |e 4 ǫν t ∂x ∂z (u26= , u36= )kL2 L2
1 1 1 3 1 1
≤ Cν ke2ǫν 3 t ∇∆u26= kL2 L2 + ke2ǫν 3 t ∆ω6=
2
kL2 L2 ν −1/6 (E54 E34 + E52 E32 )
1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1
≤ Cν 5/6 ν −3/4 E3,0 + ν −5/6 E3,1 E54 E34 + E52 E32 ≤ CE3 E54 E34 + E52 E32 .
11.3. Interaction between nonzero modes.
1 1 1
(11.10) ke4ǫν 3 t |u6= |2 k2L2 L2 + ke4ǫν 3 t u6= · ∇u6= k2L2 L2 + ke4ǫν 3 t ∂x (u6= · ∇u6= )k2L2 L2
1 1
+ ke4ǫν 3 t ∂z (u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 L2 + ke4ǫν 3 t ∇(u6= · ∇u26= )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −1 E34 ,
and
1 5
(11.11) ke4ǫν 3 t ∇(u6= · ∇u6= )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν − 3 E34 .
In particular, we have
2 1
(11.12) k(ν 3 + νt) 2 ∇(u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −1 E34 .
Proof. By (11.1) in Lemma 11.1, we have

k|u6= |2 kL2 ≤C k∂x u6= kH 1 + ku6= kH 1 k∂z u6= kL2 + ku6= kL2
≤Ck∇∂x2 u6= kL2 k(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2 ,
and for k ∈ {1, 3}, by (11.2) in Lemma 11.1 we have
kuk6= ∂k u6= kL2 + k∂x (uk6= ∂k u6= )kL2 ≤ Ck(∂x ∂z uk6= , ∂x uk6= , ∂z uk6= , uk6= )kH 1 k(∂x ∂k u6= , ∂k u6= )kL2
≤ Ck∇(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2 k(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2 ,
and by (11.2) again, we have
k∂z (uk6= ∂k u36= )kL2 ≤Ck(∂x ∂z uk6= , ∂x uk6= , ∂z uk6= , uk6= )kH 1 k(∂z ∂k u36= , ∂k u36= )kL2
≤Ck∇(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2 k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= kL2 .
For k = 2, by (11.3) in Lemma 11.1, we have
kuk6= ∂k u6= kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )(uk6= ∂k u6= )kL2
≤ Ck(∂x uk6= , ∂z uk6= , uk6= )kH 1 k(∂x ∂z ∂k u6= , ∂x ∂k u6= , ∂z ∂k u6= , ∂k u6= )kL2
≤ Ck(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= kL2 k∇(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2 .
Summing up, we get by Lemma 11.5 that
k|u6= |2 kL2 + ku6= · ∇u6= kL2 + k∂x (u6= · ∇u6= )kL2 + k∂z (u6= · ∇u36= )kL2

≤ Ck∇(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2 k(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2 + k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= kL2

≤ C k(∂x , ∂z )∆u26= kL2 + k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )∇u36= kL2 )(k(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= kL2 + k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= kL2 .
For k ∈ {1, 3}, by (11.4) in Lemma 11.1, we have

k∇(uk6= ∂k u26= )kL2 ≤Ck(∂x ∂z uk6= , ∂x uk6= , ∂z uk6= , uk6= )kH 1 k∂k u26= kH 1
≤Ck∇(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2 k(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= kL2 ,
and for k = 2, by (11.5) in Lemma 11.1, we have
k∇(uk6= ∂k u26= )kL2 ≤ k(∂z uk6= , uk6= )kH 1 k(∂x ∂k u26= , ∂k u26= )kH 1 ≤ Ck(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= kL2 k∂x ∆u26= kL2 .
Then it follows from Lemma 11.5 that
k∇(u6= · ∇u26= )kL2 ≤C(k(∂x , ∂z )∆u26= kL2 + k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )∇u36= kL2 )k(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= kL2 .
This shows that
1 1 1
ke4ǫν 3 t |u6= |2 k2L2 L2 + ke4ǫν 3 t u6= · ∇u6= k2L2 L2 + ke4ǫν 3 t ∂x (u6= · ∇u6= )k2L2 L2
1 1
+ ke4ǫν 3 t ∂z (u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 L2 + ke4ǫν 3 t ∇(u6= · ∇u26= )k2L2 L2
1 1 1
≤ C ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x , ∂z )∆u26= k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν 3 t ∇(∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= k2L2 L2 ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x , ∂z )∇u26= k2L∞ L2
1
+ ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= k2L∞ L2 ≤ Cν −1 E34 .
This proves (11.10).
For k ∈ {1, 3}, by (11.6) in Lemma 11.1 and Lemma 11.5, we have

k∇(uk6= ∂k u6= )k2L2 ≤C k(∂z uk6= , uk6= )k2H 2 k(∂x ∂k u6= , ∂k u6= )k2L2

+ k(∂x ∂z uk6= , ∂x uk6= , ∂z uk6= , uk6= )k2L2 k∂k u6= k2H 2

≤C k∆(∂x , ∂z )uk6= k2L2 k(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= k2L2 + k(∂x , ∂z )∂x uk6= k2L2 k∆∂k u6= k2L2

≤C k∇∆u26= k2L2 + k∆ω6= kL2 )(k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= k2L2 + k(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= k2L2 ,
2 2
and for k = 2, by (11.5) in Lemma 11.1 and Lemma 11.5, we have

k∇(uk6= ∂k u6= )k2L2 ≤Ck(∂z uk6= , uk6= )kH 1 k(∂x ∂k u6= , ∂k u6= )kH 1
≤Ck(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= k2L2 k∆∂x u6= k2L2

2 2
≤Ck(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= k2L2 k∇∆u26= k2L2 + k∆ω6= kL2 .
Thus, we arrive at
1
ke4ǫν 3 t ∇(u6= · ∇u6= )k2L2 L2
1 1 1
≤ C ke2ǫν 3 t ∇∆u26= k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν 3 t ∆ω6= kL2 L2 ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= k2L∞ L2
2 2
1
+ ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x , ∂z )∇u26= k2L∞ L2
3 5 2 5
≤C ν − 2 E3,0
2
+ ν − 3 E3,1
2
E3 ≤ Cν − 3 E34 ,
which gives (11.11). Finally, we have
2 1 2 1 1 1 1
k(ν 3 + νt) 2 ∇(u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 L2 ≤Cν 3 k(1 + ν 3 t) 2 e−4ǫν 3 t e4ǫν 3 t ∇(u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 L2
2 1
≤Cν 3 ke4ǫν 3 t ∇(u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −1 E34 ,
which gives (11.12).
11.4. Interaction between zero modes.
(

k∆(ū2 ∂y ū1,0 + ū3 ∂z ū1,0 )k2L2 ≤C k∆ū2 k2L2 + k∇ū3 k2L2 k∇∆ū1,0 k2L2
2 )
∂z ū1,0
2 1
2
+ k min((ν + νt) , 1 − y
3 2 )∆ū3 k2L2 .
min((νt) 12 , 1 − y 2 ) ∞
L
Proof. For k ∈ {2, 3}, by Lemma 11.2, Lemma 11.3 and ∂y ū2 + ∂z ū3 = 0, we have
kūk ∆∂k ū1,0 k2L2 + k∇ūk ∇∂k ū1,0 k2L2
≤ kūk k2L∞ k∆∂k ū1,0 k2L2 + C(k∂z ∇ūk k2L2 + k∇ūk k2L2 )k∇∂k ū1,0 k2H 1

≤ C k∂z ūk k2H 1 + kūk k2H 1 k∇∂k ū1,0 k2H 1 ≤ C k∆ū2 k2L2 + k∇ūk k2L2 k∇∆ū1,0 k2L2 .
k∆ū2 ∂y ū1,0 k2L2 ≤ k∆ū2 k2L2 k∂y ū1,0 k2L∞ ≤ Ck∆ū2 k2L2 kū1,0 k2H 3 ≤ Ck∆ū2 k2L2 k∇∆ū1,0 k2L2 ,
and
2
∂ ū 1,0
2 1 z
k∆ū3 ∂z ū1,0 k2L2 ≤ k min((ν + νt) , 1 − y 2 )∆ū3 k2L2
3 2
1 .
min((νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 ) ∞
L
Summing up, we conclude the result.
k∂t ∇(ū2 ∂y ū1,0 )k2L2 L2 + k∂t ∇(ū3 ∂z ū1,0 )k2L2 L2 ≤ CνE22 E1,0
2
.
Proof. First of all, we have
k∂t ∇(ū2 ∂y ū1,0 )k2L2 L2

≤ C k∂t ∇ū2 k2L2 L2 k∂y ū1,0 k2L∞ L∞ + k∇ū2 k2L2 L∞ k∂t ∂y ū1,0 k2L∞ L2

+ kū2 k2L∞ L∞ k∂t ∇∂y ū1,0 k2L2 L2 + k∂t ū2 k2L2 L2 k∇∂y ū1,0 k2L∞ L∞

≤ C k∂t ∇ū2 k2L2 L2 kū1,0 k2L∞ H 4 + k∇∆ū2 k2L2 L2 k∂t ū1,0 k2L∞ H 1

+ k∆ū2 k2L∞ L2 k∂t ū1,0 k2L2 H 2 + k∂t ū2 k2L2 L2 kū1,0 k2L∞ H 4

≤ C νE22 E1,0 2
+ ν −1 E22 (νE1,0 )2 + E22 (νE1,0 2
) + νE22 E1,02
≤ CνE22 E1,0
2
.
By Lemma 11.7 and Lemma 11.8, we get

k∂t ∇(ū3 ∂z ū1,0 )k2L2 L2
2
∂ ū 1,0
2 1 z
≤ C k min((ν + νt) , 1 − y 2 )∂t ∇ū3 k2L2 L2
3 2
min((νt) 21 , 1 − y 2 ) ∞
L L∞
!
+ k∇ū3 k2L2 L∞ k∂t ∂z ū1,0 k2L∞ L2 + kū3 k2L∞ L∞ k∂t ∇∂z ū1,0 k2L2 L2 + k∂t ū3 k2L2 L2 k∇∂z ū1,0 k2L∞ L∞
2 1
≤ C k min((ν 3 + νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 )∂t ∇ū3 k2L2 L2 E1,0
2

+ ν −1 E22 k∂t ∂z ū1,0 k2L∞ L2 + E22 k∂t ∆ū1,0 k2L2 L2 + νE22 kū1,0 k2L∞ H 4

≤ C νE22 E1,0
2
+ νE22 E1,02
.
11.5. Interaction between zero mode and nonzero mode. The following lemma gives
the reaction between ū1 and u26= , u36= .
1/3 t 1/3
ke2ǫν (∂x , ∂z ) ū1 ∂x u36= k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (∂x , ∂z )(ū1 ∂x u26= )k2L2 L2
1/3 t
+ ke2ǫν ∂x ((u26= ∂y + u36= ∂z )ū1 )k2L2 L2 ≤ CνE12 E3 E5 .
Proof. For k ∈ {2, 3}, by Lemma 11.2 and Lemma 11.6, we get

k(∂x , ∂z ) ū1 ∂x uk6= k2L2 + k∂x (uk6= ∂k ū1 )k2L2

≤ C kū1 k2H 1 + k∇ū1 k2H 1 k∂x (∂x , ∂z )uk6= k2L2 + k∂x uk6= k2L2 + k∂z ∂x uk6= k2L2 )
4 1
≤ Ckū1 k2H 2 k∂x (∂x , ∂z )uk6= k2L2 ≤ Cν 3 E12 (1 + ν 3 t)2 k∂x (∂x , ∂z )uk6= k2L2 .
1 1 1/3
Then, using Lemma 11.9 and the fact that (1 + ν 3 t) ≤ Ce 4 ǫν t , we deduce that
1/3 1/3
ke2ǫν t (∂x , ∂z ) ū1 ∂x u36= k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (∂x , ∂z )(ū1 ∂x u26= )k2L2 L2
1/3 t
+ ke2ǫν ∂x ((u26= ∂y + u36= ∂z )ū1 )k2L2 L2
4 1 1/3 t
≤ Cν 3 E12 k(1 + ν 3 t)e2ǫν ∂x (∂x , ∂z )(u26= , u36= )k2L2 L2
4 9 1/3 t
≤ Cν 3 E12 ke 4 ǫν ∂x (∂x , ∂z )(u26= , u36= )k2L2 L2
4 1
≤ Cν 3 E12 (ν − 3 E5 E3 ) = CνE12 E3 E5 .

The following Lemma describes the reaction between ū1 and u16= .
1/3 t 3 1
ke2ǫν ∂x (ū1 ∂x u16= )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν E12 E32 E52 + E12 E3 E5 .
Proof. By Lemma 11.6, we have
4 1
k∂x (ū1 ∂x u16= )k2L2 ≤ kū1 k2L∞ k∂x2 u16= k2L2 ≤ Ckū1 k2H 2 k∂x2 u16= k2L2 ≤ Cν 3 E12 (1 + ν 3 t)2 k∂x2 u16= k2L2 ,
1/3 t 4 1 1/3 t 4 9 1/3 t
ke2ǫν ∂x (ū1 ∂x u16= )k2L2 L2 ≤Cν 3 E12 k(1 + ν 3 t)e2ǫν ∂x2 u16= k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν 3 E12 ke 4 ǫν ∂x2 u16= k2L2 L2
4 1 1 3 3 1
≤Cν 3 E12 ν − 3 E52 E32 + E5 E3 = Cν E12 E32 E52 + E12 E3 E5 .

The following lemma gives the reactions between ū2 , ū3 with nonzero modes. This lemma
suggests that ū2 and ū3 are good components.
Lemma 11.15. It holds that for k ∈ {2, 3},
1/3 t 1/3 t
ke2ǫν (∂x , ∂z )(ūk ∇u6= )kL2 L2 + ke2ǫν (∂x , ∂z )(u6= · ∇ūk )kL2 L2 ≤ Cν −1/2 E2 E3 .
Proof. By Lemma 11.2, Lemma 11.8 and Lemma 11.5, we get
k(∂x , ∂z )(ūk ∇u6= )kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )(u6= · ∇ūk )kL2

≤ C kūk kH 1 + k∂z ūk kH 1 k∇u6= kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )∇u6= kL2

+ C k∇ūk kL2 + k∂z ∇ūk kL2 ku6= kH 1 + k(∂x , ∂z )u6= kH 1

≤ C kūk kH 1 + k∂z ūk kH 1 k∇(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= kL2

≤ CE2 k(∂x , ∂z )∆u26= kL2 + k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )∇u36= kL2 ,
which gives
1/3 t 1/3
ke2ǫν (∂x , ∂z )(ūk ∇u6= )kL2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (∂x , ∂z )(u6= · ∇ūk )kL2 L2
1/3 1/3

≤ CE2 ke2ǫν t (∂x , ∂z )∆u26= kL2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (∂x2 + ∂z2 )∇u36= kL2 L2
≤ Cν −1/2 E2 E3 .

The following lemma will be used to estimate E3,1 .
1/3 t 1/3 t
ke2ǫν ∂z (ū1 ∂x u16= )k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν ∂z ((u26= ∂y + u36= ∂z )ū1 )k2L2 L2
3 1
≤ Cν 1/3 E12 E3 E5 + E34 E54 .
Proof. By Lemma 11.2 and Lemma 11.6, we have
k∂z (ū1 ∂x u16= )k2L2 + k∂z ((u26= ∂y + u36= ∂z )ū1 )k2L2

≤ C kū1 k2H 1 + k∂z ū1 k2H 1 k∂x u16= k2L2 + k(∂x , ∂z )∂x u16= k2L2

+ C k∂y ū1 k2L2 + k∂z ∂y ū1 k2L2 ku26= k2H 1 + k(∂x , ∂z )u26= k2H 1

+ C k∂z ū1 k2L2 + k∂z2 ū1 k2L2 ku36= k2H 1 + k(∂x , ∂z )u36= k2H 1

≤ Ckū1 k2H 2 k∇∂x u16= k2L2 + k∇(∂x , ∂z )u26= k2L2 + k∇(∂x , ∂z )u36= k2L2
4 1
≤ ν 3 E12 (1 + ν 3 t)2 (k∇∂x u6= k2L2 + k∇∂z (u26= , u36= )k2L2 ),
1/3 t 1/3
ke2ǫν ∂z (ū1 ∂x u16= )k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t ∂z ((u26= ∂y + u36= ∂z )ū1 )k2L2 L2
4
17 1/3 17 1/3

≤ Cν 3 E12 ke 8 ǫν t ∇∂x u6= k2L2 L2 + ke 8 ǫν t ∇∂z (u26= , u36= )k2L2 L2
4 1 7 1 3 1 3 1
≤ Cν 3 E12 ν −1 E54 E34 + E52 E32 ≤ Cν 3 E12 E3 E5 + E34 E54 .

12. Energy estimates for zero mode

12.1. Estimate of E1 .
Proposition 12.1. It holds that

(12.1) E1,0 ≤ Cν −1 kū(0)kH 2 + E2 + E2 E1,0 ,
4
(12.2) E1,6= ≤ C kū(0)kH 2 + ν −1 E2 E1,6= + ν − 3 E32 .
Proof. Step 1. Estimate of E1,0 .
Thanks to (3.11), we know that
(12.3) (∂t − ν∆)∆ū1,0 + ∆ū2 + ∆(ū2 ∂y ū1,0 + ū3 ∂z ū1,0 ) = 0
with ∆ū1,0 |y=±1 = ū1,0 |y=±1 = 0.
Taking the time derivative to (12.3), and then taking L2 inner product with ∂t ∆ū1,0 to
the resulting equation, we obtain
1 d

k∂t ∆ū1,0 k2L2 + νk∂t ∇∆ū1,0 k2L2 − ∂t ∇ū2 , ∂t ∇∆ū1,0
2 dt

− ∂t ∇(ū2 ∂y ū1,0 + ū3 ∂z ū1,0 ), ∂t ∇∆ū1,0 = 0,
which implies that
d
k∂t ∆ū1,0 k2L2 + νk∂t ∇∆ū1,0 k2L2 ≤ Cν −1 k∂t ∇ū2 k2L2 + k∂t ∇(ū2 ∂y ū1,0 + ū3 ∂z ū1,0 )k2L2 .
dt
This gives that
k∂t ∆ū1,0 k2L∞ L2 + νk∂t ∇∆ū1,0 k2L2 L2

≤ C k∂t ∆ū1,0 (0)k2L2 + ν −1 k∂t ∇ū2 k2L2 L2 + ν −1 k∂t ∇(ū2 ∂y ū1,0 + ū3 ∂z ū1,0 )k2L2 L2 ,
which along with ∂t ∆ū1,0 |t=0 = −∆ū2 |t=0 and the definition of E2 gives
ν −2 k∂t ∆ū1,0 k2L∞ L2 + ν −1 k∂t ∇∆ū1,0 k2L2 L2

≤ Cν −2 ku(0)k2H 2 + E22 + ν −1 k∂t ∇(ūα ∂α ū1,0 )k2L2 L2 ,

ν −2 k∂t ∆ū1,0 k2L∞ L2 + ν −1 k∂t ∇∆ū1,0 k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −2 ku(0)k2H 2 + E22 + E22 E1,0
2
.
Thanks to (12.3), we get

ν 2 k∆2 ū1,0 k2L∞ L2 ≤ C k∂t ∆ū1,0 k2L∞ L2 + k∆ū2 k2L∞ L2 + k∆(ū2 ∂y ū1,0 + ū3 ∂z ū1,0 )k2L∞ L2 ,
which along with Lemma 11.11 and Lemma 11.7 gives

2
ν 2 k∆2 ū1,0 k2L∞ L2 ≤C ku(0)k2H 2 + E22 + E22 E1,0 + k∆(ū2 ∂y ū1,0 + ū3 ∂z ū1,0 )k2L∞ L2

≤C ku(0)k2H 2 + E22 + E22 E1,0
2
+ k∆ū2 k2L∞ L2 + k∇ū3 k2L∞ L2 )k∇∆ū1,0 k2L∞ L2
1 ∂z ū1,0 2
2
+ k min((ν 3 + νt 2 , 1 − y 2 )∆ū3 k2L∞ L2 1
min((νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 ) L∞ L∞

≤C ku(0)k2H 2 + E22 + E22 E1,0
2
.
Since ∆ū1,0 |y=±1 = ū1,0 |y=±1 = ∂t ū1,0 |y=±1 = 0, we obtain
1
E1,0 = kū1,0 kL∞ H 4 + ν −1 k∂t ū1,0 kL∞ H 2 + ν − 2 k∂t ū1,0 kL2 H 3
1
≤ C k∆ū1,0 kL∞ H 2 + ν −1 k∂t ∆ū1,0 kL∞ L2 + ν − 2 k∂t ∆ū1,0 kL2 H 1
1
≤ C k∆2 ū1,0 kL∞ L2 + ν −1 k∂t ∆ū1,0 kL∞ L2 + ν − 2 k∂t ∇∆ū1,0 kL2 L2

≤ Cν −1 kū(0)kH 2 + E2 + E2 E1,0 .
This proves (12.1).

Step 2. Estimate of E1,6= .
Recall that ū1,6= satisfies
(
(∂t − ν∆)ū1,6= + ū2 ∂y ū1,6= + ū3 ∂z ū1,6= + u6= · ∇u16= = 0,
ū1,6= |t=0 = ū1 (0), ∆ū1,6= |y=±1 = 0, ū1,6= |y=±1 = 0.
Thus, we have
(∂t − ν∆)∆ū1,6= + ∆(ū2 ∂y ū1,6= + ū3 ∂z ū1,6= + u6= · ∇u16= ) = 0.
Thanks to ∆ū1,6= |y=±1 = 0, the energy estimate gives
d D E
k∆ū1,6= k2L2 + 2νk∇∆ū1,6= k2L2 − 2 ∇(ū2 ∂2 ū1,6= + ū3 ∂3 ū1,6= + u6= · ∇u16= ), ∇∆ū1,6= = 0,
dt
which gives
d
k∆ū1,6= k2L2 + νk∇∆ū1,6= k2L2 ≤ Cν −1 k∇(ū2 ∂y ū1,6= + ū3 ∂z ū1,6= )k2L2 + k∇(u6= · ∇u16= )k2L2 .
dt
k∇(ūk ∂k ū1,6= )k2L2 ≤Ckūk k2H 1 k∂k ū1,6= k2H 2 ≤ Ck∇ūk k2L2 k∇∆ū1,6= k2L2 .
which gives

k∇(ū2 ∂y ū1,6= + ū3 ∂z ū1,6= )k2L2 ≤ C k∇ū2 k2L2 + k∇ū3 k2L2 k∇∆ū1,6= k2L2 ,
k∆ū1,6= k2L∞ L2 + νk∇∆ū1,6= k2L2 L2

≤ ku(0)k2H 2 + Cν −1 k∇(ū2 ∂y ū1,6= + ū3 ∂z ū1,6= )k2L2 L2 + k∇(u6= · ∇u16= )k2L2 L2
8
≤ ku(0)k2H 2 + Cν −1 E22 k∇∆ū1,6= k2L2 L2 + Cν − 3 E34 .
As ∆ū1,6= |y=±1 = ū1,6= |y=±1 = 0, we obtain
2 1,6= 1 2
E1,6 = = kū kL∞ H 2 + ν 2 k∇ū1,6= kL2 H 2

≤ C k∆ū1,6= k2L∞ L2 + νk∇∆ū1,6= k2L2 L2
− 38 4

≤ C ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E22 E1,6
2
=+ν E3 .
This proves (12.2).

2/3
12.2. Estimate of E2 . Let us assume that ν ∈ (0, ν0 ], ν0 , ǫ ∈ (0, 1), ν0 ≤ 4ǫ < ǫ1 . Then
1/3
eνt ≤ e4ǫν t for t > 0.

E2 ≤ C 1 + ν −1 E2 ku(0)kH 2 + ν −1 E32 .
The proposition is an immediate consequence of the following lemmas.

keνt (ū2 , ū3 )k2L∞ L2 + νkeνt (∇ū2 , ∇ū3 )k2L2 L2 ≤ C ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 ,
keνt (∇ū2 , ∇ū3 )k2L∞ L2 + ν −1 keνt (∂t ū2 , ∂t ū3 )k2L2 L2

≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .
Proof. Recall that ūk (k = 2, 3) satisfies

(∂t − ν∆)ūk + ∂k p̄ + (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )ūk + u6= · ∇uk6= = 0.
As ūj |y=±1 = 0, L2 energy estimate gives
d
kū2 k2L2 + kū3 k2L2 + 2ν k∇ū2 k2L2 + k∇ū3 k2L2
dt X

= 2hp̄, ∂y ū2 i + 2hp̄, ∂z ū3 i − 2 (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )ūk , ūk
k=2,3

− 2 u6= · ∇u26= , ū2 i − 2 u6= · ∇u36= , ū3 .
As ∂y ū2 + ∂z ū3 = 0, we have
d
kū2 k2L2 + kū3 k2L2 + 2ν k∇ū2 k2L2 + k∇ū3 k2L2
dt X X
= −2 hu6= · ∇uk6= , ūk i = 2 hu6= · ∇ūk , uk6= i
k=2,3 k=2,3
2
≤ 2k|u6= | kL2 k(∇ū2 , ∇ū3 )kL2 ,
from which and the fact that k∇ūj k2L2 ≥ (π/2)2 kūj k2L2 , we infer that
Z t

e2νt kū2 k2L2 + kū3 k2L2 + ν e2νs k∇ū2 (s)k2L2 + k∇ū3 (s)k2L2 ds
0
Z t
2 2 3 2 −1
≤ Ckū (0)kL2 + Ckū (0)kL2 + Cν e2νs k|u6= (s)|2 k2L2 ds,
0
keνt (ū2 , ū3 )k2L∞ L2 + νkeνt (∇ū2 , ∇ū3 )k2L2 L2

≤ C ku(0)k2L2 + ν −1 keνt |u6= |2 k2L2 L2 ≤ C ku(0)k2L2 + ν −2 E34 .
Now H 1 energy estimate gives
d
ν k∇ū2 k2L2 + k∇ū3 k2L2 + 2 k∂t ū2 k2L2 + k∂t ū3 k2L2
dt X

= −2 (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )ūk , ∂t ūk − 2 u6= · ∇u26= , ∂t ū2 − 2 u6= · ∇u36= , ∂t ū3 .
k=2,3

keνt (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )ūk kL2 ≤ CE2 keνt ∇ūk kL2 ,
and by Lemma 11.10, we have
keνt (u6= · ∇u6= )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −1 E34 .
Thus, we obtain
keνt (∇ū2 , ∇ū3 )k2L∞ L2 + ν −1 keνt (∂t ū2 , ∂t ū3 )k2L2 L2
≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + Cνkeνt (∇ū2 , ∇ū3 )k2L2 L2 + Cν −2 E34

+ Cν −1 E22 keνt (∇ū2 , ∇ū3 )k2L2 L2 ≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .


keνt ∆ū2 k2L∞ L2 + ν −1 keνt ∇∂t ū2 k2L2 L2 ≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .
Proof. Recall that ∆ū2 satisfies
(12.4) (∂t − ν∆)∆ū2 + ∆∂y p̄ + ∆(u · ∇u2 ) = 0, ∇ū2 |y=±1 = 0.
Taking the L2 inner product with −2ū2 , we get
d

k∇ū2 k2L2 + 2νk∆ū2 k2L2 + 2h∆p̄, ∂y ū2 i − 2 ū2 ∂y ū2 + ū3 ∂z ū2 + u6= · ∇u26= , ∆ū2 = 0,
dt
which gives
νkeνt ∆ū2 k2L2 L2 .ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −1 keνt ∆p̄k2L2 L2 + νkeνt ∇ū2 k2L2 L2
(12.5) + ν −1 keνt (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )ū2 k2L2 L2 + ν −1 keνt u6= · ∇u26= k2L2 L2 .
Now by Lemma 11.3 and Lemma 12.1, we have
keνt ∇(ūk ∂k ūj )k2L2 L2 ≤keνt ūk k2L∞ H 1 k(∂k ūj , ∂z ∂k ūj )k2L2 H 1
≤Ckeνt (∇ū2 , ∇ū3 )k2L∞ L2 k(∆ū2 , ∆ū3 , ∇∆ū2 )k2L2 L2

≤C ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 ν −1 E22 .
This shows that

(12.6) ν −1 keνt ∇(ū · ∇ūk )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 , k ∈ {2, 3}.
Notice that
∆p̄ = −∂j ui ∂i uj = −∂j ūi ∂i ūj − ∂j ui6= ∂i uj6= ,
where by Lemma 11.10 and divu6= = 0, we have
keνt ∂j ui6= ∂i uj6= k2L2 L2 = keνt ∂j (u6= · ∇uj6= )k2L2 L2 ≤ keνt ∂j (u6= · ∇uj6= )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −1 E34 ,
and

keνt ∂j ūi ∂i ūj k2L2 L2 = keνt ∂α (ū · ∇ūα )k2L2 L2 ≤ C ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 ν −1 E22 .
This shows that

(12.7) ν −1 keνt ∆p̄k2L2 L2 ≤ C(1 + ν −2 E22 ) ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .
Then it follows from (12.5), (12.6), (12.7) and Lemma 11.10 that

(12.8) νkeνt ∆ū2 k2L2 L2 ≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .
Next, we take the L2 inner product with −2∂t ū2 to (12.4) to obtain
d

k∂t ∇ū2 k2L2 + 2ν k∆ū2 k2L2 + 2h∆p̄, ∂t ∂y ū2 i + 2 ∇(u · ∇u2 ), ∂t ∇ū2 = 0,
dt
which gives

k∂t ∇ū2 k2L2 + ν∂t k∆ū2 k2L2 ≤ C k∆p̄k2L2 + k∇(u · ∇u2 )k2L2 ,
and then
d 2νt
ν −1 e2νt k∂t ∇ū2 k2L2 + e k∆ū2 k2L2
dt
−1
≤ Cν e k∆p̄kL2 + e2νt k∇(u · ∇u2 )k2L2 + ν 2 e2νt k∆ū2 k2L2 ,
2νt 2
which along with (12.8), (12.6) and (12.7) gives

keνt ∆ū2 k2L∞ L2 + ν −1 keνt ∂t ∇ū2 k2L2 L2
≤ C(ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −1 keνt ∆p̄k2L2 L2 + ν −1 keνt ∇(u · ∇u2 )k2L2 L2 + νkeνt ∆ū2 k2L2 L2 )

≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .


νkeνt ∇∆ū2 k2L2 L2 + νkeνt ∆ū3 k2L2 L2 ≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .
Proof. Using the equation
(∂t − ν∆)∂z ū2 + ∂z ∂y p̄ + ∂z (u · ∇u2 ) = 0, ∇ū2 |y=±1 = 0,
we get by integration by parts that
k∂t ∂z ū2 + ∂z (u · ∇u2 )k2L2 = kν∆∂z ū2 − ∂z ∂y p̄k2L2

= ν 2 k∆∂z ū2 k2L2 + k∂z ∂y p̄k2L2 − 2ν ∆∂z ū2 , ∂z ∂y p̄

= ν 2 k∆∂z ū2 k2L2 + k∂z ∂y p̄k2L2 + 2ν ∇∂z ū2 , ∇∂z ∂y p̄

= ν 2 k∆∂z ū2 k2L2 + k∂z ∂y p̄k2L2 − 2ν ∂z2 ∂y ū2 , ∆p̄ ,
which shows that

(12.9) ν 2 k∆∂z ū2 k2L2 + k∂z ∂y p̄k2L2 ≤ C k∆p̄k2L2 + k∂t ∂z ū2 + ∂z (u · ∇u2 )k2L2 .
Then by Lemma 12.2, (12.6) and Lemma 11.10, we get
νkeνt ∆∂z ū2 k2L2 L2 + ν −1 keνt ∂z ∂y p̄k2L2 L2

≤ Cν −1 keνt ∆p̄k2L2 L2 + keνt ∂t ∂z ū2 k2L2 L2 + keνt ∂z (ū · ∇ū2 )k2L2 L2 + keνt ∂z (u6= · ∇u26= )k2L2 L2

≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .
Thanks to Lemma 16.7, we find that

k∂y2 p̄k2L2 + k∂z2 p̄k2L2 ≤ C k∂z ∂y p̄k2L2 + k∆p̄k2L2 ,
which gives

ν −1 keνt ∂y2 p̄k2L2 L2 + keνt ∂z2 p̄k2L2 L2 ≤Cν −1 keνt ∂z ∂y p̄k2L2 L2 + keνt ∆p̄k2L2 L2

(12.10) ≤C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .
Now using the equation

(∂t − ν∆)∂y ū2 + ∂y2 p̄ + ∂y (ū2 ∂y ū2 + ū3 ∂z ū2 ) + ∂y (u6= · ∇u26= ) = 0,
we deduce that

νk∆∂y ū2 k2L2 ≤ Cν −1 k∂t ∂y ū2 k2L2 + k∂y2 p̄k2L2 + k∂y (ū · ∇ū2 )k2L2 + k∂y (u6= · ∇u26= )k2L2 .
Thus, we have

νkeνt ∂y ∆ū2 k2L2 L2 ≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .
Using the fact that k∂z p̄kL2 ≤ k∂z2 p̄kL2 and the equation (∂t − ν∆)ū3 + ∂z p̄ + u · ∇u3 = 0,
we deduce that

νk∆ū3 k2L2 ≤ ν −1 k∂t ū3 k2L2 + k∂z p̄k2L2 + k(ū2 ∂y ū3 + ū3 ∂z ū3 )k2L2 + ku6= · ∇u36= k2L2 .
As above, we can obtain

νkeενt ∆ū3 k2L2 L2 ≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .

Lemma 12.4. We assume that E2 ≤ ε0 ν, then ∃ C > 0 such that
2 1 2 1
k min((ν 3 + νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 )∆ū3 k2L∞ L2 + ν −1 k min((ν 3 + νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 )∂t ∇ū3 k2L2 L2
2 1
+ νk min((ν 3 + νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 )∇∆ū3 k2L2 L2 ≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .
Proof. Recall that ∇ū3 satisfies
(12.11) (∂t − ν∆)∇ū3 + ∇∂z p̄ + ∇(u · ∇u3 ) = 0.
For a smooth function ρ(t, y) satisfying ρ|y=±1 = 0, 0 ≤ ρ ≤ 1, we have
kρ(∂t − ν∆)∇ū3 k2L2
= kρ∂t ∇ū3 k2L2 + ν 2 kρ∇∆ū3 k2L2 − 2νhρ2 ∂t ∇ū3 , ∇∆ū3 i

= kρ∂t ∇ū3 k2L2 + ν 2 kρ∇∆ū3 k2L2 + 2ν ∇ · [ρ2 ∂t ∇ū3 ], ∆ū3

= kρ∂t ∇ū3 k2L2 + ν 2 kρ∇∆ū3 k2L2 + 2ν ρ2 ∂t ∆ū3 , ∆ū3 + 4ν ρ∂y ρ∂t ∂y ū3 , ∆ū3 ,
which gives
kρ(∂t − ν∆)∇ū3 k2L2 = kρ∂t ∇ū3 k2L2 + ν 2 kρ∇∆ū3 k2L2

+ ν∂t kρ∆ū3 k2L2 − 2ν (ρ∂t ρ)∆ū3 , ∆ū3 + 4ν ρ∂y ρ∂t ∂y ū3 , ∆ū3 ,
and then
ν −1 kρ∂t ∇ū3 k2L2 L2 + νkρ∇∆ū3 k2L2 L2 + kρ∆ū3 k2L∞ L2

≤ C ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −1 kρ(∂t − ν∆)∇ū3 k2L2 L2

(12.12) + ν kν −1 |ρ∂t ρ| + |∂y ρ|2 kL∞ L∞ k∆ū3 k2L2 L2 .
Now we take
1 − y2 2 1
χ(x) = 1 − e−x , Ψ(s, y) = sχ , ρ(t, y) = Ψ (ν 3 + νt) 2 , y .
s
Then we find that
χ(x) ∼ min(1, x), |χ′ (x)| + |xχ′ (x)| ≤ C x ≥ 0,
Ψ(t, y) ∼ min(t, 1 − y 2 ), |∂s Ψ(s, y)| + |∂y Ψ(s, y)| ≤ C s > 0, y ∈ [−1, 1].
Thus, for t ≥ 0, y ∈ [−1, 1], we have
2 1
ρ(t, y) ∼ min (ν 3 + νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 ,
and
2ν −1 |ρ∂t ρ|(t, y) + |∂y ρ(t, y)|2
2 1 2 1 2 1
= (ν 3 + νt)− 2 · |Ψ∂s Ψ|((ν 3 + νt) 2 , y) + |∂y Ψ((ν 3 + νt) 2 , y)|2
2 1 2 1
≤ C(ν 3 + νt)− 2 min((ν 3 + νt) 2 , 1 − y 2 ) + C ≤ C,
With this choice of ρ, we deduce that

≤ C ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −1 kρ[∇∂z p̄ + ∇(u · ∇u3 )]k2L2 L2 + νk∆ū3 k2L2 L2

≤ C ku(0)k2H 2 + νk∆ū3 k2L2 L2 + νk∇∂z p̄k2L2 L2
2 1

+ ν −1 k∇(ū · ∇ū3 )k2L2 L2 + ν −1 k(ν 3 + νt) 2 ∇(u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 L2 ,
which along with Lemma 12.3, (12.9), (12.10), (12.6) and Lemma 11.10 gives

≤ C 1 + ν −2 E22 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 .
This proves our result due to the choice of ρ.
13. Energy estimates for nonzero modes:semi-linear part

In this part, the energy estimate is based on the formulation in terms of (∆u2 , ω 2 ):


 ∂t (∆u2 ) − ν∆2 u2 + y∂x ∆u2 + (∂x2 + ∂z2 )(u · ∇u2 ) − ∂y [∂x (u · ∇u1 ) + ∂z (u · ∇u3 )] = 0,


 ∂t ω 2 − ν∆ω 2 + y∂x ω 2 + ∂z u2 + ∂z (u · ∇u1 ) − ∂x (u · ∇u3 ) = 0,
 ∂y u2 (t, x, ±1, z) = u2 (t, x, ±1, z) = 0, u2 |t=0 (x, y, z) = u2 (0),



 2
ω (x, ±1, z) = 0, ω 2 |t=0 = ∂x u3 (0) − ∂z u1 (0).
We denote
Z
b =∆
b k,ℓ = ∂y2 − k2 − ℓ2 , 1
∆ fk,ℓ(y) = f (x, y, z)e−ikx−iℓz dxdz.
2π T2
Taking Fourier transform in (x, z), we obtain

 b 2 ) − ν∆
∂t (∆u b 2 u2 + iky ∆u
b 2 − (k2 + ℓ2 )(u · ∇u2 )k,ℓ

 k,ℓ

k,ℓ k,ℓ




 − ∂y ∂x (u · ∇u ) + ∂z (u · ∇u3 ) k,ℓ = 0,
1

2
∂t ωk,ℓ − ν(∂y2 − k2 − l2 )ωk,ℓ
2
+ ikyωk,ℓ2
+ iℓu2k,ℓ + iℓ(u · ∇u1 )k,ℓ − ik(u · ∇u3 )k,ℓ = 0,




 ∂y u2k,ℓ |y=±1 = u2k,ℓ |y=±1 = 0, u2k,ℓ |t=0 = u2k,ℓ (0),


 2 2
ωk,ℓ |y=±1 = 0, ωk,ℓ |t=0 = iku3k,ℓ (0) − iℓu1k,ℓ (0).
√
Let a ≥ 0 and η = k2 + ℓ2 . We introduce the following norms:
1/3 t 1/3 t
kf k2X a =η|k|keaν (−∂y , iη)f k2L2 L2 + νη 2 keaν (∂y2 − η 2 )f k2L2 L2
k,ℓ
1/3 t 1/3 t
+ ν 3/2 keaν ∂y (∂y2 − η 2 )f k2L2 L2 + η 2 keaν (−∂y , iη)f k2L∞ L2
1/3 t
+ ν 1/2 keaν (∂y2 − η 2 )f k2L∞ L2 ,
and
1/3 t 1/3 t 1/3 t
kf k2Y a = keaν f k2L∞ L2 + νkeaν ∂y f k2L2 L2 + ((νk2 )1/3 + νη 2 )keaν f k2L2 L2 ,
k,ℓ
and
X X
kf k2Xa = kfˆ(k, ℓ)k2X a , kf k2Ya = kfˆ(k, ℓ)k2Y a .
k,ℓ k,ℓ
k6=0;ℓ∈Z k6=0;ℓ∈Z
Thus, it is easy to see that

1 1 3 1
(13.1) keaν 3 t ∂x ∇f6= k2L2 L2 + νkeaν 3 t (∂x , ∂z )∆f6= k2L2 L2 + ν 2 keaν 3 t ∂y ∆f6= k2L2 L2
1 1
+ keaν 3 t (∂x , ∂z )∇f6= k2L∞ L2 + ν 1/2 keaν 3 t ∆f6= k2L∞ L2 ≤ kf k2Xa ,
1 1
(13.2) keaν 3 t f6= k2L∞ L2 + νkeaν 3 t ∇f6= k2L2 L2 ≤ kf k2Ya .
2

E3,0 ≤ C ku26= k2X2ǫ + k∂x ω6=
2 2
kY2ǫ .
Proof. Using the fact ω 2 = ∂z u1 −∂x u3 and ∂x u1 +∂y u2 +∂z u3 = 0, we know that (∂x2 +∂z2 )u36= =
2 − ∂ ∂ u2 and
−∂x ω6= z y 6=
1 1 1
ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= kL∞ L2 + ν 2 ke2ǫν 3 t (∂x2 + ∂z2 )∇u36= kL2 L2
1 1
≤ ke2ǫν 3 t ∂x ω6=
2
kL∞ L2 + ke2ǫν 3 t ∂z ∂y u26= kL∞ L2
1 1 1 1
+ ν 2 ke2ǫν 3 t ∂x ∇ω6=
2
kL2 L2 + ν 2 ke2ǫν 3 t ∂z ∂y ∇u26= kL2 L2 ,
from which, (13.1), (13.2) and the definition of E3,0 , we deduce the lemma.
In what follows, we take ǫ = ǫ1 /8.
13.1. Estimate of E3,0 .
3 1
2
E3,0 + ku26= k2X2ǫ ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C E34 /ν 2 + E22 E32 /ν 2 + E12 E3 E5 + E12 E32 E52 .
Proof. By Proposition 10.2 and Proposition 10.1 and ∂y u2k,ℓ + iku1k,ℓ + iℓu3k,ℓ = 0, we have

b 2 (0)k2 2 + (k2 + ℓ2 )−1 k∆(iku
ku2k,ℓ k2X 2ǫ ≤ C k∆u b 1
(0) + iℓu 3
(0))k2
2
k,ℓ
k,ℓ L k,ℓ k,ℓ L
1/3 1/3

+ Cν −1 ke2ǫν t [∂x (u · ∇u1 ) + ∂z (u · ∇u3 )]k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (k, ℓ)(u · ∇u2 )k,ℓ k2L2 L2 ,
and

2 2 2
kωk,ℓ kY 2ǫ ≤C kωk,ℓ (0)k2L2
k,ℓ
1/3
+ min (νη 2 )−1 , (νk2 )−1/3 ke2ǫν t (k(u · ∇u3 )k,ℓ − ℓ(u · ∇u1 )k,ℓ )k2L2 L2
1/3 1/3

+ (ℓ2 (|k|η)−1 )ke2ǫν t ∂y u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + (ℓ2 η|k|−1 )ke2ǫν t u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
1/3 1/3
2
≤C kωk,ℓ (0)k2L2 + ν −1 ke2ǫν t (u · ∇u3 )k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (u · ∇u1 )k,ℓ k2L2 L2
1/3 t 1/3 t

+ (ℓ2 (|k|η)−1 )ke2ǫν ∂y u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + (ℓ2 η|k|−1 )ke2ǫν u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 .
Using the fact that
X 1/3 1/3

k2 (ℓ2 (|k|η)−1 )ke2ǫν t ∂y u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + (ℓ2 η|k|−1 )ke2ǫν t u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
k6=0;ℓ∈Z
X 1/3 t
X
≤ η|k|ke2ǫν (∂y , iη)u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 ≤ ku2k,ℓ k2X 2ǫ = ku26= k2X2ǫ ,
k,ℓ
k6=0;ℓ∈Z k6=0;ℓ∈Z
we deduce that
X
2 2
k∂x ω6= kY2ǫ ≤ C 2
k2 kωk,ℓ (0)k2L2
k6=0;ℓ∈Z
2ǫν 1/3 t 1/3
+ ν −1 ke (u · ∇u3 )k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (u · ∇u1 )k,ℓ k2L2 L2
X 1/3 1/3

+C k2 (ℓ2 (|k|η)−1 )ke2ǫν t ∂y u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + (ℓ2 η|k|−1 )ke2ǫν t u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
k6=0;ℓ∈Z
1/3 1/3

2
≤ Ckω6= (0)k2H 1 + Cν −1 ke2ǫν t ∂x (u · ∇u3 )k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t ∂x (u · ∇u1 )k2L2 L2 + Cku26= k2X2ǫ .
Then we infer from Lemma 13.1 that
2

E3,0 + ku26= k2X2ǫ ≤ C ku26= k2X2ǫ + k∂x ω6=
2 2
kY2ǫ
1/3 1/3

2
≤ Ckω6= (0)k2H 1 + Cν −1 ke2ǫν t ∂x (u · ∇u3 )k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t ∂x (u · ∇u1 )k2L2 L2 + Cku26= k2X2ǫ
1/3 1/3

2
≤ Ckω6= (0)k2H 1 + Cν −1 ke2ǫν t ∂x (u · ∇u3 )k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t ∂x (u · ∇u1 )k2L2 L2
X 1/3 1/3

+ Cν −1 ke2ǫν t [∂x (u · ∇u1 ) + ∂z (u · ∇u3 )]k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (k, ℓ)(u · ∇u2 )k,ℓ k2L2 L2
k6=0;ℓ∈Z
X
+C k∆ b k,l (iku1 (0) + iℓu3 (0))k2 2
b k,ℓ u2 (0)k2 2 + (k2 + ℓ2 )−1 k∆
k,ℓ L k,ℓ k,ℓ L
k6=0;ℓ∈Z

2 2ǫν 1/3 t 2ǫν 1/3 t
≤ Ckω6= (0)k2H 1
+ Cν −1
ke 3 2
∂x (u · ∇u )kL2 L2 + ke 1 2
∂x (u · ∇u )kL2 L2
1/3 1/3

+ Cν −1 ke2ǫν t [∂x (u · ∇u1 ) + ∂z (u · ∇u3 )]6= k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (∂x , ∂z )(u · ∇u2 )6= k2L2 L2

+ C k∆u26= (0)k2L2 + k∆u16= (0)k2L2 + k∆u36= (0)k2L2
1/3 1/3
≤ Cku6= (0)k2H 2 + Cν −1 ke2ǫν t (∂x , ∂z )(u · ∇u3 )6= k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t ∂x (u · ∇u1 )6= k2L2 L2
1/3

+ ke2ǫν t (∂x , ∂z )(u · ∇u2 )6= k2L2 L2 .
Let us estimate each term on the right hand side. For k ∈ {2, 3}, we get by Lemma 11.10
that
1/3 t
ke2ǫν (∂x , ∂z )(u6= · ∇uk6= )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −1 E34 ,
and by Lemma 11.15,
1/3 t
ke2ǫν (∂x , ∂z )(u6= · ∇uk )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −1 E22 E32 ,
and by Lemma 11.13 and Lemma 11.15,
1/3 t
ke2ǫν (∂x , ∂z )(u · ∇uk6= )k2L2 L2
1/3 1/3

≤ C ke2ǫν t (∂x , ∂z )(u1 ∂x uk6= )k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (∂x , ∂z )((u2 ∂y + u3 ∂z )uk6= )k2L2 L2
≤ CνE12 E3 E5 + Cν −1 E22 E32 .
Noting that (f g)6= = f¯g6= + f6= ḡ + (f6= g6= )6= . This shows that for k = 2, 3
1/3 t
(13.3) ke2ǫν (∂x , ∂z )(u · ∇uk )6= k2L2 L2 ≤ C ν −1 E34 + ν −1 E22 E32 + νE12 E3 E5 .
1/3 t
ke2ǫν ∂x (u6= · ∇u16= )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −1 E34 ,
and by Lemma 11.13,
1/3 t
ke2ǫν ∂x (u6= · ∇u1 )k2L2 L2 ≤ CνE12 E3 E5 ,
1/3 t
ke2ǫν ∂x (u · ∇u16= )k2L2 L2
1/3 1/3

≤ C ke2ǫν t ∂x (u1 ∂x u16= )k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t ∂x ((u2 ∂y + u3 ∂z )u16= )k2L2 L2
3 1
≤ CνE12 E32 E52 + Cν −1 E22 E32 ,
which show that
1/3 t 3 1
ke2ǫν ∂x (u · ∇u1 )6= k2L2 L2 ≤ C ν −1 E34 + ν −1 E22 E32 + νE12 E3 E5 + νE12 E32 E52 .
3 1
2
E3,0 + ku26= k2X2ǫ ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C E34 /ν 2 + E22 E32 /ν 2 + E12 E3 E5 + E12 E32 E52 .
13.2. Estimate of E3,1 .
4 7 1 3 1
2
E3,1 ≤C ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 + ν − 3 E22 E32 + E12 E3 E5 + E12 E34 E54 + E12 E32 E52 .
Proof. Recall that

( 2
∂t ωk,ℓ − ν(∂y2 − η 2 )ωk,ℓ
2 2
+ ikyωk,ℓ + iℓu2k,ℓ + iℓ(u · ∇u1 )k,ℓ − ik(u · ∇u3 )k,ℓ = 0,
2 2
ωk,ℓ (±1) = 0, ωk,ℓ |t=0 = iku3k,ℓ (0) − iℓu1k,ℓ (0).
2
k(k, ℓ)ωk,ℓ 2 2
k2Y 2ǫ ≤ Cη 2 kωk,ℓ kY 2ǫ
k,ℓ k,ℓ
−1 2ǫν 1/3 t
≤ Cη 2 kωk,ℓ
2
(0)k2L2 + Cη 2 νη 2 ke (k(u · ∇u3 )k,l − ℓ(u · ∇u1 )k,ℓ )k2L2 L2
1/3 t
+ Cη 2 min{(νη 2 )−1 , (νk2 )−1/3 }ke2ǫν ℓu2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
2 1/3 t
≤ Cη 2 kωk,ℓ
2
(0)k2L2 + C(νk 2 )− 3 (ℓ2 |k|η)ke2ǫν u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
1/3 t
+ Cν −1 ke2ǫν (k(u · ∇u3 )k,ℓ − ℓ(u · ∇u1 )k,ℓ )k2L2 L2 ,
2
(here we used min{(νη 2 )−1 , (νk2 )−1/3 } ≤ (νη 2 )−1/2 (νk 2 )−1/6 = (νk2 )− 3 |k|η −1 ) and
1/3 t 1/3 t 1/3 t
ke2ǫν 2 2
∂y ωk,ℓ kL∞ L2 + νke2ǫν ∂y2 ωk,ℓ
2 2
kL2 L2 + νη 2 ke2ǫν 2 2
∂y ωk,ℓ kL2 L2
2

2
≤ C k∂y ωk,ℓ (0)k2L2 + (ν/|k|)− 3 kωk,ℓ
2
(0)k2L2
2
1/3 1/3

+ C(ν/|k|)− 3 (ℓ2 (|k|η)−1 )ke2ǫν t ∂y u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + (ℓ2 η|k|−1 )ke2ǫν t u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
1/3 t
+ Cν −1 ke2ǫν (k(u · ∇u3 )k,ℓ − ℓ(u · ∇u1 )k,ℓ )k2L2 L2
2

≤ C 1 + (νk2 )− 3 k∂y ωk,ℓ 2
(0)k2L2 + k2 kωk,ℓ2
(0)k2L2
2
1/3 1/3

+ C(νk 2 )− 3 (ℓ2 |k|η −1 )ke2ǫν t ∂y u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + (ℓ2 η|k|)ke2ǫν t u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
1/3 t
+ Cν −1 ke2ǫν (k(u · ∇u3 )k,ℓ − ℓ(u · ∇u1 )k,ℓ )k2L2 L2 ,
which show that
1/3 t 1/3 t 1/3 t
ke2ǫν 2 2
∂y ωk,ℓ kL∞ L2 + νke2ǫν 2 2
(∂y2 − η 2 )ωk,ℓ kL2 L2 /2 + ke2ǫν 2 2
(k, ℓ)ωk,ℓ kL∞ L2
1/3 t 1/3 t
≤ ke2ǫν 2 2
∂y ωk,ℓ kL∞ L2 + νke2ǫν ∂y2 ωk,ℓ
2 2
kL2 L2
1/3 t 1/3 t
+ νη 2 ke2ǫν 2 2
(k, ℓ)ωk,ℓ kL2 L2 + ke2ǫν 2 2
(k, ℓ)ωk,ℓ kL∞ L2
1/3 t 1/3
≤ ke2ǫν 2 2
∂y ωk,ℓ kL∞ L2 + νke2ǫν t ∂y2 ωk,ℓ2 2 2 2
kL2 L2 + k(k, ℓ)ωk,l kY 2ǫ
k,ℓ

2 − 23 2 2 2 2 2
≤ C 1 + (νk ) k∂y ωk,ℓ(0)kL2 + η kωk,ℓ (0)kL2
2
1/3 1/3

+ C(νk 2 )− 3 (ℓ2 |k|η −1 )ke2ǫν t ∂y u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + (ℓ2 η|k|)ke2ǫν t u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
1/3 t
+ Cν −1 ke2ǫν (k(u · ∇u3 )k,ℓ − ℓ(u · ∇u1 )k,ℓ )k2L2 L2 .
Using the fact that
X 1/3 1/3

(ℓ2 |k|η −1 )ke2ǫν t ∂y u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + (ℓ2 η|k|)ke2ǫν t u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
k6=0;ℓ∈Z
X 1/3 t
X
≤ η|k|ke2ǫν (∂y , iη)u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 ≤ ku2k,ℓ k2X 2ǫ = ku26= k2X2ǫ ,
k,ℓ
k6=0;ℓ∈Z k6=0;ℓ∈Z
we deduce that
2 1/3 1/3
kL∞ L2 + νke2ǫν t ∆ω6=
2 2
ν 3 ke2ǫν t ∇ω6= 2 2
kL2 L2
2 X 1/3 1/3 1/3

≤ ν3 2 2
ke2ǫν t ∂y ωk,ℓ 2 2
kL∞ L2 + νke2ǫν t (∂y2 − η 2 )ωk,ℓ 2 2
kL2 L2 + ke2ǫν t (k, ℓ)ωk,ℓ kL∞ L2
k6=0;ℓ∈Z
X 2 2
≤C ν 3 1 + (νk 2 )− 3 2
k∂y ωk,ℓ (0)k2L2 + η 2 kωk,ℓ
2
(0)k2L2
k6=0;ℓ∈Z
X 1/3 1/3

+C (ℓ2 |k|η −1 )ke2ǫν t ∂y u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + (ℓ2 η|k|)ke2ǫν t u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
k6=0;ℓ∈Z
1 1/3 t
+ Cν − 3 ke2ǫν (∂x (u · ∇u3 ) − ∂z (u · ∇u1 ))6= k2L2 L2
1 1/3 t
2
≤ Ckω6= (0)k2H 1 + Cku26= k2X2ǫ + Cν − 3 ke2ǫν (∂x (u · ∇u3 ) − ∂z (u · ∇u1 ))6= k2L2 L2 .
Now let us estimate each term on the right hand side. By (13.3), we have
1/3 t
ke2ǫν ∂x (u · ∇u3 )6= k2L2 L2 ≤ C ν −1 E34 + ν −1 E22 E32 + νE12 E3 E5 .

1/3 t 5
ke2ǫν ∂z (u6= · ∇u16= )6= k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν − 3 E34 ,
1/3 t 3 1
ke2ǫν ∂z (u6= · ∇u1 )6= k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν 1/3 E12 E3 E5 + E34 E54 ,
1/3 t
ke2ǫν ∂z (u · ∇u16= )k2L2 L2
1/3 1/3

≤ C ke2ǫν t ∂z (u1 ∂x u16= )k2L2 L2 + ke2ǫν t ∂z ((u2 ∂y + u3 ∂z )u16= )k2L2 L2
3 1
≤ Cν 1/3 E12 E3 E5 + E34 E54 + Cν −1 E22 E32 ,
which show that
1/3 t
5 1 1 7 1
ke2ǫν ∂z (u · ∇u1 )6= k2L2 L2 ≤ C ν − 3 E34 + ν −1 E22 E32 + ν 3 E12 E3 E5 + ν 3 E12 E34 E54 .
2 2 1/3 t 1/3
E3,1 = ν 3 ke2ǫν ∇ω6= kL∞ L2 + νke2ǫν t ∆ω6=
2 2 2 2
kL2 L2
4 7 1
≤ Ckω 2 (0)k2H 1 + Cku26= k2X2ǫ + C ν −2 E34 + ν − 3 E22 E32 + E12 E3 E5 + E12 E34 E54 ,
which along with Proposition 13.1 gives
7 1 3 1
E32 ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C E34 /ν 2 + E22 E32 /ν 2 + E12 E3 E5 + E12 E34 E54 + E12 E32 E52 .
14. Energy estimates for nonzero modes:quasi-linear part

◦ (k)
14.1. Resolvent estimate of the linearized operator. Let J(Ω), J2,0 (Ω) denote the
closure of the set of vector field, which is smooth and solenoidal in Ω and vanish on ∂Ω, in
the topology, respectively, of L2 (Ω) and Sobolev space W k,2 (Ω). In this section, u, v stands
for generic functions rather than the solution introduced in section 1.
We define

Q(u, v) = P u · ∇v + v · ∇u ,
Q1 (f, v) = Q((f, 0, 0), v), A[V ] v = νP∆v − Q1 (V, v).
◦
Here V satisfies (4.2) and P is a projector in L2 (Ω) onto J (Ω). Then the operator A[V ] defined
(2)
on J2,0 (Ω) is invariant in the subspace H = f ∈ L2 (Ω)|P0 f = 0 .
We denote by m(ν, V ) the upper bound of the real parts of points of the spectrum of A[V ]
(2)
in the subspace J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H. More precisely, we consider A[V ] as a closed linear operator in
◦ (2)
the Hilbert space J(Ω) ∩ H with the domain D(A[V ] ) = J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H.
Let κ = ∂z V /∂y V . For v = (v 1 , v 2 , v 3 ), we introduce the notations:

kvk2Z 1 =ν −1 k∇(v 2 + κv 3 )k2L2 + k∂x v 3 k2L2 ,
[V ]
1
kvk2Z 2 =ν 3 k∂x2 v 3 k2L2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 3 k2L2 + ν k∇∂x2 v 3 k2L2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 3 k2L2
[V ]
1 5
+ ν 3 k∂x ∇(v 2 + κv 3 )k2L2 + νk∂x ∆(v 2 + κv 3 )k2L2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆v 3 k2L2 .
The following Lemma ensures that k · kZ 2 defines a norm (in a subspace).

[V ]
(3)
Lemma 14.1. It holds that for any v ∈ J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H,
1 1
C −1 ν 3 k∂x2 vk2L2 ≤ kvk2Z 2 ≤ Cν 3 k∂x vk2H 2 .
[V ]
and more precisely, we have

1
ν 3 k∂x2 v 2 k2L2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 2 k2L2 + ν k∇∂x2 v 2 k2L2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 2 k2L2 ≤ Ckvk2Z 2 .
[V ]
Proof. The upper bound of first inequality is obvious. For the lower bound, it is enough to
note that
−∂x2 v 1 = ∂x ∂y (v 2 + κv 3 ) + ∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 3 − ∂y κ∂x v 3 .
k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 2 kL2 + k∂x2 v 2 kL2
≤ k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )(v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )(κv 3 )kL2 + k∂x2 (v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + kκ∂x2 v 3 kL2

≤ kκkL∞ + 1 k∂x ∇(v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + kκkL∞ k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 3 kL2 + k(∂z − κ∂y )κkL∞ k∂x v 3 kL2
+ k∂x2 (v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + kκkL∞ k∂x2 v 3 kL2
1
≤ C k∂x ∇(v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 3 kL2 + k∂x v 3 kL2 + k∂x2 v 3 kL2 ≤ Cν − 6 kvkZ 2 ,
[V ]
and
k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 2 kL2 + k∇∂x2 v 2 kL2
≤ k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )(v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )(κv 3 )kL2
+ k∇∂x2 (v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + k∇(κ∂x2 v 3 )kL2

≤ C (1 + kκkH 2 )k∂x ∇(v 2 + κv 3 )kH 1 + k∇∂x (κ(∂z − κ∂y )v 3 )kL2 + k∇∂x (v 3 (∂z − κ∂y )κ)kL2

+ k∇∂x2 (v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + kκkH 2 k∂x2 v 3 kH 1

≤ C k∂x ∆(v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + kκkH 2 k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 3 kH 1 + k(∂z − κ∂y )κkH 2 k∂x v 3 kH 1

+ k∇∂x2 (v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + k∇∂x2 v 3 kL2
1
≤ C k∂x ∆(v 2 + κv 3 )kL2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 3 kL2 + k∇∂x2 v 3 kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 kvkZ 2 .
[V ]

Here we used k(∂z − κ∂y )κ)kH 2 ≤ C kκkH 3 + kκkH 2 k∂y κkH 2 ≤ C.
1 (3)
Proposition 14.1. Let λ ∈ C, Re(λ) ∈ [0, ǫ1 ν 3 ]. It holds that for any v ∈ J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H,
kvkZ 2 ≤ Ck(A[V ] + λ)vkZ 1 .
[V ] [V ]
1
Proof. Let ~g = (A[V ] + λ)v = (g1 , g 2 , g3 ) and λ = iλi + aν 3 with λi ∈ R, a ∈ [0, ǫ1 ). Due to
∂x V = 0, we have

−A[V ] v = P − ν∆v + V ∂x v + (∂y V (v 2 + κv 3 ), 0, 0) ,
Then we get
1
P(−ν∆v + V ∂x v) + P(∂y V (v 2 + κv 3 ), 0, 0) − iλi v − aν 3 v = ~g.
This means that

 1
 2 3
 − ν∆ + V ∂x − iλI − aν v + (∂y V (v + κv ), 0, 0) + ∇P + ~g = 0,
 3
divv = 0, ∆P = −2∂y V (∂x v 2 + κ∂x v 3 ),



 v| = (∂ P − ν∆v 2 )| = 0.
y=±1 y y=±1
Let W = v 2 + κv 3 , U = v 3 . Then (W, U ) satisfies

 1

 − ν∆W + (∂x V − iλi )W − aν 3 W + (∂y + κ∂z )P



 + (g2 + κg 3 ) + 2ν∇κ · ∇U + ν(∆κ)U = 0,


1
− ν∆U + (∂x V − iλi )U − aν 3 U + ∂z P + g3 = 0,



 ∆P = −2∂ (∂ V W ), W |
x y = ∂ W|
y=±1 = U|
y y=±1 y=±1 = 0.
Here we used ∂y W |y=±1 = (∂y v 2 + (∂y κ)v 3 + κ∂y v 3 )|y=±1 = (−∂x v 1 − ∂z v 3 + (∂y κ)v 3 +
κ∂y v 3 )|y=±1 = 0.
We denote
Z Z
1 ik(x−x1 ) 1
vk (x, y, z) = e v(x1 , y, z)dx1 , ~gk (x, y, z) = eik(x−x1 )~g (x1 , y, z)dx1 ,
2π T 2π 2πT
Z
1
Pk (x, y, z) = eik(x−x1 ) P (x1 , y, z)dx1 , Wk = vk2 + κvk3 , Uk = vk3 .
2π 2πT
Then (Wk , Uk ) satisfies

 1

 − ν∆Wk + ik(V − λi /k)Wk − aν 3 Wk + (∂y + κ∂z )Pk





 + (gk2 + κgk3 ) + 2ν∇κ · ∇Uk + ν(∆κ)Uk = 0,
1
 − ν∆Uk + ik(V − λI /k)Uk − aν 3 Uk + ∂z Pk + gk3 = 0,



 ∆Pk = −2ik∂y V Wk , Wk |y=±1 = ∂y Wk |y=±1 = Uk |y=±1 = 0,



∂x Wk = ikWk , ∂x Uk = ikUk , ∂x Pk = ikPk .
For k 6= 0, we apply Proposition 9.1 to obtain

1
ν 3 k∂x2 Uk k2L2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )Uk k2L2 + ν k∇∂x2 Uk k2L2 + k∇∂x (∂z − κ∂y )Uk k2L2
1 5
+ ν 3 k∂x ∇Wk k2L2 + νk∂x ∆Wk k2L2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆Uk k2L2 ≤ Cν −1 k∇(gk2 + κgk3 )k2L2 + k∂x gk3 k2L2 .
which gives by Plancherel’s theorem that

1
1 5
+ ν 3 k∂x ∇W k2L2 + νk∂x ∆W k2L2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆U k2L2 ≤ Cν −1 k∇(g3 + κg 2 )k2L2 + k∂x g 3 k2L2 .
Recalling that W = v 2 + κv 3 , U = v 3 and the definition of Z[V

1 , Z 2 , we infer that
] [V ]
kvk2Z 2 ≤ Ck~g k2Z 1 = Ck(A[V ] + λ)vk2Z 1 .

[V ] [V ] [V ]
This finished the proof of the proposition.

(2)
Therefore, the spectrum of A[V ] in the subspace J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H does not contain the region
1
λ ∈ C|Re(λ) ∈ [−ǫ1 ν 3 , 0] , so does that of A[y+s(V −y)] for s ∈ [0, 1], which implies m(ν, y +
1
s(V − y)) 6∈ (−ǫ1 ν 3 , 0). Moreover P∆ is a dissipative self-adjoint operator with compact
resolvent, and A[y+s(V −y)] for s ∈ [0, 1] form a continuous family of operators with relative
compact perturbations. In particular, the spectrum of A[y+s(V −y)] is always discrete and
depends continuously on s, and m(ν, y + s(V − y)) is a continuous function of s. We also
know that m(ν, y) < 0, thus,
1 1
m(ν, y) ≤ −ǫ1 ν 3 , m(ν, y + s(V − y)) ≤ −ǫ1 ν 3 for s ∈ [0, 1].
1
Due to m(ν, V ) ≤ −ǫ1 ν , there holds that for µ ∈ (0, −m(ν, V )),
3
(2)
keA[V ] t f kH 1 ≤ C(ν, µ, V )e−µt kf kH 1 for any f ∈ J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H, t > 0.
1
14.2. Space-time estimate via freezing the coefficient in time. Let tj = jν − 3 , Ij =
[tj , tj+1 ) ∩ [0, T ]. We define
Vj (y, z) = y + u1,0 (tj , y, z), κj = ∂z Vj /∂y Vj , Aj = A[Vj ] ,
1
u1,1 = y + u1 − Vj , t ∈ Ij , j ∈ [0, ν T ) ∩ Z.
3
1/3 t
Then eaν ∼ eaj for t ∈ Ij . We denote
1
kvkZ l = kvkZ l for j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z, l ∈ {1, 2}.
j [Vj ]
Recall that u6= satisfies

∂t u6= − νP∆u6= + Q1 (y, u6= ) + Q(u, u6= ) + P(u6= · ∇u6= )6= = 0,
We can write

Q1 (y, u6= ) + Q(u, u6= ) =Q1 (y + u1 , u6= ) + Q (0, u2 , u3 ), u6=

=Q1 (Vj , u6= ) + Q1 (u1,1 , u6= ) + Q (0, u2 , u3 ), u6= .
Then we have
∂t u6= − Aj u6= + ~g = 0 for t ∈ Ij ,
where
~g = Q1 (u1,1 , u6= ) + Q((0, u2 , u3 ), u6= ) + P(u6= · ∇u6= )6= .
1
We define ~g(j) , ~u[j] for j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z iteratively by solving
j−1
X
~g(j) (t) = 0 for t 6∈ Ij , ~g(j) (t) = ~g + (Ak − Aj )~u[k] for t ∈ Ij ,
k=0
(3)
∂t~u[j] − Aj ~u[j] + ~g(j) = 0, ~u[j](t) ∈ J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H, for t ∈ [0, +∞),
1
~u[0] (0) = P6= u(0), ~u[j](0) = 0 for j ∈ (0, ν T ) ∩ Z.
3
Then we find that

j
X 1
u6= = ~u[k] for t ∈ Ij , j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z, ~u[j] (t) = 0 for 0 ≤ t < tj .
k=0
1
Proposition 14.2. Let ǫ = ǫ1 /8 and Vj satisfy (4.2) for j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z. Then it holds that
1/3 t 1/3 t 1
ke4ǫν ~u[j] kL2 Z 2 ≤ Cke4ǫν ~g(j) kL2 Z 1 ≤ Ce4ǫj k~g(j) kL2 Z 1 for j ∈ (0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z,
j j j
4ǫν 1/3 t 4ǫν 1/3 t

ke ~u[0] kL2 Z02 ≤ C ku(0)kH 2 + ke ~g(0) kL2 Z01 ≤ C ku(0)kH 2 + k~g kL2 (I0 ,Z01 ) .
1/3 t
Proof. Here we just establish a priori estimates of the solution under the assumption e4ǫν ~u[j] ∈
L2 (0, +∞; Zj2 ). Rigorous justification could consult section 4.2 in [12].
We decompose ~u[0] = uH + uI , where uH and uI solve
(
(∂t − ν∆ + y∂x )uI + (u2I , 0, 0) + ∇PI + ~g(0) = 0,
divuI = 0, ∆P = −2∂x u2I , uI |t=0 = 0, uI |y=±1 = 0,
and
(
(∂t − ν∆ + y∂x )uH + (u2H , 0, 0) + ∇PH = 0,
divuH = 0, ∆P = −2∂x u2H , uH |t=0 = P6= u(0), uH |y=±1 = 0.
That is,

∂t uI − A0 uI + ~g(0) = 0,
∂t uH − A0 uI = 0.
For λ ∈ R, let
Z ∞ 1 1
vj (λ, x, y, z) = ~u[j] (t)e−itλ+4ǫν 3 t dt j ∈ (0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z,
Z0 ∞ 1
Z ∞ 1 1
v0 (λ, x, y, z) = uI (t)e−itλ+4ǫν 3 t dt, e
~g(j) (λ) = ~g(j) (t)e−itλ+4ǫν 3 t j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z.
0 0
Then we have
1 (3) 1
(Aj − iλ + 4ǫν 3 )vj = ~e
g (j) , vj ∈ J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H, j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z.
1
kvj kZ 2 ≤ Ck(Aj − iλ + 4ǫν 3 )vj kZ 1 = Ck~e
g(j) kZ 1 .
j j j
1
By Plancherel’s theorem, it holds that for j ∈ [0, ν T ) ∩ Z, 3
1/3 t 1/3
ke4ǫν ~u[j] kL2t Z 2 ≤ Ckvj kL2 Z 2 ≤ Ck~e
g (j) kL2 Z 1 ≤ Cke4ǫν t~g(j) kL2 Z 1 ≤ Ce4ǫj k~g(j) kL2 Z 1 .
j λ j λ j j j
This proves the first inequality of the lemma, and

1/3 t
(14.1) ke4ǫν uI kL2 Z 2 ≤ Ce4ǫj k~g(0) kL2 Z01 .
j
Let 2
ωH = ∂z u1H − ∂x u3H .
Due to + ∂y u2H + ∂z u3H = 0, we know that (∂x2 + ∂z2 )u3H =
∂x u1H
2 −
−∂x ωH ∂z ∂y u2H . Using the fact that k(∂x , ∂z )(f1 , f2 )k2L2 = k(∂z f1 − ∂x f2 , ∂x f1 + ∂z f2 )k2L2 ,
we deduce that
kL2 + k∂x ∂y u2H k2L2 ≤ k∂x ωH
2 2
k∂x (∂x , ∂z )(u1H , u3H )k2L2 = k∂x ωH kL2 + k∂x ∇u2H k2L2 ,
2 2
kL2 + k∂x ∇∂y u2H k2L2 ≤ k∂x ∇ωH

2 2
k∂x ∇(∂x , ∂z )(u1H , u3H )k2L2 = k∂x ∇ωH kL2 + Ck∂x ∆u2H k2L2 ,
2 2
k(∂x , ∂z )∆(u1H , u3H )k2L2 = k∆ωH kL2 + k∂y ∆u2H k2L2 .

2 2
On the other hand, for j = 0, Vj = y, κj = 0. Thus,

1 1
kuH k2Z 2 =ν 3 k∂x (∂x , ∂z )u3H k2L2 + νk∂x ∇(∂x , ∂z )u3H k2L2 + ν 3 k∂x ∇u2H k2L2
0
5
+ νk∂x ∆u2H k2L2 + ν 3 k∂x ∆u3H k2L2 .
This shows that
1 1
(14.2) 2 2
kuH k2Z 2 ≤ C ν 3 k∂x ωH kL2 + νk∂x ∇ωH2 2
kL2 + ν 3 k∂x ∇u2H k2L2 + νk∂x ∆u2H k2L2
0
5
2

+ Cν 3 k∆ωH kL2 + k∂y ∆u2H kL2 .
Recall that uH satisfies
(
(∂t − ν∆ + y∂x )uH + (u2H , 0, 0) + ∇PH = 0,
divuH = 0, ∆P = −2∂x u2H , uH |t=0 = P6= u(0).
Then (ωH 2 , ∆u2 ) satisfies
H


 ∂t (∆u2H ) − ν∆(∆u2H ) + y∂x (∆u2H ) = 0,

 2
 uH |y=±1 = ∂y u2H |y=±1 = 0, u2H |t=0 = u26= (0),
2 2 2


 ∂t ωH − ν∆ωH + y∂x ωH + ∂z u2H = 0,

 2 2
ωH |y=±1 = 0, ωH |t=0 = (∂z u16= (0) − ∂x u36= (0)).
√
ˆ =∆
Let ∆ ˆ k,ℓ := ∂ 2 − k2 − ℓ2 , η = k2 + ℓ2 , and
y
Z Z
j j −i(kx+ℓz) 2 2
uk,ℓ (y) = uH (x, y, z)e dxdz, ωk,ℓ(y) = ωH (x, y, z)e−i(kx+ℓz) dxdz.
T2 T2
Taking Fourier transformation in x, z, we obtain
 ˆ 2 ) − ν ∆(ˆ ∆u
ˆ 2 ) + iky(∆uˆ 2 ) = 0,
 ∂t (∆u
 k,ℓ k,ℓ k,ℓ


 u2 |y=±1 = ∂y u2 |y=±1 = 0,
k,ℓ k,ℓ
 2 ˆ
 ∂t ωk,ℓ − ν ∆ω 2 2 2
 k,ℓ + ikyωk,ℓ + iℓuk,ℓ = 0,

 2
ωk,ℓ |y=±1 = 0.
1 1 1 1
νkeaν 3 t (∂y , η)ωk,ℓ
2 2
kL2 L2 + ν 3 keaν 3 t ωk,ℓ
2 2 2
kL2 L2 ≤ C kωk,ℓ (0)k2L2 + |ηk|−1 keaν 3 t (∂y , η)iℓu2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 ,
1 1 1
νkeaν 3 t (∂y , η)(k, ℓ)ωk,ℓ
2
k2L2 L2 + ν 3 keaν 3 t (k, ℓ)ωk,ℓ
2 2
kL2 L2
1
≤ C (k2 + ℓ2 )kωk,ℓ 2
(0)k2L2 + min((νη 2 )−1 , (νk2 )−1/3 )keaν 3 t (k, ℓ)iℓu2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 ,
and
1 2 2
1
2 2
νkeaν 3 t ∂y2 ωk,ℓ kL2 L2 ≤Cν − 3 |k| 3 kωk,ℓ
2
(0)k2L2 + |ηk|−1 keaν 3 t (∂y , η)iℓu2k,ℓ k2L2 L2
2
+ Ck∂y ωk,ℓ (0)k2L2 .
Noting that min((νη 2 )−1 , (νk2 )−1/3 ) ≤ ν −2/3 η −1 |k|−1/3 , we deduce that
1 1 1 5 1
(14.3) 2 2
νkeaν 3 t k(∂y , η)ωk,ℓ 2 2
kL2 L2 + ν 3 keaν 3 t kωk,ℓ 2 2
kL2 L2 + ν 3 keaν 3 t (∂y2 − η 2 )ωk,ℓ kL2 L2
1
2
≤ C kηωk,ℓ (0)k2L2 + k∂y ωk,ℓ
2
(0)k2L2 + |kη|keaν 3 t (∂y , η)u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 .
By proposition 10.2, we have

1 2 1 3 1
ν eaν 3 t η(∂y2 − η 2 )u2k,ℓ L2 L2 + |kη|keaν 3 t (∂y , η)u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + ν 2 keaν 3 t ∂y (∂y2 − η 2 )u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2

≤ C kη −1 ∂y (∂y2 − η 2 )u2k,ℓ (0)k2L2 + k(∂y2 − η 2 )u2k,ℓ (0)k2L2 ,
1 1 1 5 1
νkeaν 3 t k(∂y , η)ωk,ℓ
2 2
kL2 L2 + ν 3 keaν 3 t kωk,ℓ
2 2
kL2 L2 + ν 3 keaν 3 t (∂y2 − η 2 )ωk,ℓ
2 2
kL2 L2
1 2 1 3 1
+ ν eaν 3 t η(∂y2 − η 2 )u2k,ℓ L2 L2 + |kη|keaν 3 t (∂y , η)u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2 + ν 2 keaν 3 t ∂y (∂y2 − η 2 )u2k,ℓ k2L2 L2

2
≤ C kηωk,ℓ (0)k2L2 + k(∂y2 − η 2 )(u1k,ℓ , u3k,l )(0)k2L2 + k(∂y2 − η 2 )u2k,ℓ (0)k2L2 .
Here we used iku1k,ℓ + ∂y u2k,ℓ + iℓu3k,ℓ = 0. This shows that

1 1 1 5 1 1 2
νkeaν 3 t ∂x ∇ωH kL2 L2 + ν 3 keaν 3 t ∂x ωH
2 2
kL2 L2 + ν 3 keaν 3 t ∂y ∇ωH
2 2
kL2 L2 + ν eaν 3 t ∂x ∆u2k,l L2 L2
2 2
1 3 1
+ keaν 3 t ∂x ∇u2H k2L2 L2 + ν 2 keaν 3 t ∂y ∆u2H k2L2 L2 ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 .
5 3
Thanks to (14.2) and ν 3 ≤ ν 2 , and taking a = 4ǫ ≤ ǫ1 , we conclude that
1
ke4ǫν 3 t uH kL2 Z02 ≤ Cku(0)kH 2 ,
from which and (14.1), we deduce that
1 1 1 1
ke4ǫν 3 t~u[0] kL2 Z02 ≤ ke4ǫν 3 t uI kL2 Z02 + ke4ǫν 3 t uH kL2 Z02 ≤ C ku(0)kH 2 + ke4ǫν 3 t~g(0) kL2 Z01

≤ C ku(0)kH 2 + k~g kL2 (I0 ,Z01 ) .
This proves the proposition.
The following lemma gives some important properties of Vj .
1 1
Lemma 14.2. Let Vj satisfy (4.2) for j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z. For j, k ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z, v =
(3)
(v 1 , v 2 , v 3 ) ∈ J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H, we have
2 1 1
kVj − Vk kH 2 + kκj − κk kH 1 ≤ Cν 3 |j − k|E1 , kκj − κk kH 2 ≤ Cν 3 |j − k| 2 E1 ,
2 1
ku1,1 kH 2 ≤ Cν 3 E1 , kvkZ 2 − kvkZ 2 ≤ C|j − k| 2 E1 kvkZ 2 .
j k k
1
For j ∈ [0, ν T ) ∩ Z, t ∈ Ij we have
3
kκj ∇u3 kH 1 ≤ CE1 E2 .

1
For j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z, f~ = (f 1 , f 2 , f 3 ) ∈ H01 (Ω), we have
1 1
ν 1/2 kPf~kZj1 ≤ C k∇f 2 kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )f 3 kL2 + k∂x f 1 kL2 + ν 3 j 2 k∇f 3 kL2 .
Proof. Since k∂y Vj kL∞ ≥ 1−k∂y (Vj −y)kL∞ ≥ 1−CkVj −ykH 4 ≥ 1−Cε0 , we get |∂y Vj | ≥ 1/2
by taking ε0 small enough so that Cε0 ≤ 1/2. Then we have
1
3 ≤ C max k(∂y Vj )−1 k4L∞ , 1 k∂y Vj k3 3 + 1) ≤ C(1 + kVj − ykH 4 3 ≤ C.
H H
∂y Vj
and then
1
kκj kH 3 ≤ Ck∂z Vj kH 3 ≤ CE1 .
∂y Vj H 3
R tj
Thanks to Vj − Vk = ū1,0 (tj , y, z) − ū1,0 (tk , y, z) = tk ∂t ū1,0 (s, y, z)ds, we deduce that
1 2
kVj − Vk kH 2 ≤ |tj − tk |k∂t ū1,0 kL∞ H 2 ≤ Cν − 3 |j − k|νE1 ≤ Cν 3 |j − k|E1 .
Using the formula
∂z Vj ∂z Vk ∂z (Vj − Vk ) (∂z Vk )∂y (Vk − Vj )
κj − κk = − = + ,
∂y Vj ∂y Vk ∂y Vj (∂y Vk )(∂y Vj )
we get

1 κk
kκj − κk kH 1 ≤CkVj − Vk kH 2
∂y Vj +
∂y Vj
H2 H2
2
≤CkVj − Vk kH 2 ≤ Cν |j − k|E1 . 3
By the interpolation, we get

1 1 1 1
kκj − κk kH 2 ≤Ckκj − κk kH
2
1 kκj − κk kH 3 ≤ Ckκj − κk kH 1 (kκj kH 3 + kκk kH 3 )
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
≤Ckκj − κk kH
2
1 E1 ≤ Cν |j − k| E1 .
2 3 2
Rt
For t ∈ Ij , then we have u1,1 = ū1 (t, y, z) − ū1,0 (tj , y, z) = ū1,6= + tj ∂t ū1,0 (s, y, z)dz, so
Z t
1,1 1,6=
ku kH 2 ≤ kū kH 2 + k∂t ū1,0 (s)kH 2 ds ≤ E1,6= + |t − tj |k∂t ū1,0 (s)kL∞ H 2
tj
− 31 2
≤ E1,6= + ν νE1,0 ≤ ν 3 E1 .
1 1
ν 6 k∂x (∂z − κj ∂y )v 3 kL2 − k∂x (∂z − κk ∂y )v 3 kL2 ≤ ν 6 k(κj − κk )∂y ∂x v 3 kL2
1 1 1 1
≤ ν 6 kκj − κk kL∞ k∇∂x v 3 kL2 ≤ Cν 2 |j − k| 2 E1 k∇∂x2 v 3 kL2 ≤ C|j − k| 2 E1 kvkZ 2 ,
k
and
1 1
ν 2 k∇∂x (∂z − κj ∂y )v 3 kL2 − k∇∂x (∂z − κk ∂y )v 3 kL2 ≤ ν 2 k∇[(κj − κk )∂x ∂y v 3 ]kL2
1 5 1 1
≤ Cν 2 kκj − κk kH 2 k∂x ∂y v 3 kH 1 ≤ Cν 6 |j − k| 2 E1 k∂x ∆v 3 kL2 ≤ C|j − k| 2 E1 kvkZ 2 ,
k
and
1 1
ν 6 (k∂x ∇(v 2 + κj v 3 )kL2 − k∂x ∇(v 2 + κj v 3 )kL2 ) ≤ ν 6 k∂x ∇[(κj − κk )v 3 ]kL2
1 1 1 1
≤ Cν 6 kκj − κk kH 2 k∂x v 3 kH 1 ≤ Cν 2 |j − k| 2 E1 k∇∂x2 v 3 kL2 ≤ C|j − k| 2 E1 kvkZ 2 ,
k
and
1 1
ν 2 (k∂x ∆(v 2 + κj v 3 )kL2 − k∂x ∆(v 2 + κj v 3 )kL2 ) ≤ ν 2 k∂x ∆[(κj − κk )v 3 ]kL2
1 5 1 1
≤ Cν 2 kκj − κk kH 2 k∂x v 3 kH 2 ≤ Cν 6 |j − k| 2 E1 k∂x ∆v 3 kL2 ≤ C|j − k| 2 E1 kvkZ 2 .
k
This shows that

1
kvkZ 2 − kvkZ 2 ≤ C|j − k| 2 E1 kvkZ 2 .
j k k
Since |κj | ≤ Ck∇κj kL∞ (1 − |y|) ≤ CE1 (1 − |y|), V0 − y = ū1,0 |t=0 = 0, we have ∂z Vj =
0, κ0 = 0, and then
1 1 1
kκj kH 2 = kκj − κ0 kH 2 ≤ Cν 3 |j| 2 E1 = C(νtj ) 2 E1 ,
which gives
1 2 1
|κj | ≤CE1 min((ν + νtj ) 2 , (1 − |y|)) ≤ CE1 min((ν 3 + νtj ) 2 , (1 − |y|))
2 1
≤CE1 min((ν 3 + νt) 2 , (1 − |y|)) for t ∈ Ij .
Then we infer that for t ∈ Ij
kκj ū3 kH 2 .k∆(κj ū3 )kL2 + kκj ū3 kL2 . kκj ∆ū3 kL2 + k∇κj · ∇ū3 kL2 + k(∆κj , κj )ū3 kL2
2 1
.E1 k min((ν 3 + νt) 2 , (1 − |y|))∆ū3 kL2 + k∇κj kH 2 k∇ū3 kL2
+ k(∆κj , κj )kH 1 kū3 kH 1 ≤ CE1 E2 ,
and then

kκj ∇ū3 kH 1 ≤ C kκj ū3 kH 2 + k(∇κj )ū3 kH 1 ≤ C kκj ū3 kH 2 + k∇κj kH 2 kū3 kH 1 ≤ CE1 E2 .
For f~ ∈ H01 (Ω), we know that
(
Pf~ = f~ + ∇p,
∆p = −divf~, ∂y p|y=±1 = 0.
Without loss of generality, we may assume hp, 1i = 0. Due to κ0 = 0, we have

k∇(f 2 + κj f 3 )kL2 ≤k∇f 2 kL2 + Ckκj kH 2 kf 3 kH 1 ≤ C k∇f 2 kL2 + kκj − κ0 kH 2 k∇f 3 kL2
1 1
≤C k∇f 2 kL2 + ν 3 j 2 k∇f 3 kL2 ,
and

k∇(∂y p + κj ∂z p)kL2 + k∂x ∂z pkL2 ≤ C kpkH 2 + kκj kH 2 k∂z pkH 1 ≤ Ck∆pkL2 ≤ Ckdivf~kL2 ,
which show that
1
ν 2 kPf~kZ 1 ≤ C k∇(f 2 + κj f 3 )kL2 + k∂x f 3 kL2 + k∇(∂y p + κj ∂z p)kL2 + k∂x ∂z pkL2
j
1 1
≤ C k∇f 2 kL2 + ν 3 j 2 k∇f 3 kL2 + k∂x f 3 kL2 + kdivf~kL2
1 1
≤ C k∇f 2 kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )f 3 kL2 + k∂x f 1 kL2 + ν 3 j 2 k∇f 3 kL2 .
14.3. Estimates of quadratic form.
(3)
Lemma 14.3. It holds that for ∂x f = 0, v = (v 1 , v 2 , v 3 ) ∈ J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H,
2
kQ1 (f, v)kZ 1 ≤ Cν − 3 kf kH 2 kvkZ 2 .
[V ] [V ]
Proof. Since Q1 (f, v) = P(f ∂x v + (v · ∇f, 0, 0)), we know that


 Q (f, v) = f ∂x v + (v · ∇f, 0, 0) + ∇P,
 1
∆P = −div f ∂x v + (v · ∇f, 0, 0) = −2∇f · ∂x v,


Q1 (f, v)2 |y=±1 = ∂y P |y=±1 = 0.
Since
k∇(f ∂x v 2 + κf ∂x v 3 )kL2 ≤ Ckf kH 2 k∂x v 2 + κ∂x v 3 kH 1 ≤ Ckf kH 2 k∇(∂x v 2 + κ∂x v 3 )kL2 ,
k∂x (f v 3 )kL2 = kf ∂x (v 3 )kL2 ≤ kf kL∞ k∂x v 3 kL2 ≤ Ckf kH 2 k∂x v 3 kL2 .
we infer that
1
kf ∂x v + (v · ∇f, 0, 0)kZ 1 ≤Cν − 2 k∇(f ∂x v 2 + κf ∂x v 3 )kL2 + k∂x (f v 3 )kL2
[V ]
1
≤Cν − 2 kf kH 2 k∇(∂x v 2 + κ∂x v 3 )kL2 + k∂x (f v 3 )kL2
2
≤Cν − 3 kf kH 2 kvkZ 2 .
[V ]
Thanks to ∂y P |y=±1 = 0, we get by Lemma 11.4 and Lemma 14.1 that

kP kH 2 ≤Ck∆P kL2 ≤ Ck∇f · ∂x vkL2 ≤ C k(∂y f )∂x v 2 kL2 + k(∂z f )∂x v 3 kL2

≤Ck∇f kH 1 k∂x v 2 kL2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 2 kL2 + k∂x v 3 kL2 + k∂x (∂z − κ∂y )v 3 kL2
1
≤Cν − 6 kf kH 2 kvkZ 2 ,
[V ]
which gives
1
k∇(∂y P + κ∂z P )kL2 ≤ C(kP kH 2 + kκkH 2 k∂z P kH 1 ) ≤ CkP kH 2 ≤ Cν − 6 kf kH 2 kvkZ 2 ,
[V ]
− 61
k∂x ∂z P kL2 ≤ CkP kH 2 ≤ Cν kf kH 2 kvkZ 2 .
[V ]
This shows that

1 2
k∇P kZ 1 ≤ Cν − 2 k∇(∂y P + κ∂z P )kL2 + k∂x ∂z P kL2 ≤ Cν − 3 kf kH 2 kvkZ 2 .
[V ] [V ]

2
kQ1 (f, v)kZ 1 ≤ kf ∂x v + (v · ∇f, 0, 0)kZ 1 + k∇P kZ 1 ≤ Cν − 3 kf kH 2 kvkZ 2 .
[V ] [V ] [V ] [V ]

1 (3)
Lemma 14.4. For j ∈ [0, ν T ) ∩ Z, v = (v 1 , v 2 , v 3 ) ∈
3 J2,0 (Ω) ∩ H, t ∈ Ij , we have
kQ((0, u2 , u3 ), v)kZ 1 ≤ Cν −1 E2 kvkZ 2 .
j j
Proof. Let α, β ∈ {2, 3}, t ∈ Ij , and

Wj2 = v 2 + κj v 3 ,
gα,1 = (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )v α , gα,2 = v · ∇ūα ,
G2,1 = g2,1 + κj g3,1 = (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )Wj2 − v 3 (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )κj ,
G2,2 = g2,2 + κj g3,2 , ∆p(3) = −2∂α ūβ ∂β v α , ∂y p(3) |y=±1 = 0.
Then we find that

Q((0, ū2 , ū3 ), v) = P (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )v + (0, v · ∇ū2 , v · ∇ū3 )

= P ((ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )v 1 , g2,1 + g2,2 , g3,1 + g3,2 ) .
and
div((ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )v + (0, v · ∇ū2 , v · ∇ū3 )) = 2∂α ūβ ∂β v α .
Thus, we have
(14.4) Q((0, ū2 , ū3 ), v)2 = g2,1 + g2,2 + ∂y p(3) , Q((0, ū2 , ū3 ), v)3 = g3,1 + g3,2 + ∂z p(3) .
Let us first claim that
(14.5) k∇G2,1 kL2 + k∂x g3,1 kL2 + k∇g2,2 kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )g3,2 kL2 + k∇(κj g3,2 )kL2
1
+ k∆p(3) kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 .
j
Then by (14.4), we have

k∇ Q((0, ū2 , ū3 ), v)2 + κj Q((0, ū2 , ū3 ), v)3 kL2
= k∇(G2,1 + G2,2 + (∂y + κj ∂z )p(3) )kL2
≤ k∇G2,1 kL2 + k∇g2,2 kL2 + k∇(κj g3,2 )kL2 + C(1 + kκj kH 3 )kp(3) kH 2
1
≤ k∇G2,1 kL2 + k∇g2,2 kL2 + k∇(κj g3,2 )kL2 + Ck∆p(3) kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 ,
j
and
1
k∂x (Q((0, ū2 , ū3 ), v)3 )kL2 ≤ k∂x g3,1 kL2 + k∂x g3,2 kL2 + k∂x ∂z p(3) kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 .
j
This gives
kQ((0, ū2 , ū3 ), v)kL2 ≤ CE2 kvkZ 2 .
j
It remains to prove (14.5). By Lemma 11.8, we have

k∇G2,1 kL2 ≤ CE2 kWj2 kH 2 + kv 3 ∇κj kH 1 ≤ CE2 k∆Wj2 kL2 + kv 3 kH 1 k∇κj kH 2
1
≤ CE2 k∂x ∆Wj2 kL2 + k∇∂x2 v 3 kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 .
j
Thanks to ∂x g3,1 = (ū2 ∂y + ū3 ∂z )∂x v 3 , we get by Lemma 11.8 that

1
k∂x g3,1 kL2 ≤ C kū2 kL∞ + kū3 kL∞ k∂x ∇v 3 kL2 ≤ CE2 k∂x ∇v 3 kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 ,
j
We get by Lemma 11.4 that

k∇g2,2 kL2 ≤k∇(v α ∂α ū2 )kL2
≤Ck(∂y , ∂z )ū2 kH 1 (k(v 2 , v 3 )kH 1 + k(∂z − κj ∂y )(v 2 , v 3 )kH 1 )
1
≤CE2 k∇(v 2 , v 3 )kL2 + k∇(∂z − κj ∂y )(v 2 , v 3 )kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 .
j
We write
g3,2 = v · ∇ū3 = (v 2 ∂y + v 3 ∂z )ū3 = Wj2 ∂y ū3 + v 3 (∂z ū3 − κj ∂y ū3 ).
Then by (11.8) and Lemma 11.8, we get
k(∂x , ∂z )(Wj2 ∂y ū3 )kL2 ≤ k((∂x , ∂z )Wj2 )∂y ū3 kL2 + kW 2 (∂z ∂y ū3 )kL2
≤ Ck(∂x , ∂z )Wj2 kH 1 k(∂z , 1)∂y ū3 kL2 + CkWj2 kH 2 k∂z ∂y ū3 kL2
1
≤ CE2 k∆Wj2 kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 ,
j
Due to Lemma 14.2, kκj ∇ū3 kH 1 ≤ CE2 , which along with Lemma 11.8 gives k∂z ū3 −
κj ∂y ū3 kH 1 ≤ CE2 , and then
1
k∇(κj Wj2 ∂y ū3 )kL2 ≤ CkWj2 kH 2 kκj ∂y ū3 kH 1 ≤ Ck∆Wj2 kL2 E2 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 .
j

kv 3 (∂z ū3 − κj ∂y ū3 )kH 1 ≤ C kv 3 kH 1 + k(∂z − κj ∂y )v 3 kH 1 k∂z ū3 − κj ∂y ū3 kH 1
1
≤ CE2 k∇v 3 kL2 + k∇(∂z − κj ∂y )v 3 kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 ,
j
which gives
1
k∇[κj v 3 (∂z ū3 − κj ∂z ū3 )]kL2 ≤ Ckκj kH 2 kv 3 (∂z ū3 − κj ∂z ū3 )kH 1 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 .
j

k(∂x , ∂z )g3,2 kL2 + k∇(κj g2,3 )kL2
≤ C k(∂x , ∂z )(Wj2 ∂y ū3 )kL2 + kv 3 (∂z ū3 − κj ∂z ū3 )kH 1 + k∇(κj Wj2 ∂y ū3 )kL2
1
+ k∇[κj v 3 (∂z ū3 − κj ∂z ū3 )]kL2 ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 .
j
Using ∂y ū2 + ∂z ū3 = 0, we may write

∆p(3) = −2∂α ūβ ∂β v α = −2∂β (∂α ūβ v α ) = −2 ∂y g2,2 + ∂z g3,2 ,
therefore,
1
k∆p(3) kL2 ≤ C(k∇g2,2 kL2 + k∂z g3,2 kL2 ) ≤ Cν − 2 E2 kvkZ 2 .
j
This proves (14.5) and the lemma.

1
14.4. Estimate of E5 . Let N = max([0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z) and we define
N
X
E62 = e6ǫj ku6= k2L2 (Ij ,Z 2) ,
j
j=0

1
ν 3 k∂x2 u26= k2L2 + k∂x2 u36= k2L2 ≤ Cku6= k2Z 2 ,
j
and then
1/3 t 1/3 t
E52 =ν 1/3 ke3ǫν ∂x2 u26= k2L2 L2 + ν 1/3 ke3ǫν ∂x2 u36= k2L2 L2
N
X
≤C ν 1/3 e6ǫj k∂x2 u26= k2L2 (Ij ,L2 ) + k∂x2 u36= k2L2 (Ij ,L2 )
j=0
N
X
≤C e6ǫj ku6= k2L2 (Ij ,Z 2 ) = CE62 .
j
j=0

E52 ≤ E62 ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C E12 + ν −2 E22 E62 + Cν −2 E34 .
1
Proof. For j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z, let
j
X 1/3 t
aj = (j − k + 1)k~u[k] kL2 (Ij ,Z 2) , bj = e−4ǫj ke4ǫν ~u[j]kL2 Z 2 .
j j
k=0
Thanks to the definition of ~g(j) , we have
j−1
X
k~g(j) kL2 Z 1 ≤ k~g kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) + k(Ak − Aj )~u[k] kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) .
j j j
k=0
Notice that
(Ak − Aj )~u[k] = (A[Vk ] − A[Vj ] )~u[k] = Q1 (Vj − Vk , ~u[k] ).
We get by Lemma 14.3 and Lemma 14.2 that

2
k(Ak − Aj )~u[k] kZ 1 ≤ Cν − 3 kVj − Vk kH 2 k~u[k] kZ 2 ≤ C|j − k|E1 k~u[k] kZ 2 .
j j j
Then we infer from Proposition 14.2 that

b0 ≤ C ku(0)kH 2 + k~g kL2 (I0 ,Z01 ) ,
1
and for j ∈ (0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z,
j−1
X
bj ≤ Ck~g(j) kL2 Z 1 ≤ Ck~g kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) + C k(Ak − Aj )~u[k] kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 )
j j j
k=0
j−1
X
≤ Ck~gkL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) + C |j − k|E1 k~u[k] kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) ≤ C k~g kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) + E1 aj .
j j j
k=0
1
For j, k ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z, we get by Lemma 14.2 that
1 1 1/3
k~u[k] kL2 (Ij ,Z 2 ) ≤ 1 + C|j − k| 2 E1 k~u[k] kL2 (Ij ,Z 2) ≤ 1 + C|j − k| 2 E1 e−4ǫj ke4ǫν t ~u[k] kL2 Z 2
j k k
1
≤ (1 + C|j − k| E1 )e−4ǫ(j−k) bk ,
2
which gives
j
X j
X 1
aj = (j − k + 1)k~u[k] kL2 (Ij ,Z 2 ) ≤ (j − k + 1)(1 + C|j − k| 2 E1 )e−4ǫ(j−k) bk
j
k=0 k=0
j
X 3
≤C (j − k + 1) 2 e−4ǫ(j−k) bk ,
k=0
and hence,
j
X j
X
a2j ≤C (j − k + 1)5 e−8ǫ(j−k) b2k ≤C e−7ǫ(j−k) b2k .
k=0 k=0
Thus, we obtain
N
X N
X j
X N X
X N
e6ǫj a2j ≤ C e6ǫj e−7ǫ(j−k) b2k = C e6ǫk−ǫ(j−k)b2k
j=0 j=0 k=0 k=0 j=k
N
X N
X
≤C e6ǫj b2j ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C e6ǫj k~g k2L2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) + E12 a2j .
j
j=0 j=0
Then we conclude that

N
X N
X
E62 ≤ e6ǫj a2j ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C e6ǫj k~g k2L2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) + CE12 E62 .
j
j=0 j=0
Thanks to the definition of ~g , we have

k~g kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) ≤kQ1 (u1,1 , u6= )kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) + kQ((0, u2 , u3 ), u6= )kL2 (Ij ,Z 1)
j j j
+ kP(u6= · ∇u6= )6= kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) .

j
By Lemma 14.3, Lemma 14.2 and Lemma 14.4, we have

2
kQ1 (u1,1 , u6= )kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) ≤ Cν − 3 ku1,1 kL∞ H 2 ku6= kL2 (Ij ,Z 2) ≤ CE1 ku6= kL2 (Ij ,Z 2 ) ,
j j j
2 3 −1
kQ((0, u , u ), u6= )kL2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) ≤ Cν E2 ku6= kL2 (Ij ,Z 2 ) ,
j j
and
ν 1/2 kP(u6= · ∇u6= )6= kZ 1 ≤ C(k∇(u6= · ∇u26= )kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )(u6= · ∇u36= )kL2
j
1 1
+ k∂x (u6= · ∇u16= )kL2
+ ν 3 j 2 k∇(u6= · ∇u36= )kL2 )

≤ Ceǫj k∇(u6= · ∇u26= )kL2 + k(∂x , ∂z )(u6= · ∇u36= )kL2 + k∂x (u6= · ∇u16= )kL2
1

+ ν 3 k∇(u6= · ∇u36= )kL2 .
Summing up, we get by Lemma 11.10 that
N
X N
X
6ǫj
e k~g k2L2 (Ij ,Z 1) ≤C e6ǫj kQ1 (u1,1 , u6= )k2L2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) + kQ((0, u2 , u3 ), u6= )k2L2 (Ij ,Z 1 )
j j j
j=0 j=0

+ kP(u6= · ∇u6= )6= k2L2 (Ij ,Z 1 )
j
N
X N
X
6ǫj
≤C e E12 ku6= k2L2 (Ij ,Z 2 ) +ν −2
E22 ku6= k2L2 (Ij ,Z 2) + e8ǫj ν −1 k∇(u6= · ∇u26= )k2L2 (Ij ,L2 )
j j
j=0 j=0
2

+ k(∂x , ∂z )(u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 (Ij ,L2 ) + k∂x (u6= · ∇u16= )k2L2 (Ij ,L2 ) + ν 3 k∇(u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 (Ij ,L2 )
1 1
≤ C E12 + ν −2 E22 E62 + Cν −1 ke4ǫν 3 t ∇(u6= · ∇u26= )k2L2 L2 + ke4ǫν 3 t (∂x , ∂z )(u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 L2
1 2 1
+ ke4ǫν 3 t ∂x (u6= · ∇u16= )k2L2 L2 + ν 3 ke4ǫν 3 t ∇(u6= · ∇u36= )k2L2 L2

≤ C E12 + ν −2 E22 E62 + Cν −2 E34 .
Then we infer that
N
X
E62 ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C e6ǫj k~g k2L2 (Ij ,Z 1 ) + CE12 E62
j
j=0

≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C E12 + ν −2 E2 E62 + Cν −2 E34 . 2
15. Global stability and long-time behavior

2/3
In this section, we prove Theorem 1.1. Let us assume that ν ∈ (0, ν0 ], ν0 , ǫ ∈ (0, 1), ν0 ≤
1/3
4ǫ < ǫ1 . Then eνt ≤ e4ǫν t for t > 0.
15.1. Global existence and uniqueness. The classical well-posedness theory
ensures that
there exists a unique solution u ∈ C [0, T ∗ ), H 2 (Ω) ∩ L2loc [0, T ∗ ), H 3 (Ω) to the Navier-
Stokes equations (1.1), where T ∗ is the maximal existence time of the solution. Furthermore,
for the linear equation (3.11) and (3.12), it is easy to prove the existence of the solution with

ū1,6= ∈ C [0, T ∗ ), H 2 (Ω) ∩ L2loc [0, T ∗ ), H 3 (Ω) ,

ū1,0 ∈ C [0, T ∗ ), H 4 (Ω) ∩ L2loc [0, T ∗ ), H 5 (Ω) .
To be precise, we write Ej = Ej (T ) for j ∈ {1, 2, 3, 5} and T ∈ (0, T ∗ ). Then Ej (T ) is a

continuous and increasing function of T ∈ (0, T ∗ ), and
lim Ej (T ) ≤ Cku(0)kH 2 ≤ Cc0 ν, j ∈ {1, 2, 3, 5}.
T →0+
Here all norms are taken over the interval [0, T ] unless stated otherwise, such as

kf kLp H s = kf (t)kH s (Ω) Lp (0,T ) , kf kLp Lq = kf (t)kLq (Ω) Lp (0,T ) .
Our goal is to prove that T ∗ = +∞. The proof is based on a continuity argument. Let us
first assume that
(15.1) E1 ≤ ε1 , E2 ≤ ε1 ν, E3 ≤ ε1 ν.
where ε1 is determined later. First of all, we take ε1 < ε0 so that
1
kVj − ykH 4 ≤ E1 < ε0 for j ∈ [0, ν 3 T ) ∩ Z.
Now it follows from Proposition 12.1, Proposition 12.2, Proposition 13.1, Proposition 13.2
and Proposition 14.3 that

E1,0 ≤ Cν −1 kū(0)kH 2 + E2 + E2 E1,0 ,
4
E1,6= ≤ C kū(0)kH 2 + ν −1 E2 E1,6= + ν − 3 E32 ,

E2 ≤ C 1 + ν −1 E2 ku(0)kH 2 + ν −1 E32 ,
3 1
2
E3,0 ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C E34 /ν 2 + E22 E32 /ν 2 + E12 E3 E5 + E12 E32 E52 ,
4 7 1 3 1
2
E3,1 ≤ C ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 + ν − 3 E22 E32 + E12 E3 E5 + E12 E34 E54 + E12 E32 E52 ,

E52 ≤ E62 ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 + C E12 + ν −2 E22 E62 + Cν −2 E34 .
It is easy to see that by taking ε1 small enough, we can deduce from (15.1) that
E3 + E5 ≤ Cku(0)kH 2 ≤ Cc0 ν.
Then we can get

E2 ≤ C ku(0)kH 2 + ε1 E3 ≤ Cku(0)kH 2 ≤ Cc0 ν,
and then

E1,0 ≤ Cν −1 kū(0)kH 2 + E2 ≤ Cν −1 ku(0)kH 2 ≤ Cc0 ,
1 1 2
E1,6= ≤ C kū(0)kH 2 + ν − 3 ε1 E3 ≤ Cν − 3 kū(0)kH 2 ≤ Cc0 ν 3 .
Thus, we have
E1 = E1,0 + ν −2/3 E1,6= ≤ Cc0 .

Now we take c0 > 0 small enough so that Cc0 < ε1 /2. We define

T0 = sup T ∈ (0, T ∗ )| max(νE1 (T ), E2 (T ), E3 (T )) ≤ ε1 ν .
The argument as above implies that T0 = T ∗ , and the argument as below implies that
ku(t)kL∞ ≤ Cν −1 ku(0)kH 2 for any t ∈ [0, T ∗ ), which in turn implies T ∗ = +∞.
15.2. Global stability estimates. By Lemma 12.1, we have

eνt k∆ū2 (t)kL2 + k∇ū3 (t)kL2 ≤ C ku(0)kH 2 + ν −1 E32 ≤ Cku(0)kH 2 .
As ∂y ū2 + ∂z ū3 = 0, we have
kū2 kH 2 + kū3 kH 1 + k∂z ū3 kH 1 ≤ C(k∆ū2 kL2 + k∇ū3 kL2 ),
which implies that
kū2 (t)kH 2 + kū3 (t)kH 1 + k∂z ū3 (t)kH 1 ≤ Ce−νt ku(0)kH 2 .

kū2 (t)kL∞ + kū3 (t)kL∞ ≤ C kū2 (t)kH 2 + kū3 (t)kH 1 + k∂z ū3 (t)kH 1 ≤ Ce−νt ku(0)kH 2 .
This proves (1.5).
Now we prove (1.6). First of all, we have
1
e2ǫν 3 t k(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= (t)kL2 + k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= (t)kL2 ≤ E3,0 ≤ E3 ≤ Cku(0)kH 2 ,
1
k(∂x , ∂z )∂x u6= (t)kL2 ≤ C k(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= (t)kL2 + k(∂x2 + ∂z2 )u36= (t)kL2 ≤ Ce−2ǫν 3 t ku(0)kH 2 .
By (13.1) and Proposition 13.1, we have
1
ν 1/2 e4ǫν 3 t k∆u26= (t)k2L2 ≤ ku26= k2X2ǫ
3 1
≤ Cku6= (0)k2H 2 + C E34 /ν 2 + E22 E32 /ν 2 + E12 E3 E5 + E12 E32 E52 ≤ Cku(0)k2H 2 .
By the definition of E3,1 , we have
1
e2ǫν 3 t k∇ω6=
2
(t)kL2 ≤ ν −1/3 E3,1 ≤ ν −1/3 E3 ≤ Cν −1/3 ku(0)kH 2 .
Using the fact that
k∇(∂x , ∂z )(u16= , u36= )k2L2 = k∇ω6= kL2 + k∇∂y u26= k2L2 ,
2 2
we deduce that

2
k∇(∂x , ∂z )(u16= , u36= )(t)kL2 ≤ C k∇ω6= (t)kL2 + k∆u26= (t)kL2
1 1 1
≤ C ν −1/3 e−2ǫν 3 t ku(0)kH 2 + ν −1/4 e−2ǫν 3 t ku(0)kH 2 ≤ Cν −1/3 e−2ǫν 3 t ku(0)kH 2 .
Then we obtain
1
k(u16= , u36= )(t)kH 1 ≤ Ck∇∂x (u16= , u36= )(t)kL2 ≤ Cν −1/3 e−2ǫν 3 t ku(0)kH 2 ,
1
ν 1/4 ku26= (t)kH 2 ≤ Cν 1/4 k∆u26= (t)kL2 ≤ Ce−2ǫν 3 t ku(0)kH 2 .
By (1.6), we have
1/3 t
ku6= (t)kL2 ≤ k∂x2 u6= (t)kL2 ≤ Ce−2ǫν ku(0)kH 2 ,
which gives
√
ku6= kL∞ L2 + νkt(u16= , u36= )kL2 L2
1/3 t √ 1/3 t
≤ Cke−2ǫν kL∞ (0,+∞) ku(0)kH 2 + νkte−2ǫν kL2 (0,+∞) ku(0)kH 2 ≤ Cku(0)kH 2 .
By the definition of E3 , we have
k∇u26= kL∞ L2 + k∇u26= kL2 L2 ≤ CE3 ≤ Cku(0)kH 2 .
This proves (1.7).

It remains to prove the stability estimate in L∞ norm. By Lemma 16.2, we get
1 1 1
ku26= (t)kL∞ ≤ Ck(∂x , ∂z )∂x u26= (t)kL2 2 k(∂x , ∂z )∇u26= (t)kL2 2 ≤ Ce−2ǫν 3 t ku(0)kH 2 ,
1 1 1
kuj6= (t)kL∞ ≤ Ck(∂x , ∂z )∂x uj6= (t)kL2 2 k(∂x , ∂z )∇uj6= (t)kL2 2 ≤ Cν −1/6 e−2ǫν 3 t ku(0)kH 2 ,
here j ∈ {1, 3}. Thus, we also conclude (1.6).
Recall that ū1 satisfies
(
(∂t − ν∆)ū1 + ū2 + ū2 ∂y ū1 + ū3 ∂z ū1 + u6= · ∇u16= = 0,
ū1 |t=0 = ū1 (0), ∆ū1 |y=±1 = 0, ū1 |y=±1 = 0.
Then ∆ū1 solves
(15.2) (∂t − ν∆)∆ū1 + ∆ū2 + ∆(ū2 ∂y ū1 + ū3 ∂z ū1 + u6= · ∇u16= ) = 0.
Since ∆ū1 |y=±1 = 0, H 2 energy estimate gives
d

k∆ū1 k2L2 + 2νk∇∆ū1 k2L2 − 2 ∇(ū2 + ū2 ∂2 ū1 + ū3 ∂3 ū1 + u6= · ∇u16= ), ∇∆ū1 = 0,
dt
which gives
d
k∆ū1 k2L2 + νk∇∆ū1 k2L2 ≤ Cν −1 k∇(ū2 ∂y ū1 + ū3 ∂z ū1 )k2L2 + k∇ū2 k2L2 + k∇(u6= · ∇u16= )k2L2 .
dt
Thanks to k∇∆ū1 k2L2 ≥ (π/2)2 k∆ū1 k2L2 , we deduce that
keνt ∆ū1 k2L∞ L2 + νkeνt ∇∆ū1 k2L2 L2 ≤ ku(0)k2H 2 + Cν −1 keνt ∇(ū2 ∂y ū1 + ū3 ∂z ū1 )k2L2 L2
+ Cν −1 keνt ∇ū2 k2L2 L2 + Cν −1 keνt ∇(u6= · ∇u16= )k2L2 L2 .
Using the fact that
k∇(ūk ∂k ū1 )k2L2 ≤kūk ∂k ū1 k2H 1 ≤ Ckūk k2H 2 k∂k ū1 k2H 1
≤Ck∆ūk k2L2 kū1 k2H 2 k = 2, 3,
we infer that

k∇(ū2 ∂y ū1 + ū3 ∂z ū1 )k2L2 ≤ C k∆ū2 k2L2 + k∆ū3 k2L2 kū1 k2H 2 .
Then by Lemma 12.2, Lemma 12.3 and Lemma 11.6, we get
keνt ∇(ū2 ∂y ū1 + ū3 ∂z ū1 )k2L2 L2 ≤Ckeνt (∆ū2 , ∆ū3 )k2L2 L2 kū1 k2L∞ H 2

≤Cν −1 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 E12 ≤ Cν −1 ku(0)k2H 2 .

keνt ∇ū2 k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν −1 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν −2 E34 ≤ Cν −1 ku(0)k2H 2 .
2/3
Since 0 < ν ≤ ν0 , ν0 ≤ 4ǫ, we get by (11.11) that
1 5 1
keνt ∇(u6= · ∇u16= )k2L2 L2 ≤ ke4ǫν 3 t ∇(u6= · ∇u6= )k2L2 L2 ≤ Cν − 3 E34 ≤ Cν 3 ku(0)k2H 2 .
8
keνt ∆ū1 k2L∞ L2 ≤ ku(0)k2H 2 + C(ν −2 ku(0)k2H 2 + ν − 3 E34 ) ≤ Cν −2 ku(0)k2H 2 ,
which gives
kū1 (t)kH 2 ≤ Ck∆ū1 (t)kL2 ≤ Cν −1 e−νt ku(0)kH 2 .
On the other hand, by Lemma 11.6, we have

kū1 (t)kH 2 ≤ CE1 · (νt + ν 2/3 ) ≤ Cν −1 (νt + ν 2/3 )ku(0)kH 2 .
Thus, we obtain
kū1 (t)kL∞ ≤ Ckū1 (t)kH 2 ≤ Cν −1 min(νt + ν 2/3 , e−νt )ku(0)kH 2 .
This proves (1.4).
16. Appendix
16.1. Sobolev inequalities.
Lemma 16.1. If f satisfies ∂x f = ikf, |k| ≥ 1, then we have
1 1 1 1
kf kL2x,z L∞
y
+ δ 2 kχ1 f kL2 + kf kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ Ckf kL2 2 k∇f kL2 2 ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇f kL2 .
Here χ1 is given by Lemma 4.2, and C is a constant independent of λ, δ, k.
Proof. Due to ∂x f = ikf , we have
kf kL2 ≤ |k|kf kL2 ≤ k∂x f kL2 ≤ k∇f kL2 .
1 1
For fixed x, z, we have kf kL∞
y
≤ Ckf kL2 2 k(∂y , 1)f kL2 2 , which shows that
y y
1 1 1 1 1
(16.1) kf kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ Ckf kL2 k(∂y , 1)f kL2 ≤ Ckf kL2 2 k∇f kL2 2 ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇f kL2 .
2 2
By Lemma 4.2, we get

1 1
δ 2 kχ1 f kL2 + kf kL2 (∂Ω) ≤ δ 2 kχ1 kL∞ 2 kf kL2 L∞ + 2kf kL∞ L2
x,z Ly x,z y y x,z
≤ Ckf kL2x,z L∞
y
,
which along with (16.1) gives the lemma.

Lemma 16.2. If P0 f = 0, then we have
1 1
kf kL∞ ≤ Ck(∂x , ∂z )∂x f kL2 2 k(∂x , ∂z )∇f kL2 2 .
1
R −ikx−iℓz dxdz. Then we have
Proof. Let fk,ℓ(y) = 2π T2 f (x, y, z)e
X X 1/2 1/2
kf kL∞ ≤C kfk,ℓ kL∞ ≤ C kfk,ℓ kL2 k(∂y , 1)fk,ℓ kL2
k6=0;ℓ∈Z k6=0;ℓ∈Z
X 1 X 1 X 1 1
4 4 2
≤C k2 η 2 kfk,ℓ k2L2 η 2 k(∂y , 1)fk,ℓ k2L2
|k|(k2 + ℓ2 )
k6=0;ℓ∈Z k6=0;ℓ∈Z k6=0;ℓ∈Z
1 X 1 1 1 1 1
2
≤Ck(∂x , ∂z )∂x f kL2 k(∂x , ∂z )∇f kL2
2
≤ 2
Ck(∂x , ∂z )∂x f kL
2
2 k(∂x , ∂z )∇f k 2
L2
.
|k|2
k6=0
Here η 2 = k2 + ℓ2 and we used the fact that for k 6= 0,

X Z
1 1 dz 1 π π+1
2 2
≤ 2
+ 2 2
≤ 2+ ≤ .
k +ℓ k R k +z k |k| |k|
ℓ∈Z

16.2. Elliptic estimates with the weight.
Lemma 16.3. Let ϕ be a unique solution of ∆ϕ = w, ϕ(±1) = 0. It holds that

1
k∇ϕkL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 kwkL2x,z L1y ,
k∇ϕkL2 ≤ Ck(1 − y 2 )wkL2 ,
1
kϕkL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 k(1 − y 2 )wkL2x,z L1y .
Here C is a constant independent of k.
Proof. Thanks to ∂x w = ikw and ∆ϕ = w, we have ∂x ϕ = ikϕ. By Lemma 16.1, we have

1
kϕkL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C|k|− 2 k∇ϕkL2 ,
and by integration by parts,
k∇ϕk2L2 = − hϕ, ∆ϕi = −hϕ, wi

1
≤kϕkL2x,z L∞
y
kwkL2x,z L1y ≤ C|k|− 2 k∇ϕkL2 kwkL2x,z L1y ,

Due to ϕ|y=±1 = 0, we get by Hardy’s inequality that
k∇ϕk2L2 = −hϕ, wi ≤ kϕ/(1 − y 2 )kL2 k(1 − y 2 )wkL2

≤ Ck∇ϕkL2 k(1 − y 2 )wkL2 ,

Let φ solve ∆φ = ϕ, φ|y=±1 = 0. Then we have
∂x φ = ikφ, kφkH 2 ≤ CkϕkL2 .
As φ|y=±1 = 0, for fixed x, z, we have kφ/(1 − |y|)kL∞

y
≤ k∂y φkL∞
y
, and then
kφ/(1 − |y|)kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ k∂y φkL2x,z L∞
y
,

1 1 1
k∂y φkL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C|k|− 2 k∂y2 φkL2 ≤ C|k|− 2 kφkH 2 ≤ C|k|− 2 kϕkL2 .
This shows that

1
kφ/(1 − |y|)kL2x,z L∞
y
≤ C|k|− 2 kϕkL2 ,
and then,
kϕk2L2 = hϕ, ∆φi = h∆ϕ, φi = hw, φi

≤ k(1 − |y|)wkL2x,z L1y kφ/(1 − |y|)kL2x,z L∞
y
1
≤ Ck(1 − y 2 )wkL2x,z L1y |k|− 2 kϕkL2 ,

Lemma 16.4. Let ϕ be a unique solution of (∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ = w, ϕ(±1) = 0. Then it holds that
C −1 |η|kϕk2L∞ ≤ kϕ′ k2L2 + η 2 kϕk2L2 = h−w, ϕi ≤ C|η|−1 kwk2L1 ,
1
kϕkL2 ≤ Cη − 2 k(1 − |y|)wkL1 ,
k(∂y , η)ϕkL2 ≤ Ck(1 − |y|)wkL2 .
Proof. The first inequality follows from
1 1 1 1
kϕkL∞ ≤ Ckϕ′ kL2 2 kϕkL2 2 ≤ C |η|−1 kϕ′ k2L2 + |η|kϕk2L2 2
= C|η|− 2 k(∂y , η)ϕkL2 ,
1
kϕ′ k2L2 + η 2 kϕk2L2 = h−w, ϕi ≤ kwkL1 kϕkL∞ ≤ C|η|− 2 kwkL1 k(∂y , η)ϕkL2 .
Let ϕ1 solve (∂y2 − η 2 )ϕ1 = ϕ, ϕ1 (±1) = 0. Then we have
kϕk2L2 = η 4 kϕ1 k2L2 + 2η 2 k∂y ϕ1 k2L2 + k∂y2 ϕ1 k2L2 .
Ry R1
Since ϕ1 (y) = −1 ϕ′1 (z)dz for y ∈ [−1, 0], ϕ1 (y) = − y ϕ′1 (z)dz for y ∈ [0, 1], we conclude

ϕ1 1 1
−1
≤k∂ ϕ k 2
∞ ≤ Ck∂y ϕ1 k 2 k∂ ϕ1 k 2 ≤ Cη 2 kϕk 2 ,
2 2
1 − |y| ∞ y 1 L L y L L
L
which gives

ϕ1
kϕk2L2
= ϕ1 , w ≤ k(1 − |y|)wkL1
1 − |y| L∞
1
≤Cη − 2 kϕkL2 k(1 − |y|)wkL1 ,
and thus the second inequality.
By Hardy’s inequality, we get

ϕ
k(∂y , η)ϕk2L2 =|hϕ, wi| ≤
1 − |y| k(1 − |y|)wkL2
L2
≤Ck∂y ϕkL2 k(1 − |y|)wkL2 ,
16.3. Some basic properties of harmonic function.
Lemma 16.5. If f is a harmonic function in Ω := T × [−1, 1] × T, then we have
k∇f kL2 ≤ Ck∂y f kL2 .
Proof. As ∆f = 0, we get by taking Fourier transform in x, z that

∂y2 − (k2 + ℓ2 ) fk,ℓ(y) = 0,
which means that
√ √ p √ √
k 2 +ℓ2 y k 2 +ℓ2 y 2 2 2 2
fk,ℓ = C1 e + C2 e− , ′
fk,ℓ = k2 + ℓ2 C1 e k +ℓ y − C2 e− k +ℓ y ,
where Cj = aj + ibj , aj , bj ∈ R(j = 1, 2).
For k2 + ℓ2 ≥ 1, we have
Z 1
√ √
C1 e k2 +ℓ2 y ± C2 e− k2 +ℓ2 y 2 dy
−1
Z 1 Z 1
√k2 +ℓ2 y √
2 2 2 √k2 +ℓ2 y √
2 2 2
= a1 e ± a2 e− k +ℓ y dy + b1 e ± b2 e− k +ℓ y dy
−1 −1
a2 + a22 2√k2 +ℓ2 √

2 2
b2 + b22 2√k2 +ℓ2 √
2 2

= √1 e − e−2 k +ℓ ± 4a1 a2 + √1 e − e−2 k +ℓ ± 4b1 b2
2 k 2 + ℓ2 2 k 2 + ℓ2
2
a + a2 2 √
2 2
√
2 2
2
b + b2 2 √
2 2
√
2 2

∼ √1 e2 k +ℓ − e−2 k +ℓ + √ 1 e2 k +ℓ − e−2 k +ℓ ,
k 2 + ℓ2 k 2 + ℓ2
which implies
′
(k2 + ℓ2 )kfk,ℓ k2L2y ≤ Ckfk,ℓ k2L2y ,
and then the lemma follows by using Plancherel’s formula.

Lemma 16.6. If f ∈ H 2 (Ω), ∂x f = ikf, |k| ≥ 1, then we have

k∇f kL2 ≤ C k∂y f kL2 + |k|−1 k∆f kL2 .
Proof. We decompose f = f1 + f2 , where f1 , f2 solve
∆f1 = 0, ∆f2 = ∆f, f2 |y=±1 = 0.
(16.2) |k|k∇f2 kL2 = k∂x ∇f2 kL2 ≤ k∇2 f2 kL2 ≤ Ck∆f kL2 .
Thanks to Lemma 16.5 and (16.2), we have

k∇f1 k ≤ Ck∂y f1 kL2 ≤ C k∂y f kL2 + k∂y f2 kL2 ≤ C k∂y f kL2 + |k|−1 k∆f kL2 ,
which gives

k∇f k ≤ k∇f1 k + k∇f2 kL2 ≤ C k∂y f kL2 + |k|−1 k∆f kL2 .

Lemma 16.7. If f is a function in [−1, 1] × 2πT, i.e. f = f (y, z), then we have

k∂y2 f kL2 + k∂z2 f kL2 ≤ C k∂z ∂y f kL2 + k∆f kL2 .
Proof. We make the same decomposition for f as in Lemma 16.6. First of all, we have
(16.3) k∂y2 f2 kL2 + 2k∂z ∂y f2 kL2 + k∂z2 f2 kL2 ≤ Ck∆f kL2 .
k∂z2 f1 k ≤ Ck∂z ∂y f1 kL2 ,

k∂z2 f1 k ≤ Ck∂z ∂y f1 kL2 ≤ C k∂z ∂y f kL2 + k∂z ∂y f2 kL2 ≤ C k∂z ∂y f kL2 + k∆f kL2 .
This shows that

k∂z2 f kL2 ≤ k∂z2 f1 kL2 + k∂z2 f2 kL2 ≤ C k∂z ∂y f kL2 + k∆f kL2 ,
which also gives

k∂y2 f kL2 ≤ k∂z2 f kL2 + k∆f kL2 ≤ C k∂z ∂y f kL2 + k∆f kL2 .

16.4. Maximal inequality of harmonic function.
Lemma 16.8. Let j ∈ {±1}. If ∆f = 0, f |y=−j = 0 and f ∈ C 0 (Ω), then we have
kf kL2x,z L∞
y (Ω)
≤ 6kf kL2 (Γj ) .
We need to use some definitions and conclusions from Chapter 2 in [31]. The centered
Hardy-Littlewood maximal function is defined by
1
M(h)(q) = sup Avg |h| = sup khkL1 (B(q,r)) ,
r>0 B(q,r) r>0 πr 2
where B(q, r) := {q ′ ∈ R2 ||q ′ − q| < r} for q ∈ R2 . It is well-known that M is bounded from

Lp (Rn ) to Lp (Rn ) with constant at most 3n/p p/(p − 1). In particular, we have
(16.4) kM(h)kL2 (R2 ) ≤ 6khkL2 (R2 ) ∀ h ∈ L2 (R2 ).
The following lemma shows that the same is true with L2 (T2 ) instead of L2 (R2 ). Here we
identify a function on T2 with a function on R2 satisfying f (q + 2πm) = f (q), ∀ m ∈ Z2 .
Lemma 16.9. For every h ∈ L2 (T2 ), we have kM(h)kL2 (T2 ) ≤ 6khkL2 (T2 ) .
Proof. For a > 0, let Qa = {(x, z) ∈ R2 ||x| < a, |z| < a}, χa = 1Qa and
1
Ma (h)(q) = sup 2
khkL1 (B(q,r)) .
0<r<a πr
It is easy to see that for h ∈ L2 (T2 ), q ∈ R2 ,
(16.5) Ma (h)(q) ↑ M(h)(q) as a ↑ +∞,

(16.6) khk2L2 (Qπn ) = khχπn k2L2 (R2 ) = n2 khk2L2 (T2 ) , ∀ n ∈ Z, n > 0.
For m, n ∈ Z, m, n > 0, q ∈ Qπn , 0 < r < πm, we have B(q, r) ⊂ Qπ(m+n) , and
khkL1 (B(q,r)) = khχπ(m+n) kL1 (B(q,r)) ≤ πr 2 M(hχπ(m+n) )(q),
which implies that Mπm (h)(q) ≤ M(hχπ(m+n) )(q) and then by (16.4)),
kMπm (h)kL2 (Qπn ) ≤ kM(hχπ(m+n) )kL2 (R2 ) ≤ 6khχπ(m+n) kL2 (R2 ) .
kMπm (h)kL2 (T2 ) ≤ 6(1 + m/n)khkL2 (T2 ) , ∀ m, n ∈ Z, m, n > 0, h ∈ L2 (T2 ).
Letting n → +∞, we get
kMπm (h)kL2 (T2 ) ≤ 6khkL2 (T2 ) , ∀ m ∈ Z, m > 0, h ∈ L2 (T2 ).
Letting m → +∞, using (16.5) and monotone convergence theorem, we get
kM(h)kL2 (T2 ) ≤ 6khkL2 (T2 ) , ∀ h ∈ L2 (T2 ).
This completes the proof.

Now we give the proof of Lemma 16.8.

Proof. Without lose of generality, we only need to consider the case of j = 1. Let f0 (x, z) =
|f (x, 1, z)| and let
P (x, z) = c/(1 + x2 + z 2 )3/2 ,
where c = Γ(3/2)/π 3/2 is a constant so that

Z
P (x, z)dxdz = 1,
R2
The function P is called the Poisson kernel. We define L1 dilates Pt of the Poisson kernel P
by setting
Pt (x, z) = t−2 P (x/t, z/t), t > 0.
Then the function
F (x, y, z) = (f0 ∗ P1−y )(x, z),
solves the Dirichlet problem
∆F = 0 on R × (−∞, 1) × R, F (x, 1, z) = f0 (x, z) on R2 .
We also have F ∈ C 0 (Ω) and F ≥ 0 on Ω. Since f |y=−1 = 0, |f ||y=1 = f0 = F |y=1 , we
have |f | ≤ F on ∂Ω. For fixed θ ∈ R, let f[θ] = Re(eiθ f ). Since ∆f = 0, we have ∆f[θ] = 0
on Ω, and f[θ] is real valued. Now we have ∆F = ∆f[θ] = 0 on Ω, and f[θ] ≤ |f | ≤ F on
∂Ω. Using the maximum principle, we deduce that f[θ] ≤ F on Ω for every θ ∈ R. Thus,
|f | = supθ∈R f[θ] ≤ F on Ω, and then
kf kL2x,z L∞
y (Ω)
≤ kF kL2x,z L∞
y (Ω)
,
Since F (x, y, z) ≤ M(f0 )(x, z) for x, z ∈ R2 , y ≤ 1 (see [31]), we get

kf kL2x,z L∞
y (Ω)
≤ kF kL2x,z L∞
y (Ω)
≤ kM(f0 )kL2 (T2 ) ,
which along with Lemma 16.9 shows that
kf kL2x,z L∞
y (Ω)
≤ kM(f0 )kL2 (T2 ) ≤ 6kf0 kL2 (T2 ) = 6kf kL2 (Γ1 ) .
The case of f |y=1 = 0 can be proved similarly.
16.5. Limiting absorption principle. In this section, we establish the limiting absorption
principle for the Rayleigh equation
(16.7) (y − c)(Φ′′ − α2 Φ) = ω, Φ(−1) = Φ(1) = 0,
where c ∈ C, Im(c) 6= 0.
Proposition 16.1. Let α ≥ 1, Im(c) 6= 0. Then the unique solution Φ to (16.7) satisfies

k∂y ΦkL2 + αkΦkL2 ≤ Cα−1 k∂y ωkL2 + αkωkL2 ,

kΦkL2 ≤ Cα−1 max(1 − |cr |, 0)k∂y ωkL2 + kωkL2 ,
where cr = Re(c) is the real part of c.
We need the following lemma.
Lemma 16.10. Let a, λ ∈ R, f ∈ H 1 ([−1, 1]), δ∗ > 0, a 6= 0. If f (±1) = 0 or 1 − |λ| ≥

δ∗ > 0, then it holds that
Z 1
f (y) 1 1
dy ≤ C δ∗2 kf ′ kL2 + δ∗− 2 kf kL2 ,
y − λ + ia
−1
where C is a constant independent of a, δ∗ .
Proof. For the case of 1 − |λ| ≥ δ∗ , we have [λ − δ∗ , λ + δ∗ ] ⊆ [−1, 1], and then
Z 1 Z λ+δ∗ Z

f (y) f (y) f (y)
dy ≤ dy + dy
y − λ + ia y − λ + ia y − λ + ia
−1 λ−δ∗ |y−λ|≥δ∗
Z λ+δ∗
f (y) f (2λ − y)
≤ + dy + kf kL2 k(y − λ)−1 k 2
λ y − λ + ia λ − y + ia L {|y−λ|≥δ∗ }
Z λ+δ∗
f (y) f (2λ − y) −1
≤ + dy + Cδ∗ 2 kf kL2 ,
λ y − λ + ia λ − y + ia
where
Z λ+δ∗

f (y) f (2λ − y)
+ dy
y − λ + ia λ − y + ia
λ
Z λ+δ∗ Z

(y − λ)(f (y) − f (2λ − y)) λ+δ∗ ǫ(f (y) + f (2λ − y))
≤ dy + dy
λ (y − λ)2 + a2 λ (y − λ)2 + a2
Z R Z λ+δ∗
λ+δ∗ (y − λ) y−λ f ′ (z + λ)dz 2a
λ−y
≤ dy + kf k dy
(y − λ)2 + a2
L ∞
λ (y − λ)2 + a2 λ
Z
λ+δ∗ C(y − λ) 32 kf ′ k 2 δ∗
L
≤ 2 2
dy + 2kf kL∞ arctan
λ (y − λ) + a a
Z δ∗ 1
!
z2 1
−1
≤C dz kf ′ kL2 + Ckf kL∞ ≤ C δ∗2 kf ′ kL2 + δ∗ 2 kf kL2 .
0 z + |a|
This proves the case of 1 − |λ| ≥ δ∗ .
For the case of f (±1) = 0, we can first extend f to be a function in H 1 (R) by taking
f (y) = 0 for |y| ≥ 1, then follow the proof as above.
Now let us prove Proposition 16.1.
Proof. It is easy to get that
Z 1
ω Φ̄
k∂y Φk2L2 2
+α kΦk2L2 =− dy.
−1 y−c
Thanks to ω Φ̄(±1) = 0, we get by Lemma 16.10 with δ∗ = α−1 that
Z 1
ω Φ̄ 1 1
2 2 2
k∂y ΦkL2 + α kΦkL2 ≤ dy ≤ C(α− 2 k∂y (ω Φ̄)kL2 + α 2 kω Φ̄kL2 )
−1 y − c
1 1

≤C α− 2 k∂y wkL2 kΦkL∞ + kωkL∞ k∂y ΦkL2 + α 2 kωkL2 kΦkL∞
1 1 1 1 1
≤C α− 2 k∂y wkL2 k∂y ΦkL2 2 kΦkL2 2 + k∂y ωkL2 2 kωkL2 2 + kωkL2 k∂y ΦkL2
1 1 1
+ α 2 kωkL2 k∂y ΦkL2 2 kΦkL2 2

≤Cα−1 k∂y ωkL2 + αkωkL2 k∂y ΦkL2 + αkΦkL2 .
This shows that

k∂y ΦkL2 + αkΦkL2 ≤ Cα−1 k∂y ωkL2 + αkωkL2 .
For the second inequality, let φ be a unique solution of (∂y2 − α2 )φ = Φ, φ(±1) = 0. Then
we have
Z 1 Z 1

ω φ̄ ω φ̄
2 2 2
kΦkL2 = Φ, (∂y − α )φ = − dy ≤ dy .
−1 y − c −1 y − c
If |cr | ≥ 1, we get by Hardy’s inequality that

Z 1
ω φ̄ φ
2
kΦkL2 ≤
dy ≤ kωkL2 ≤ kωkL2 k∂y φkL2 ≤ Cα−1 kωkL2 kΦkL2 ,
−1 y − c 1 − |y| L2
which gives
kΦkL2 ≤ Cα−1 kωkL2 .
If |cr | < 1, by Lemma 16.10 with δ∗ = 1 − |cr | and Hardy’s inequality, we have
Z 1 Z 1 Z 1
ω φ̄ ω(y) φ̄(c r ) ω(y) φ̄(y) − φ̄(c r )
dy ≤ dy + dy
y − c y − c y − c
−1 −1 −1
Z 1
ω(y) φ(y) − φ(cr )
≤|φ(cr )| dy + kωkL2 y − cr

2
−1 y − c L
1
− 12

≤C|φ(cr )| (1 − |cr |) k∂y ωkL2 + (1 − |cr |) kωkL2 + CkωkL2 k∂y φkL2
2
1 1
≤C|φ(cr )| (1 − |cr |) 2 k∂y ωkL2 + (1 − |cr |)− 2 kωkL2 + Cα−1 kωkL2 kΦkL2 .
Thanks to φ(±1) = 0, we have
Z cr Z 1

|φ(cr )| ≤ min ∂y φ(y)dy , ∂y φ(y)dy
−1 cr
1 1

≤ min (1 + cr ) 2 , (1 − cr ) 2 k∂y φkL2
1 1
≤ (1 − |cr |) 2 k∂y φkL2 ≤ α−1 (1 − |cr |) 2 kΦkL2 .
Z 1

ω φ̄
kΦkL2 ≤
2
dy ≤ Cα−1 (1 − |cr |)k∂y ωkL2 + kωkL2 kΦkL2 .
−1 y−c
This shows the second inequality.
The following lemma is a variant of Lemma 16.10.
Lemma 16.11. Let V satisfy (4.2). Let a, λ ∈ R, a 6= 0, f ∈ H 1 (Ω), f (x, ±1, z) = 0 or
0 < δ∗ ≤ 1 − |λ|. Then it holds that
Z
f (x, y, z) 1
− 21

V (y, z) − λ + ia dy ≤ C δ∗ k∂y f kL2y + δ∗ kf kL2y .
2
where C is a constant independent of a, λ, x, z and δ∗ .

Proof. Make a change of variable: (x, y, z) → (x, V (y, z), z) , (X, Y, Z). We denote

F (x, V (y, z), z) = f (x, y, z), ψ V (y, z), z = ∂y V (y, z), H(V (y, z), z) = ∂y2 V (y, z).
For fixed x, z, it is obvious that
1
≤ |ψ| ≤ 2, kHkL∞ ≤ 1, ψ(V (y, z), z)∂Y F (x, V (y, z), z) = ∂y f (x, y, z)
2 Y
so that
kF kL2 ≤ Ckf kL2y , k∂Y F kL2 ≤ Ck∂y f kL2y .
Y Y
Then we have
Z 1
Z 1
f (x, y, z) F (x, Y, z)ψ(Y, z)−1
dy = dY .
V − λ + ia Y − λ + ia
−1 −1
By Lemma 16.10 and using the fact that ∂Y (ψ −1 ) = −ψ −3 H, we get

Z 1
F (x, Y, z)ψ −1 (Y, z)
dY
Y − λ + ia
−1
1
−1
≤ C δ∗2 k∂Y (F ψ −1 )kL2 + δ∗ 2 kF ψ −1 kL2
Y Y
1
−1
1
−1
≤ C δ∗ k∂Y F kL2 kψ
2
kL∞Y
+ δ∗ kF kL2 kψ −3 kL∞
2
Y
kHkL∞ Y
+ δ∗ 2 kF kL2 kψ −1 kL∞
Y
Y Y Y
1 1
− 1 1
− 1
≤ C δ∗2 k∂y f kL2y + δ∗2 kf kL2y + δ∗ 2 kf kL2y ≤ C δ∗2 k∂y f kL2y + δ∗ 2 kf kL2y .
16.6. A simple algebraic inequality.

Lemma 16.12. Let D = A1 − A2 + iB with A1 , A2 , B ∈ R, |B| ≥ 2A2 and |B|, A1 , A2 > 0.
Then there exists a constant c > 0, so that
√ 1
Re D ≥ c A1 + |B| 2 ,
√
here z be the branch of the square root defined on the complement of the non-positive real
numbers.
√
Proof. without loss of generality, we may assume that B > 0 . Then D = a + ib with
a, b ∈ R and a, b > 0. Then we have
a2 − b2 = A , A1 − A2 , 2ab = B.
A direct calculation gives
a2 = A + b2 ≥ −B/2 + b2 ≥ b2 − ab ⇒(a/b)2 + (a/b) − 1 ≥ 0.
√
As a/b > 0, we get a/b ≥ ( 5 − 1)/2. Thus, there exist constants c1 > c2 > 0, such that
1
a2 ≥ c1 (a2 + b2 ) = c1 |D| = c1 ((A1 − A2 )2 + B 2 ) 2 ≥ c2 (A1 − A2 + |B|) ≥ c2 (A1 + |B|/2),
which implies that
√ 1
Re( D) = a ≥ c(A1 + |B|) 2 .

16.7. Gearhart-Prüss type lemma. An operator A in a Hilbert space H is accretive if

RehAf, f i ≥ 0 for all f ∈ D(A), or equivalently k(λ + A)f k ≥ λkf k for all f ∈ D(A) and all
λ > 0. The operator A is called m-accretive if in addition any λ < 0 belongs to the resolvent
set of A. We define

Ψ(A) = inf k(A − iλ)f k : f ∈ D(A), λ ∈ R, kf k = 1 .
The following Gearhart-Prüss type lemma comes from [62].
Lemma 16.13. Let A be an m-accretive operator in a Hilbert space H. Then we have
ke−tA k ≤ e−tΨ(A)+π/2 for any t ≥ 0.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Te Li for helpful discussions. Z. Zhang is partially supported by NSF
of China under Grant 11425103.
References
[1] Y. Almog and B. Helffer, On the stability of laminar flows between plates, arXiv:1908.06328.
[2] J. Baggett and L. Trefethen, Low-dimensional models of subcritical transition to turbulence, Phys. Fluids,
9 (1997), 1043-1053.
[3] M. Beck and C. E. Wayne, Metastability and rapid convergence to quasi-stationary bar states for the
two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A, 143 (2013), 905-927.
[4] J. Bedrossian, M. Coti Zelati, Enhanced dissipation, hypoellipticity, and anomalous small noise inviscid
limits in shear flows, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 224 (2017), 1161-1204.
[5] J. Bedrossian, M. Coti Zelati, V. Vicol, Vortex axisymmetrization, inviscid damping, and vorticity deple-
tion in the linearized 2D Euler equations, Ann. PDE, 5 (2019), Art. 4, 192 pp.
[6] J. Bedrossian and S. He, Suppression of blow-up in Patlak-Keller-Segel via shear flows, SIAM J. Math.
Anal., 49 (2017), 4722-4766.
[7] J. Bedrossian, P. Germain and N. Masmoudi, Dynamics near the subcritical transition of the 3D Couette
flow I: Below threshold case, arXiv:1506.03720, to appear in Mem of the AMS.
[8] J. Bedrossian, P. Germain and N. Masmoudi, Dynamics near the subcritical transition of the 3D Couette
flow II: Above threshold case, arXiv:1506.03721, to appear in Mem of the AMS.
[9] J. Bedrossian, P. Germain and N. Masmoudi, On the stability threshold for the 3D Couette flow in Sobolev
regularity, Annals of Math., 185(2017), 541-608.
[10] J. Bedrossian, P. Germain and N. Masmoudi, Stability of the Couette flow at high Reynolds number in
2D and 3D, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), 56 (2019), 373-414.
[11] J. Bedrossian and N. Masmoudi, Inviscid damping and the asymptotic stability of planar shear flows in
the 2D Euler equations, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci., 122(2015), 195-300.
[12] J. Bedrossian, N. Masmoudi and C. Mouhot, Landau damping: paraproducts and Gevrey regularity, Ann.
PDE, 2(2016), Art. 4, 71 pp.
[13] J. Bedrossian, N. Masmoudi and V. Vicol, Enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping in the inviscid
limit of the Navier-Stokes equations near the two dimensional Couette flow, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.,
219(2016), 1087-1159.
[14] J. Bedrossian, F. Wang and V. Vicol, The Sobolev stability threshold for 2D shear flows near Couette, J.
Nonlinear Sci., 28 (2018), 2051-2075.
[15] S. J. Chapman, Subcritical transition in channel flows, J. Fluid Mech., 451(2002), 35-97.
[16] J. Y. Chemin and P. Zhang, On the critical one component regularity for 3-D Navier-Stokes systems,
Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér., 49 (2016), 131-167.
[17] J. Y. Chemin, P. Zhang and Z. Zhang, On the critical one component regularity for 3-D Navier-Stokes
system: general case, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 224 (2017), 871-905.
[18] Q. Chen, D. Wei and Z. Zhang, Linear stability of pipe Poiseuille flow at high Reynolds number,
arXiv:1910.14245.
[19] Q. Chen, T. Li, D. Wei and Z. Zhang, Transition threshold for the 2-D Couette flow in a finite channel,
Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., online.
[20] P. Constantin, A. Kiselev, L. Ryzhik and A. Zlatos, Diffusion and mixing in fluid flow, Ann. of Math.,
168(2008), 643-674.
[21] M. Coti Zelati, M. G. Delgadino and T. M. Elgindi, On the relation between enhanced dissipation
timescales and mixing rates, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 73(2020), 1205-1244.
[22] M. Coti Zelati and C. Zillinger, On degenerate circular and shear flows: the point vortex and power law
circular flows, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 44 (2019), 110-155.
[23] Y. Deng and N. Masmoudi, Long time instability of the Couette flow in low gevrey spaces,
arXiv:1803.01246.
[24] P. Drazin and W. Reid, Hydrodynamic Stability, Cambridge Monographs Mech. Appl. Math., Cambridge
Univ. Press, New York, 1981.
[25] Y. Duguet, L. Brandt and B. Larsson, Towards minimal perturbations in transitional plane Couette flow,
Phys. Rev. E, 82 (2010), 026316, 13.
[26] T. Ellingsen and E. Palm, Stability of linear flow, Phys. Fluids, 18(1975), 487-488.
[27] T. Gallay, Enhanced dissipation and axisymmetrization of two-dimensional viscous vortices, Arch. Ration.
Mech. Anal., 230 (2018), 939-975.
[28] T. Gebhardt and S. Grossmann, Chaos transition despite linear stability, Phys. Rev. E, 50(1994), 3705-
3711.
[29] D. Gerard-Varet and Y. Maekawa, Sobolev stability of Prandtl expansions for the steady Navier-Stokes
equations, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 233 (2019), 1319-1382.
[30] D. Gerard-Varet, Y. Maekawa and N. Masmoudi, Gevrey stability of Prandtl expansions for 2-dimensional
Navier-Stokes flows, Duke Math. J., 167 (2018), 2531-2631.
[31] L. Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 249, Springer.
[32] E. Grenier, Y. Guo and T. Nguyen, Spectral instability of characteristic boundary layer flows, Duke Math.
J., 165 (2016), 3085-3146.
[33] E. Grenier, Y. Guo and T. Nguyen, Spectral instability of general symmetric shear flows in a two-
dimensional channel, Adv. Math., 292 (2016), 52-110.
[34] E. Grenier, T. Nguyen, F. Rousset and A. Soffer, Linear inviscid damping and enhanced viscous dissipation
of shear flows by using the conjugate operator method, arXiv:1804.08291.
[35] S. He, Suppression of blow-up in parabolic-parabolic Patlak-Keller-Segel via strictly monotone shear flows,
Nonlinearity, 31(2018), 3651-3688.
[36] S. Ibrahim, Y. Maekawa and N. Masmoudi, On pseudospectral bound for non-selfadjoint operators and its
application to stability of Kolmogorov flows, arXiv:1710.05132.
[37] A. Ionescu and H. Jia, Inviscid damping near the Couette flow in a channel, Comm. Math. Phys., 374
(2020), 2015–2096.
[38] A. Ionescu and H. Jia, Axi-symmetrization near point vortex solutions for the 2D Euler equation,
arXiv:1904.09170.
[39] H. Jia, Linear inviscid damping near monotone shear flows, arXiv:1902.06849.
[40] L. Kelvin, Stability of fluid motion-rectilinear motion of viscous fluid between two parallel plates, Phil.
Mag., 24(1887), 188-196.
[41] S. Klainerman, Long-time behavior of solutions to nonlinear evolution equations, Arch. Rational Mech.
Anal., 78(1982), 73-98.
[42] A. Kiselev and X. Xu, Suppression of chemotactic explosion by mixing, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 222
(2016), 1077-1112.
[43] T. Li, D. Wei and Z. Zhang, Pseudospectral bound and transition threshold for the 3D Kolmogorov flow,
Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 73(2020), 465-557.
[44] M. Liefvendahl and G. Kreiss, Bounds for the threshold amplitude for plane Couette flow, J. Nonlinear
Math. Phys., 9 (2002), 311-324.
[45] Z. Lin and M. Xu, Metastability of Kolmogorov flows and inviscid damping of shear flows, Arch. Ration.
Mech. Anal., 231 (2019), 1811-1852.
[46] Z. Lin and C. Zeng, Inviscid dynamical structures near couette flow, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.,
200(2011), 1075–1097.
[47] Z. Lin and C. Zeng, Small BGK waves and nonlinear Landau damping, Comm. Math. Phys., 306(2011),
291-331.
[48] L. Landau, On the vibrations of the electronic plasma, Acad. Sci. USSR. J. Phys., 10 (1946), 25-34.
[49] A. Lundbladh, D. Henningson and S. Reddy, Threshold amplitudes for transition in channel flows, in
Transition, Turbulence and Combustion, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994, pp. 309-318.
[50] N. Masmoudi and Z. Zhao, Stability threshold of the 2D Couette flow in Sobolev spaces, arXiv:1908.11042.
[51] C. Mouhot and C. Villani, On Landau damping, Acta Math., 207 (2011), 29-201.
[52] W. Orr, The stability or instability of steady motions of a perfect liquid and of a viscous liquid. Part I: A
perfect liquid, Proc. Royal Irish Acad. Sec. A: Math. Phys. Sci., 27(1907), 9-68.
[53] S. Orszag and L. Kells, Transition to turbulence in plane Poiseuille and plane Couette flow, J. of Fluid
Mech., 96(1980), 159-205.
[54] S. Reddy, P. Schmid, J. Baggett and D. Henningson, On stability of streamwise streaks and transition
thresholds in plane channel flows, J. Fluid Mech., 365 (1998), 269-303.
[55] S. Ren and W. Zhao, Linear damping of Alfvén waves by phase mixing, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 49 (2017),
2101-2137.
[56] O. Reynolds, An experimental investigation of the circumstances which determine whether the motion of
water shall be direct or sinuous, and of the law of resistance in parallel channels, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. ,
35(1883), 84.
[57] V. A. Romanov, Stability of plane-parallel Couette flow, Funkcional. Anal. i Priložen, 7 (1973), 62-73.
[58] P. Schmid and D. Henningson, Stability and Transition in Shear Flows, Applied Mathematical Sciences
142, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001.
[59] L. Trefethen, A. Trefethen, S. Reddy and T. Driscoll, Hydrodynamic stability without eigenvalues, Science,
261(1993), 578-584.
[60] L. N. Trefethen, Pseudospectra of linear operators, SIAM Review, 39(1997), 383-406.
[61] F. Waleffe, Transition in shear flows. Nonlinear normality versus non-normal linearity, Phys. Fluids,
7(1995), 3060-3066.
[62] D. Wei, Diffusion and mixing in fluid flow via the resolvent estimate, arXiv:1811.11904.
[63] D. Wei and Z. Zhang, Transition threshold for the 3D Couette flow in Sobolev space, arXiv:1803.01359,
to appear in Comm. Pure Appl. Math.
[64] D. Wei and Z. Zhang, Enhanced dissipation for the Kolmogorov flow via the hypocoercivity method, Sci.
China Math., 62 (2019), 1219-1232.
[65] D. Wei, Z. Zhang and W. Zhao, Linear inviscid damping for a class of monotone shear flow in Sobolev
spaces, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 71(2018), 617-687.
[66] D. Wei, Z. Zhang and W. Zhao, Linear inviscid damping and vorticity depletion for shear flows, Annals
of PDE, 5(2019), 5:3.
[67] D. Wei, Z. Zhang and W. Zhao, Linear inviscid damping and enhanced dissipation for the Kolmogorov
flow, Adv. Math., 362 (2020), 106963.
[68] D. Wei, Z. Zhang and H. Zhu, Linear inviscid damping for the β-plane equation, Comm. Math. Phys.,
375 (2020), 127-174.
[69] A. Yaglom, Hydrodynamic instability and transition to turbulence, Fluid Mech. Appl. 100, Springer-
Verlag, New York, 2012.
[70] C. Zillinger, Linear inviscid damping for monotone shear flows, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 369 (2017),
8799-8855.
[71] C. Zillinger, Linear inviscid damping for monotone shear flows in a finite periodic channel, boundary
effects, blow-up and critical Sobolev regularity, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 221(2016), 1449-1509.
School of Mathematical Science, Peking University, 100871, Beijing, P. R. China

E-mail address: chenqi940224@gmail.com

E-mail address: jnwdyi@163.com

E-mail address: zfzhang@math.pku.edu.cn

Transition Threshold For The 3D Couette Flow in A Finite Channel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transition Threshold For The 3D Couette Flow in A Finite Channel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRANSITION THRESHOLD FOR THE 3D COUETTE FLOW IN A

QI CHEN, DONGYI WEI, AND ZHIFEI ZHANG

Date: June 2, 2020.

5.3. Proof of Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 5.2 42

Given a norm k · kX , find a β = β(X) so that

To state our result, we define

• We denote by k · kH k the Sobolev norm k · kH k (D) with D = Ω or D = I = (−1, 1).

2. Linear and nonlinear mechanisms affecting the threshold

3. Key ideas and ingredients of the proof

Taking (W, U ) = (∆u26= , u36= ), it was proved that

It can be reduced to considering the system in each interval Ij :

and let ~u[j] solve

Using the following important facts that

k(Ak − Aj )~u[k] kZ 1 ≤ C|j − k|E1 k~u[k] kZ 2 ,

we can deduce from the space-time estimates that

which will yield that

We need to prove that if ~g = 0 and λ ∈ R, a ∈ [0, ǫ1 ], then u = 0. To our knowledge, these

Finally, wg = ∆Wg satisfies

4. Resolvent estimates with Navier-slip boundary condition

Let us first give some basic estimates involving V .

Lemma 4.1. It holds that for any (y, z) ∈ [−1, 1] × T,

Similarly, for y ∈ [0, 1], we have |V − y| ≤ Cε0 (1 − y 2 ).

Lemma 4.2. Let χ1 = (V − λ − iδ)−1 for some δ > 0. It holds that

Here C is a constant independent of λ, δ.

Proof. The first and third inequality is obvious. Note that

Proof. Step 1. Case of F ∈ L2 (Ω).

If νk2 ≥ 1, the proof is obvious due to

Proof. We decompose w as w = w1 + w2 + w3 , where wj (j = 1, 2, 3) solves

where ∆h1 = ∆κ∂x ∂y w, h1 |y=±1 = 0. Note that

from which and (4.21), we deduce our result.

Then we have χ2 ∈ H 1 (Ω), f0 ∈ H01 (Ω), I2 := suppχ2 = T × [1 − δ∗ , 1] × T and

for y ∈ [1 − δ∗ , 1] and then

Since f |y=−1 = 0, ∆f = 0, we get by Lemma 16.8 that

which together with (4.30) show that

This completes the proof of the proposition.

where N1 (k) = max(δ−2 (|k(1 − λ)| + 1) − k2 , 0). Then it holds that

The proof of the other inequalities is the same as Lemma 4.3.

and let ∆φ = ϕ, φ|y=±1 = 0. We decompose φ = φl + φh , where

It is obvious that ∀ α ∈ Z+ , β = {0, 1, 2},

By Lemma 4.1 and integration by parts(using (y − V )φ1 |y=±1 = 0), we get

Using the fact that |V − λ̃|−1 ≤ C(1 + δ − |y|)−1 , we deduce that

5. Lp estimate of the solutions for the homogeneous OS

Proof. Let z = z1 + iz2 with z1 , z2 ∈ R.

If |z1 | ≥ 1 and x ≥ |z1 |, then we have

If |z1 | ≥ 1 and |z1 | ≥ x, then we have

Summing up, we conclude the lemma.

are two linearly independent solutions of the homogeneous OS equation

Similarly, using Ai(z) = Ai(z̄) and Lemma 5.5, we have

From the proof of Lemma 5.5 and (5.5), we know that

Similarly, |B2 | ≥ c2 sinh(2η)

Proof. By Proposition 5.1 and Hölder inequality, we get

6. Resolvent estimates via the Neumann boundary data

6.1. Resolvent estimates when V = y and F = 0.

By Proposition 5.2, we have

Thus, we conclude that

By Proposition 5.1, we have

which gives the second inequality.

This shows that for γ ∈ [0, 1],

and by Proposition 4.6, we have

We need the following lemmas.

Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume λ ≥ 0. If 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1, let yλ (z) ∈ [−1, 1] so

Using Lemma 16.11 with δ∗ = |k|−1 ) and Lemma 16.1, we get