Received: 6 October 2020

DOI: 10.1002/mma.7144

S P E C I A L I S S U E PA P E R

Existence and blow-up studies of a p(x)-Laplacian parabolic

equation with memory

Lakshmipriya Narayanan Gnanavel Soundararajan

Department of Mathematics, Central

University of Kerala, Kasargod, India
Correspondence
Lakshmipriya Narayanan, Department of
Mathematics, Central University of
Kerala, Kasargod, Kerala, India.
Email: lakshmipriya993@gmail.com
In this paper, we establish existence and finite time blowup of weak solutions
of a parabolic equation of p(x)-Laplacian type with the Dirichlet boundary con-
dition. Moreover, we obtain upper and lower bounds for the blow-up time of
solutions, by employing concavity method and differential inequality technique,
respectively.

K E Y WO R D S
Communicated by: P. Hastö
blowup, p(x)-Laplacian, variable exponents, viscoelastic term, weak solution

M S C C L A S S I F I C AT I O N
35K55; 35B44; 35D30; 74Dxx

1 I N T RO DU CT ION

This paper focuses on a parabolic equation of p(x)-Laplacian type. In this work, we study the existence and finite time
blowup of solutions of the following problem:

⎧ t
⎪
⎪ zt − Δz − 𝜇∇(|∇z| ∇z) + h(t − 𝜏)Δz(x, 𝜏)d𝜏 = 𝛽|z|b(x)−2 z, x ∈ Ω, t ≥ 0,
p(x)−2
∫
⎨ 0
(1)
⎪ z(x, t) = 0, x ∈ 𝜕Ω, t ≥ 0,
⎪ z(x, 0) = z (x), x ∈ Ω,
⎩ 0

where Ω ⊂ RN , (N ≥ 1, N ≠ 2) is a bounded domain with smooth boundary 𝜕Ω. 𝛽 > 0, 𝜇 ≥ 0 are constants. The variable
̄ → [1, ∞) are log-Holder continuous and
exponents p(x), b(x) ∶ Ω

p− = min p(x), p+ = max p(x),

b− = min b(x), b+ = max b(x).

The nonlinear term ∇(|∇z|p(x) − 2 ∇ z) is the so-called p(x)-Laplacian operator.

We have the following hypotheses:
4
(H 1 ) 2 < p− ≤ p(x) ≤ p+ < b− ≤ b(x) ≤ b+ and b+ < 4, N = 1; b+ < 2 + N
,N ≥ 3,

{ Np(x)
, p(x) < N,
ess infx∈Ω̄ (p∗ (x) − b(x)) > 0, p∗ (x) > 2, p∗ (x) = N−p(x)
∞, p(x) ≥ N.

Math Meth Appl Sci. 2020;1–18. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mma © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN

(H 2 ) h ∶ R+ → R+ is a bounded C1 function such that h(𝜏) ≥ 0, h′ (𝜏) ≤ 0, 1 − h(𝜏)d𝜏 = l > 0.

∫
0
(H 3 ) ℜ(0) > 0, ℜ is the energy functional (40) defined in Section 3.
The study of evolution equations would be partial without considering finite time blowup. People like Kaplan, Payne,
and Levine put immense efforts into understanding blow-up behavior of nonlinear problems.1-4 Afterward, in the history
of blowup, there are numerous evolution equations have been studied in various papers. Here, we mention some of them
which are related to our work.
In 1987, Bellout5 studied a class of parabolic equations with nonlinear memory associated with the equation

zt = Δz + m(t − s)𝑓 (u(x, s))ds + g(x), (2)

∫
0

where f, m, and g are continuously differentiable functions and established results on the existence, uniqueness, and finite
time blowup of solutions. Together, he estimated the rate of blowup too. Later, the area became an inevitable part of the
theory of evolution equations.
The following problem of a semilinear heat equation with memory,

⎧ t
⎪
⎪ zt − Δz + ∫ g(t − s)Δz(x, s)ds = |z| z, x ∈ Ω, t > 0,
p−2

⎨ 0
(3)
⎪ z(x, t) = 0, x ∈ 𝜕Ω, t ≥ 0,
⎪ z(x, 0) = z (x), x ∈ Ω,
⎩ 0

was studied by Messaoudi6 and proved a blow-up result for certain solutions under suitable conditions on g and p with
positive initial energy. Messaoudi7 then studied the problem under negative and vanishing initial energy conditions also
and arrived at results in blowup of solutions. For the same problem, Tian8 established a new criterion for blowup and
turned up with an upper bound as well as lower bound for the blow-up time using the differential inequality technique.
Fang and Sun9 generalized (3) by considering a general source term f(u) and having proper assumptions on f and g,
obtained blow-up results under positive initial energy. In 2012, Liu and Chen10 studied the problem by taking the term
A(t) |zt |m − 2 zt instead of zt , where m > 2 and A(t) is a bounded positive definite matrix. They obtained blow-up results
under both negative and positive initial energy. Moreover, a general decay result was also established for global solutions.
Han et al.11 conducted studies on a semilinear parabolic problem with nonlinear boundary flux associated with the
viscoelastic equation
t

zt − Δz + g(t − s)Δz(x, s)ds = 0. (4)

∫
0

They build results on blowup of solutions subject to negative initial energy condition. Later, Li and Han12 extended
their results to the finite time blowup of solutions by exploiting potential well theory and concavity method.
Studies on the initial boundary value problem connected with the p-Laplacian equation,

zt − Δp z = g(t − s)Δp z(x, s)ds + Θ(x, t, z) + 𝑓 (x, t), (5)

∫
0

was done by Antontsev et al.13 The authors established existence and nonexistence of global solutions of the problem
without more restrictive assumptions on Θ. In addition, they deduced results on finite speed of propagation too. In 2020,
NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN 3

Zennir and Miyasita14 published results on the nonexistence of global solutions of the following problem:

⎧ ⎛ t
⎞
⎪ ⎜ ⎟ = |z|p(x)−2 z, in Ω × (0, T),
⎪ 𝜕 t z − Δ q(x) z − Δ x 𝜕 t z − 𝜎(t) g(t − s)zds
⎜ ∫ ⎟
⎨ ⎝ 0 ⎠ (6)
⎪ z = 0, on 𝜕Ω × (0, T),
⎪ z(x, 0) = z (x), in Ω,
⎩ 0

where Ω ⊂ Rn (n ≥ 2) is an open-bounded domain and 𝜎 ∈ C1 (R+ ), by establishing a relation between p(x) and the
relaxation function.
Global existence and finite time blowup of semilinear parabolic equations with variable sources were studied also by
Yang et al.15 and Baghaei et al.,16 under suitable conditions on the initial energy. Recently, Liao17 proved the nonexistence
of global solutions of a pseudoparabolic Dirichlet boundary value problem involving variable exponents.
All these previous works motivated us to study the problem (1). Especially, when 𝜇 = 0, 𝛽 = 1 and b(x) = p problem (1)
gives the semilinear parabolic problem with viscoelastic term studied in previous studies.6-8 Here, the sections are orga-
nized as follows: Section 2 is dedicated to recollecting essential preliminaries. In Section 3, we deal with the existence of
solutions to the problem (1). Here, we take 𝜇 = 1 for the sake of simplicity. Upper bound for blow-up time of the solu-
tions is established in Section 4, and Section 5 is devoted to the derivation of a lower bound. In this paper, we treat C as a
generic constant.

2 PRELIMINARIES

In this section, we try to recall some essential preliminaries to proceed with the problem (1). However, for more details,
one can refer to previous studies.18-20
Here, we let p, b : Ω → [1, ∞) be measurable functions, where Ω is a bounded domain in RN .
Definition 1 (Diening et al.19 ). The variable exponent Lebesgue space with exponent p(x) is defined by

Lp(x) (Ω) ∶= {z ∶ Ω → R|𝜌p(x) (𝜆z) < ∞, for some 𝜆 > 0},

where
𝜌p(x) (z) = |z(x)|p(x) dx.
∫
Ω

Theorem 1 (Diening et al.19 ). The space Lp(x) (Ω) set up with the Luxembourg norm,
{ ( ) }
z
||z||p(x) = in𝑓 𝜆 > 0|𝜌p(x) ≤1 ,
𝜆

is a Banach space and

p p p p
min{||z||p(x)
−
, ||z||p(x)
+
}≤ |z|p(x) dx ≤ max{||z||p(x)
−
, ||z||p(x)
+
}. (7)
∫
Ω

′ 1 1
Remark 1. (Diening et al.19 ) Lp (x) (Ω) stands for the dual space of Lp(x) (Ω) , such that p(x)
+ p′ (x)
= 1.

Definition 2 (Diening et al.19 ). The variable exponent Sobolev space is defined as

W k,p(x) (Ω) = {z ∈ Lp(x) (Ω)|D𝛼 z ∈ Lp(x) (Ω), |𝛼| ≤ k},

∑
N
where k ≥ 1, D𝛼 z is the 𝛼th weak partial derivative with 𝛼 = (𝛼1 , 𝛼2 , … , 𝛼N ) a multi-index, |𝛼| = 𝛼𝑗 .
𝑗=1
4 NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN

Theorem 2 (Diening et al.19 ). The space Wk, p(x) (Ω) set up with the norm
∑
||z||k,p(x) ∶= |𝛼|≤k ||D𝛼 z||p(x) is a Banach space.
k,p(x)
We denote the closure of C0∞ (Ω) in Wk, p(x) (Ω) by W0 (Ω).
Definition 3 (Brezis18 ). Let X be a Banach space. Then, Lq (0, T; X) is defined as the set of measurable functions
z : [0, T] → X such that if 1 ≤ q < ∞,
1

⎛T ⎞q
||z||Lq (0,T;X) = ⎜ q ⎟
||z(t)||X dt < ∞,
⎜∫ ⎟
⎝0 ⎠

if q = ∞,

||z||L∞ (0,T;X) = ess sup||z(t)||X < ∞.

Remark 2. For 1 ≤ q ≤ ∞, Lq (0, T; X) endued with the above norms is a Banach space.

Definition 4 (Messaoudi and Talahmeh21 ). The exponent b(x) is said to be log-Holder continuous on Ω if there exists
a constant D > 0 such that

D
|b(x) − b(𝑦)| ≤ − , for x, 𝑦 ∈ Ω, with |x − 𝑦| < 𝛿, 0 < 𝛿 < 1.
log |x − 𝑦|

Lemma 1 (Diening et al.19 ). If p(x), b(x) are variable exponents satisfying p(x) ≤ b(x) a.e. in Ω, then there is a continuous
embedding from Lb(x) (Ω) → Lp(x) (Ω).

Lemma 2 (Diening et al.19 ). Let the variable exponents p(x) ∈ C(Ω),̄ b ∶ Ω → [1, ∞) be a measurable function and
satisfy
{ Np(x)
, if p(x) < N,
ess inf (p∗ (x) − b(x)) > 0, where p∗ = N−p(x)
x∈Ω̄ ∞, if p(x) ≥ N.

1,p(x)
Then, the Sobolev embedding W0 (Ω) → Lb(x) (Ω) is continuous and compact.

1,p(x)
Lemma 3 (Fan et al.20 ). There exists 𝜆 > 0 and 𝜙 ∈ W0 (Ω) such that

{
−div(|∇𝜙|p(x)−2 ∇𝜙) = 𝜆|𝜙|p(x)−2 𝜙, in Ω,
𝜙 = 0, on 𝜕Ω,

where
∫Ω |∇z|p(x) dx
𝜆 = in𝑓z∈W 1,p(x) (Ω)∖{0} , (8)
0 ∫Ω |z|p(x) dx

called the first eigenvalue of −Δp(x) .

3 W E A K S O LU T ION S

In this section, we discuss about the existence of weak solutions for the problem (1), by using the well-known
Faedo–Galerkin approximation method.
NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN 5

1,p(x)
Definition 5. A function z(x, t) is said to be a weak solution of the problem (1) if z(x, t) ∈ L2 (0, T; W0 (Ω)∩Lb(x) (Ω))∩
L2 (0, T; H01 (Ω)) ∩ C(0, T; L2 (Ω)), zt (x, t) ∈ L2 (0, T; L2 (Ω)) and z(x, 0) = z0 (x) satisfies the following condition:

T T T

zt 𝜙dxdt + ∇z∇𝜙dxdt + |∇z|p(x)−2 ∇z∇𝜙dxdt

∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
0 Ω 0 Ω 0 Ω
(9)
T t T

− h(t − 𝜏) ∇z(x, 𝜏)∇𝜙dxd𝜏dt = 𝛽 |z|b(x)−2 z𝜙dxdt,

∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
0 0 Ω 0 Ω

for all 𝜙 ∈ C∞ (0, T; C0∞ (Ω)), [0, T] is the maximal interval of existence.

1,p(x)
Theorem 3. Assume that z0 ∈ W0 (Ω) ∩ Lb(x) (Ω) ∖ {0}, then the problem (1) admits a weak solution z(x, t) in the sense
of definition (5), t ∈ [0, T].

Proof. To employ the Galerkin method, we consider a set {𝜙i (x)}∞

i=1
constituting an orthogonal basis in H01 (Ω) and an
orthonormal basis in L2 (Ω). Now, we look for approximate solutions of the form

∑
n
zn (x, t) = cni (t)𝜙i (x), (10)
i=1

satisfying

znt 𝜙i dx + ∇zn ∇𝜙i dx + |∇zn |p(x)−2 ∇zn ∇𝜙i dx

∫ ∫ ∫
Ω Ω Ω
t (11)
− h(t − 𝜏) ∇zn (x, 𝜏)∇𝜙i dxd𝜏 = 𝛽 |zn | b(x)−2
zn 𝜙i dx,
∫ ∫ ∫
0 Ω Ω

and
∑
n
1,p(x)
zn (x, 0) = cni (0)𝜙i (x) → z0 (x) inW0 (Ω) ∩ Lb(x) (Ω)∖{0}. (12)
i=1

Now, our focus is on determining the coefficients {cni }ni=1 . For m = 1, 2, … n,

c′nm (t) = − ∇zn ∇𝜙m dx − |∇zn |p(x)−2 ∇zn ∇𝜙m dx

∫ ∫
Ω Ω
t (13)
+ h(t − 𝜏) ∇zn (x, 𝜏)∇𝜙m dxd𝜏 + 𝛽 |zn |b(x)−2 zn 𝜙m dx.
∫ ∫ ∫
0 Ω Ω

In a maximal interval [0, T], solution to the problem (13) exists by standard theory of ODE.
Multiplying Equation (11) by c′ni (t) and summing for i = 1, 2, … n, we get

|znt |2 dx + ∇zn ∇znt dx + |∇zn |p(x)−2 ∇zn ∇znt dx

∫ ∫ ∫
Ω Ω Ω
t

− h(t − 𝜏) ∇zn (x, 𝜏)∇znt dxd𝜏 = 𝛽 |zn |b(x)−2 zn znt dx.

∫ ∫ ∫
0 Ω Ω
6 NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN

This gives
t
1 1
|z | dx − 2
h′ (t − 𝜏)||∇zn (x, 𝜏) − ∇zn (x, t)||22 d𝜏 + h(t)||∇zn ||22
∫ nt 2∫ 2
Ω 0

⎡
d ⎢ 1 |zn |b(x) |∇zn |p(x)
= − ||∇zn ||22 + 𝛽 dx − dx (14)
dt ⎢ 2 ∫ b(x) ∫ p(x)
⎣ Ω Ω
t t
⎤
1 1
− h(t − 𝜏)||∇zn (x, 𝜏) − ∇zn (x, t)||2 d𝜏 +
2
h(𝜏)d𝜏||∇zn ||22 ⎥ .
2∫ 2∫ ⎥
0 0 ⎦

Now, we define

t t
⎛ ⎞
1⎜ |∇z |p(x) |z |b(x)
1
1 − h(𝜏)d𝜏 ⎟ ||∇zn ||22 +
n n
n (t) = dx − 𝛽 dx + h(t − 𝜏)||∇zn (x, 𝜏) − ∇zn (x, t)||22 d𝜏. (15)
2⎜ ∫ ⎟ ∫ p(x) ∫ b(x) 2∫
⎝ 0 ⎠ Ω Ω 0

From the hypothesis (H2 ), we get

t
⎡ ⎤
1 1
n′ (t) = − ⎢ |znt | dx −
2
h′ (t − 𝜏)||∇zn (x, 𝜏) − ∇zn (x, t)||22 d𝜏 + h(t)||∇zn ||22 ⎥ ≤ 0. (16)
⎢∫ 2∫ 2 ⎥
⎣Ω 0 ⎦

This implies that n is nonincreasing. So n (t) ≤ n (0) for all t ∈ [0, T) and for all n ∈ N.
Now, multiply Equation (11) by cni (t) and sum over i, for i = 1, 2, … n, to get

znt zn dx + |∇zn | dx +
2
|∇zn | p(x)
dx − h(t − 𝜏) ∇zn (x, 𝜏)∇zn (x, t)dxd𝜏 = 𝛽 |zn |b(x) dx.
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
Ω Ω Ω 0 Ω Ω

Further, we get
t t
⎡ ⎤
d ⎢1
|zn | dx +
2
|∇zn | dxd𝜏 +
2
|∇zn |p(x) dxd𝜏 ⎥
dt ⎢ 2 ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ⎥
⎣ Ω 0 Ω 0 Ω ⎦
t
(17)

= h(t − 𝜏) ∇zn (x, 𝜏)∇zn (x, t)dxd𝜏 + 𝛽 |zn |b(x) dx.

∫ ∫ ∫
0 Ω Ω

We call
t t
1
Gn (t) = |zn |2 dx + |∇zn |2 dxd𝜏 + |∇zn |p(x) dxd𝜏. (18)
2∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
Ω 0 Ω 0 Ω

So
t
d
Gn (t) = h(t − 𝜏) ∇zn (x, 𝜏)∇zn (x, t)dxd𝜏 + 𝛽 |z |b(x) dx. (19)
dt ∫ ∫ ∫ n
0 Ω Ω
NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN 7

Now, by using Young's inequality, we get

h(t − 𝜏) ∇zn (x, 𝜏)∇zn (x, t)dxd𝜏

∫ ∫
0 Ω
t t

= h(t − 𝜏) ∇zn (x, t) (∇zn (x, 𝜏) − ∇zn (x, t)) dxd𝜏 + h(t − 𝜏)||∇zn ||22
∫ ∫ ∫
0 Ω 0
t t t
1 1
≤ h(t − 𝜏)||∇zn (x, 𝜏) − ∇zn (x, t)||22 d𝜏 + h(t − 𝜏)d𝜏||∇zn ||22 + h(t − 𝜏)d𝜏||∇zn ||22 ,
2∫ 2∫ ∫
0 0 0

this gives

t t t
1 3
h(t − 𝜏) ∇zn (x, 𝜏)∇zn (x, t)dxd𝜏 ≤ h(t − 𝜏)||∇zn (x, 𝜏) − ∇zn (x, t)||22 d𝜏 + h(t − 𝜏)d𝜏||∇zn ||22 . (20)
∫ ∫ 2∫ 2∫
0 Ω 0 0

Hence, by Equation (16) and the hypothesis (H2 ), we obtain

t
⎛ ⎞
d 1⎜ |∇zn |p(x) |zn |b(x)
Gn (t) ≤ n (t) − 1 − h(𝜏)d𝜏 ⎟ ||∇zn ||22 − dx + 𝛽 dx
dt 2⎜ ∫ ⎟ ∫ p(x) ∫ b(x)
⎝ 0 ⎠ Ω Ω
t
3
+ h(t − 𝜏)d𝜏||∇zn ||22 + 𝛽 |z |b(x) dx
2∫ ∫ n
0 Ω (21)
t ( )
1
≤ n (t) + 2 h(𝜏)d𝜏||∇zn ||22 + 𝛽 +1 |z |b(x) dx
∫ b− ∫ n
0 Ω
( )
1
≤ n (0) + 2(1 − l)||∇zn ||22 + 𝛽 +1 |z |b(x) dx.
b− ∫ n
Ω

We proceed further by defining the sets Ω+ = {x ∈ Ω||z| ≥ 1} and Ω− = {x ∈ Ω||z| < 1}. Thus,

|zn |b(x) dx ≤ |zn |b− dx + |zn |b+ dx

∫ ∫ ∫
Ω Ω− Ω+
b b+ (22)
≤ ||zn ||b− + ||zn ||b
− +
b
≤ 2||zn ||b+ .
+

Applying Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality,18 we get

b 𝜃b (1−𝜃)b+
||zn ||b+ ≤ C||∇zn ||p−+ ||zn ||2 , (23)
+

Np− (b+ −2)

where 𝜃 = N(p− b+ −2b+ )+2p− b+
. Now, for 𝜖 > 0, Young's inequality with 𝜖 gives

p− (1−𝜃)b+
b p
||zn ||b+ ≤ 𝜖||∇zn ||p−− + C(𝜖)||zn ||2 ,
p− −𝜃b+
(24)
+
8 NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN

Hence, (21) implies

( )[ p− (1−𝜃)b+ ]
d 1 p
Gn (t) ≤ n (0) + 2(1 − l)||∇zn ||22 + 𝛽 𝜖||∇zn ||p−− + C(𝜖)||zn ||2 .
p− −𝜃b+
+1 (25)
dt b−

p− (1−𝜃)b+ p p p
Set 𝜂 = 2(p− −𝜃b+ )
> 1 and assume min{||∇zn ||p(x)
−
, ||∇zn ||p(x)
+
} = ||∇zn ||p(x)
−
, then by (7), we get

( )⎡ ⎤
d 1
Gn (t) ≤ n (0) + 2(1 − l)||∇zn ||22 + 𝛽 + 1 ⎢𝜖 |∇zn |p(x) dx + C(𝜖)||zn ||2𝜂 ⎥,
dt b− ⎢ ∫ 2 ⎥
⎣ Ω ⎦

integrating from 0 to t, we obtain

Gn (t) ≤ Gn (0) + n (0)t + 2(1 − l) ||∇zn ||22 d𝜏

∫
0
(26)
( )⎡ t t
⎤
1 ⎢ 1 ⎥.
+𝛽 +1 𝜖 |∇zn | dxd𝜏 + 2C(𝜖)
p(x)
||zn ||2𝜂 d𝜏
b− ⎢ ∫ ∫ ∫ 2 2 ⎥
⎣ 0 Ω 0 ⎦

3 b−
Let c1 = Gn (0) + n (0)t, a constant depending on t, t ∈ [0, T]. Choosing l ≥ 4
and 𝜖 = 2𝛽(b− +1)
, we obtain

t t t
1 1 1
Gn (t) ≤ c1 (t) + ||∇zn ||22 d𝜏 + |∇zn |p(x) dxd𝜏 + c2 ||z ||2𝜂 d𝜏
2∫ 2∫ ∫ ∫ 2 n 2
0 0 Ω 0
t
1
≤ c1 (t) + Gn (t) + c2 G𝜂n d𝜏,
2 ∫
0

( )
1
where c2 = 2𝛽C(𝜖) b−
+ 1 . Hence, we have

Gn (t) ≤ c1 (t) + c2 G𝜂n (𝜏)d𝜏. (27)

∫
0

By applying Gronwall–Bellman–Bihari type inequality, we get

t t

Gn (t) = |zn | dx +
2
|∇zn | dxd𝜏 +
2
|∇zn |p(x) dxd𝜏 ≤ CT , (28)
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
Ω 0 Ω 0 Ω

p p p
CT depends on T. Since we have the assumption min{||∇zn ||p(x)
−
, ||∇zn ||p(x)
+
} = ||∇zn ||p(x)
−
, by (H1 ) we get ||∇zn ||2p(x) ≤
p
||∇zn ||p(x)
−
. Now, (7) gives

T T T
p−
||∇zn ||2p(x) d𝜏 ≤ ||∇zn ||p(x) d𝜏 ≤ |∇zn |p(x) dxd𝜏 ≤ CT . (29)
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
0 0 0 Ω
NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN 9

Since we have (29), the Sobolev embedding gives

T T

||zn ||2b(x) dx ≤C ||∇zn ||2p(x) dx ≤ CT . (30)

∫ ∫
0 0

Now, we define a functional

t t
⎛ ⎞
1⎜ |∇z|p(x)
|z|b(x)
1
 (z) = 1 − h(𝜏)d𝜏 ⎟ ||∇z||22 + dx − 𝛽 dx + h(t − 𝜏)||∇z(x, 𝜏) − ∇z(x, t)||22 d𝜏. (31)
2⎜ ∫ ⎟ ∫ p(x) ∫ b(x) 2∫
⎝ 0 ⎠ Ω Ω 0

1,p(x)
since we have zn (x, 0) → z0 (x) in W0 (Ω) ∩ Lb(x) (Ω), continuity of  gives a constant C such that

 (zn (x, 0)) ≤ C, for anyn. (32)

From Equation (14), we get

d
|znt |2 dx ≤ −  (zn ),
∫ dt
Ω

integrating from 0 to t gives

t

||zn′ (𝜏)||22 d𝜏 +  (zn ) ≤  (zn (x, 0)) ≤ C. (33)

∫
0

The estimates (28),(29), (30), and (33) together with the standard compactness arguments will give

zn → z weakly∗ in L∞ (0, T; L2 (Ω)), (34)

( )
1,p(x)
zn → z weakly in L2 0, T; W0 (Ω) ∩ Lb(x) (Ω) ∩ L2 (0, T; H01 (Ω)), (35)

zn′ → z′ weakly inL2 (0, T; L2 (Ω)), (36)

′
|∇zn |p(x)−2 ∇zn → 𝜓 weakly inL2 (0, T; Lp (x) (Ω)). (37)
Hence, Aubin–Lions lemma gives
zn → z in C(0, T; L2 (Ω)). (38)
By using Minty–Browder condition and the monotonicity of |s|p(x) − 2 s, we get 𝜓 = |∇z|p(x)−2 ∇z. Hence, the proof.

4 UPPER BOUND FOR BLOW-UP TIME

Now, the goal is to obtain an upper bound for the blow-up time of solutions of (1).
Theorem 4. Assume that (H1 ), (H2 ), and (H3 ) hold and weak solution z(x, t) as defined in (5) exists for the problem (1).
Then, the solutions z(x, t) blows up in finite time T∗ . Moreover, there exists an upper bound for the same, given by
( )
(1 + 𝜃) 1 + 𝛾1 ||z0 ||22
T∗ ≤ , (39)
2𝛼𝜃ℜ(0)

where 𝛼, 𝛾, and 𝜃 are suitable positive constants given later.

10 NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN

Proof. Multiply Equation (1) by zt and integrating over Ω will give

zt2 dx =− ∇z∇zt dx − |∇z| p(x)−2

∇z∇zt dx − h(t − 𝜏)Δz(x, 𝜏)zt (x, t)d𝜏dx + 𝛽 |z|b(x)−2 zzt dx,
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
Ω Ω Ω Ω 0 Ω

which implies
t
1 1
zt2 dx − h′ (t − 𝜏)||∇z(x, 𝜏) − ∇z(x, t)||22 d𝜏 + h(t)||∇z||22
∫ 2∫ 2
Ω 0

⎡
d ⎢ 1 |∇z|p(x) |z|b(x)
= − ||∇z||22 − dx + 𝛽 dx
dt ⎢ 2 ∫ p(x) ∫ b(x)
⎣ Ω Ω
t t
⎤
1
− h(t − 𝜏)||∇z(x, 𝜏) − ∇z(x, t)||2 d𝜏 + h(𝜏)d𝜏||∇z||22 ⎥ .
2
2∫ ∫ ⎥
0 0 ⎦
Now, define the functional

t t
⎛ ⎞
1 1⎜ |∇z|p(x) |z|b(x)
ℜ(𝔱) = − h(t − 𝜏)||∇z(x, 𝜏) − ∇z(x, t)||2 d𝜏 −
2
1 − h(𝜏)d𝜏 ⎟ ||∇z||22 − dx + 𝛽 dx. (40)
2∫ 2⎜ ∫ ⎟ ∫ p(x) ∫ b(x)
0 ⎝ 0 ⎠ Ω Ω

So we get
t
dℜ(𝔱) 1 1
= z2 dx − h′ (t − 𝜏)||∇z(x, 𝜏) − ∇z(x, t)||22 d𝜏 + h(t)||∇z||22 ≥ 0, (41)
dt ∫ t 2∫ 2
Ω 0

by using the hypothesis (H2 ). We proceed by defining an auxiliary functional

𝔐(𝔱) = z2 (x, 𝜏)dxd𝜏 + K. (42)

∫ ∫
0 Ω

Then,
t

𝔐 (𝔱) = 2
′
z(x, 𝜏)zt (x, 𝜏)d𝜏dx + z02 (x)dx, (43)
∫ ∫ ∫
Ω 0 Ω
and
𝔐′′ (𝔱) = 2 zzt dx
∫
Ω
t
⎡ ( ) ⎤
⎢
= 2 z(x, t) Δz + ∇ |∇z|p(x)−2
∇z − h(t − 𝜏)Δz(x, 𝜏)d𝜏 + 𝛽|z|b(x)−2 z⎥ dx
∫ ⎢ ∫ ⎥
Ω ⎣ 0 ⎦
t

= −2||∇z||22 −2 |∇z|p(x)
dx + 2𝛽 |z| b(x)
dx + 2 h(t − 𝜏) ∇z(x, 𝜏)∇z(x, t)dxd𝜏
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
Ω Ω 0 Ω

= −2||∇z||22 − 2 |∇z|p(x) dx + 𝛽 |z|b(x) dx

∫ ∫
Ω Ω
t t

+2 h(t − 𝜏) ∇z(x, t) (∇z(x, 𝜏) − ∇z(x, t)) dxd𝜏 + 2 h(t − 𝜏)d𝜏||∇z||22 .

∫ ∫ ∫
0 Ω 0
NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN 11

1−l
Now, choose a constant 𝛼 > p+ and 𝛼(𝛼 − 2) > l
. Hence, we get

𝔐 (𝔱) = 2𝛼ℜ(𝔱) + 𝛼
′′
h(t − 𝜏)||∇z(x, 𝜏) − ∇z(x, t)||22 d𝜏
∫
0
t
⎛ ⎞
|∇z|p(x) |z|b(x)
+ 𝛼 ⎜1 − h(𝜏)d𝜏 ⎟ ||∇z||22 + 2𝛼 dx − 2𝛼𝛽 dx
⎜ ∫ ⎟ ∫ p(x) ∫ b(x)
⎝ 0 ⎠ Ω Ω
t
⎛ ⎞
− 2 1 − h(t − 𝜏)d𝜏 ⎟ ||∇z||22 − 2 |∇z|p(x) dx + 2𝛽
⎜ |z|b(x) dx
⎜ ∫ ⎟ ∫ ∫
⎝ 0 ⎠ Ω Ω
t

+2 h(t − 𝜏) ∇z(x, t) (∇z(x, 𝜏) − ∇z(x, t)) dxd𝜏

∫ ∫
0 Ω

⎛ t
⎞ ( )
⎜ ⎟ 2𝛼
≥ 2𝛼ℜ(𝔱) + (𝛼 − 2) 1 − h(t − 𝜏)d𝜏 ||∇z||2 + 2
−2 |∇z|p(x) dx
⎜ ∫ ⎟ p+ ∫
⎝ 0 ⎠ Ω
( ) t
2𝛼 1
+𝛽 2− |z|b(x) dx − h(t − 𝜏)d𝜏||∇z||22 .
b− ∫ 𝛼∫
Ω 0

By using (H2 ) and Lemma 3, we gain

[ ] ( ) ( )
(l − 1) 2𝛼 2𝛼
𝔐′′ (𝔱) ≥ 2𝛼ℜ(𝔱) + (𝛼 − 2)l + ||∇z||22 + − 2 𝜆 |z|p(x) dx + 𝛽 2 − |z|b(x) dx
𝛼 p+ ∫ b− ∫
Ω Ω

= 2𝛼ℜ(𝔱),

( ) ( )
2𝛼 2𝛼
since we have (𝛼 − 2)l + (l−1)
𝛼
> 0, − 2 > 0 and if 2 − ≥ 0.
( ) p+ b−

If 2 − 2𝛼
b
< 0, then by (7),
−

( ) { } ( ) { }
2𝛼 p+ p− 2𝛼 b+ b−
𝔐 (𝔱) = 2𝛼ℜ(𝔱) +
′′
− 2 𝜆 min ||z||p(x) , ||z||p(x) + 𝛽 2 − max ||z||b(x) , ||z||b(x)
p+ b−

gives

[( ) ( )] { { } { }}
2𝛼 2𝛼 p+ p− b+ b−
𝔐 (𝔱) ≥ 2𝛼ℜ(𝔱) +
′′
−2 𝜆+𝛽 2− min min ||z||p(x) , ||z||p(x) , max ||z||b(x) , ||z||b(x) .
p+ b−

( )
𝛼
−1 𝜆
Choosing 𝛽 such that 0 < 𝛽 < (+
p
𝛼
) , we get
b
−1
−

𝔐′′ (𝔱) ≥ 2𝛼ℜ(𝔱). (44)

From (41), we have

t

ℜ(𝔱) ≥ ℜ(0) + zt2 (x, 𝜏)dxd𝜏. (45)

∫ ∫
0 Ω
12 NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN

Now, for 𝛾 > 0, consider

2
⎡ t
⎤ ( )⎡ ⎤
2
1
𝔐′ (t)2 ≤ 4(1 + 𝛾)⎢ z(x, 𝜏)zt (x, 𝜏)d𝜏dx⎥ + 1 + ⎢ z2 (x)dx⎥ .
⎢∫ ∫ ⎥ 𝛾 ⎢∫ 0 ⎥
⎣Ω 0 ⎦ ⎣Ω ⎦

Then, Holder's inequality is used to get

⎞ ( )⎡
t t 2
⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎤
1
𝔐 ≤ 4(1 + 𝛾) ⎜
′2
z (x, 𝜏)d𝜏dx⎟ ⎜
2
z (x, 𝜏)d𝜏dx⎟ + 1 +
2 ⎢ z (x)dx⎥ .
2
⎜∫ ∫ ⎟ ⎜∫ ∫ t ⎟ 𝛾 ⎢∫ 0 ⎥
⎝Ω 0 ⎠⎝ Ω 0 ⎠ ⎣Ω ⎦

√
𝛼
Since 𝛾 > 0 is arbitrary, choose 𝜃 = 𝛾 = 2
− 1 > 0, to get

( )⎡ ⎤
2
1 ⎢ z (x)dx⎥ .
𝔐 (t)𝔐(t) − (1 + 𝜃)𝔐 (t) ≥ 2𝛼Kℜ(0) − (1 + 𝜃) 1 +
′′ ′ 2 2
(46)
𝛾 ⎢∫ 0 ⎥
⎣Ω ⎦

Since we have (45) and ℜ(0) > 0, in Equation (46), K > 0 can be chosen large enough in order to get

′
𝔐′ (t)𝔐(t) − (1 + 𝜃)𝔐′ (t)2 > 0. (47)

So by the concavity method by Levine,22 we conclude that z blows up at a finite time T⋆ .

To get an upper bound for the blow-up time, we choose K as

( )[ ]2
(1 + 𝜃) 1 + 𝛾1 ∫ z02 (x)dx
Ω
K= .
2𝛼ℜ(0)

Hence, an upper bound for the finite time of blow-up T⋆ is given by

( )
(1 + 𝜃) 1 + 𝛾1 ||z0 ||22
0 < T⋆ ≤ . (48)
2𝛼𝜃ℜ(0)

5 LOWER BOUND FOR BLOW-UP TIME

This section is devoted to show the existence of lower bound for the blow-up time of solutions of (1). Here, we show the
existence of a lower bound for the time of blowup when dimension N = 1 and when N ≥ 3.
1,p(x)
Theorem 5. Assume that the conditions (H1 ), (H2 ), and (H3 ) hold and z0 ∈ W0 (Ω) ∩ Lb(x) (Ω)∖{0}. If the solution
z(x, t) of (1) exists and it blows up at finite time T⋆ , then T⋆ has a lower bound.

Proof. We start the proof by defining a functional

J(t) = z2 (x, t)dx. (49)

∫
Ω
NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN 13

Then,
J ′ (t) = 2 z(x, t)zt (x, t)dx
∫
Ω
t
⎡ ( ) ⎤
= 2 z(x, t) ⎢Δz + ∇ |∇z|p(x)−2
∇z − h(t − 𝜏)Δz(x, 𝜏)d𝜏 + 𝛽|z|b(x)−2 z⎥ dx,
∫ ⎢ ∫ ⎥
Ω ⎣ 0 ⎦
t
′
J (t) = −2||∇z||22 −2 |∇z| p(x)
dx + 2𝛽 |z|
b(x)
dx + 2 h(t − 𝜏)d𝜏||∇z||22 + J1 , (50)
∫ ∫ ∫
Ω Ω 0

where
t

J1 = 2 h(t − 𝜏) ∇z(x, t) (∇z(x, 𝜏) − ∇z(x, t)) dxd𝜏.

∫ ∫
0 Ω

Using (H2 ) and Holder's inequality, we get

t t
1
J1 ≤ 2 l h(t − 𝜏)||∇z||22 d𝜏 + h(t − 𝜏)||∇z(t) − ∇z(𝜏)||22 d𝜏
∫ 2l ∫ (51)
0 0

≤ 2l(1 − l)||∇z||22 + J2 ,

where
t
1
J2 = h(t − 𝜏)||∇z(t) − ∇z(𝜏)||22 d𝜏
2l ∫
0
t
⎡ ⎛ ⎞ ⎤
1⎢ |∇z|p(x) |z|b(x) 1⎜
= −ℜ(t) − dx + 𝛽 dx − 1 − h(𝜏)d𝜏 ⎟ ||∇z||22 ⎥ .
l⎢ ∫ p(x) ∫ b(x) 2⎜ ∫ ⎟ ⎥
⎣ Ω Ω ⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎦
dℜ(t)
By (41), we have dt
≥ 0. This implies that −ℜ(t) is a nonincreasing function. Hence,

1 1 1 |∇z|p(x) 𝛽 |z|b(x)
J2 ≤ − ℜ(0) − ||∇z||22 − dx + dx. (52)
l 2 l∫ p(x) l ∫ b(x)
Ω Ω

Applying the inequalities (51) and (52) in Equation (50), we get

1 1 |∇z|p(x) 𝛽 |z|b(x) 1
J ′ (t) ≤ −2l2 ||∇z||22 − 2 |∇z|p(x) dx + 2𝛽
|z|b(x) dx − ||∇z||22 − dx + dx − ℜ(0)
∫ ∫ 2 l∫ p(x) l ∫ b(x) l
Ω Ω Ω Ω
( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 𝛽 1
≤ − 2l2 + ||∇z||22 − 2 + |∇z|p(x) dx + + 2𝛽 |z|b(x) dx − ℜ(0).
2 lb+ ∫ lb− ∫ l
Ω Ω

( )
1
Since 2 + lb+
> 0 and by (H3 ) and (7), we get

( ) ( ) { }
1 𝛽 b− b+
J ′ (t) ≤ − 2l2 + ||∇z||22 + + 2𝛽 max ||z||b(x) , ||z||b(x)
2 lb−
( ) ( ) { } (53)
1 𝛽 b b
≤ − 2l2 + ||∇z||22 + + 2𝛽 max ||z||b− , ||z||b+ .
2 lb− + +

From here, we proceed by considering two cases separately.

14 NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN

{ }
b b b
Case 1 max ||z||b− , ||z||b+ = ||z||b+ .
+ + +

For N = 1, by using interpolation inequality for Lp -norms23 and the Sobolev embedding H01 (Ω) → L∞ (Ω) with C as
the constant of embedding, we obtain

b (b −2)
||z||b+ ≤ ||z||22 ||z||∞+ ≤ ||z||22 (C||∇z||2 )(b+ −2) . (54)
+

b+ −2
From the hypothesis (H1 ), we have 0 < 2
< 1. Now, by using the inequality

ap bq ≤ pa + qb, for all a, b, p, q > 0, p + q = 1, (55)

for all A1 > 0,

b ( ) 2 4−b+ ( ) 2 b+ −2
||z||b+ ≤ A1 ||z||22 4−b+ 2 A−11 (C||∇z||2 )(b+ −2) b+ −2 2
( ) 2 ( )
+

− b 2−2
(56)
4 − b+ 2
b+ − 2
≤ A1 + C2 ||∇z||22 .
4−b+
A1 (J(t)) 4−b+
+
2 2

This gives
[ ( ) 𝛽C2 (1 + 2lb )(b − 2) − 2 ]
1 − +
J ′ (t) ≤ − 2l2 + A1 + ||∇z||22
b −2
+
2 2lb−
(57)
𝛽(1 + 2lb− )(4 − b+ ) 4−b+ 2 2

+ A1 (J(t)) 4−b+ .
2lb−
In (57), we take,
[ ] b+−2
𝛽C2 (1 + 2lb− )(b+ − 2) 2
A1 = ,
lb− (4l2 + 1)
𝛽(1 + 2lb− )(4 − b+ ) 4−b+
2

C1 = A1 ,
2lb−
2
C2 = > 1.
4 − b+
Hence, we obtain
J ′ (t) ≤ C1 J(t)C2 . (58)

Integrating the above inequality from 0 to t and letting J(t) = 𝜎, we obtain

J(t)
d𝜎
t≥ .
∫ C1 𝜎 C2
J(0)

By Theorem 4, the solution z(x, t) of the problem (1) blows up at finite time T⋆ . Letting t → T⋆ , we get the lower bound
for blow-up time,
∞
⋆ d𝜎
T ≥ . (59)
∫ C1 𝜎 C2
J(0)

Now, for N ≥ 3 and for any B > 0, Holder's inequality gives

( 2N−b+ (N−2)
)( N(b+ −2)
)
b
||z||b+ ≤ B||z||2 2
B−1 ||z|| 2N 2 . (60)
+
N−2
NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN 15

By using the inequality (55) and the hypothesis (H1 ), Equation (60) can be converted to

( 2N−b+ (N−2)
) 4 4−N(b+ −2) ( N(b+ −2)
) 4 N(b+ −2)
4−N(b+ −2) 4 N(b+ −2) 4
b
||z||b+ ≤ B||z||2 2
B ||z|| 2N
−1 2
+
N−2
( )( 2N−b+ (N−2)
) 4
4 − N(b+ − 2) 4−N(b+ −2)
≤ B||z||2 2
4
( )( N(b+ −2)
) 4
N(b+ − 2) N(b+ −2) (61)
+ B ||z|| 2N
−1 2

4
( )
N−2

4 − N(b+ − 2) 4 2N−b+ (N−2)

= B 4−N(b+ −2) (J(t)) 4−N(b+ −2)
4
( )
N(b+ − 2) − 4
+ B N(b+ −2) ||z||22N .
4 N−2

2N
Now, using the embedding H01 (Ω) → L N−2 (Ω), in (61), and applying then (61) in (53), we get

( ) ( ) [( )
1 𝛽 4 − N(b+ − 2)
J (t) ≤ − 2l +
′
||∇z||2 +
2 2
+ 2𝛽
2 lb− 4
( ) ]
4 2N−b+ (N−2)
N(b + − 2) − 4
B 4−N(b+ −2) (J(t)) 4−N(b+ −2) + B N(b+ −2) C2 ||∇z||22 ,
4

where C is the embedding constant.

[ ( ) N𝛽C2 (1 + 2lb )(b − 2) ]
1 − + − N(b 4 −2)
J (t) ≤ − 2l +
′ 2
+ B + ||∇z||22
2 4lb−
( )( ) (62)
1 + 2lb− 4 − N(b+ − 2) 4 2N−b+ (N−2)
+𝛽 B 4−N(b+ −2) (J(t)) 4−N(b+ −2) .
lb− 4

Now, taking
[ ] N(b+ −2)
N𝛽C2 (1 + 2lb− )(b+ − 2) 4
B= 2
,
2lb− (4l + 1)
( )( )
1 + 2lb− 4 − N(b+ − 2) 4
C3 = 𝛽 B 4−N(b+ −2) ,
lb− 4
2N − b+ (N − 2) 2b+ − N(b+ − 2)
C4 = = > 1,
4 − N(b+ − 2) 4 − N(b+ − 2)
we arrive at the inequality
J ′ (t) ≤ C3 J(t)C4 . (63)
Integrating (63) from 0 to t and letting J(t) = 𝜎, we obtain

J(t)
d𝜎
t≥ .
∫ C3 𝜎 C4
J(0)

As in the above calculations, when t → T⋆ , we get the lower bound for blow-up time,

∞
⋆ d𝜎
T ≥ . (64)
∫ C3 𝜎 C4
J(0)

{ }
b b b
Case 2 max ||z||b− , ||z||b+ = ||z||b− .
+ + +
16 NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN

For N = 1, from (54), we know

( ) b− ( ) b− (b+ −2)b−
b b
||z||b− = ||z||b+ + ≤ ||z||22 b+ (C||∇z||2 ) b+ .
b
(65)
+ +

(b+ −2)b−
Since 0 < 2b+
< 1 by (a), using (55) and for any A2 > 0, we get

b ( ) 2b− 2b+ −b− (b+ −2) ( ) 2 b− (b+ −2)

||z||b− ≤ A2 ||z||22 2b+ −b− (b+ −2) 2b+
A−1
2 (C||∇z||2 )(b+ −2) (b+ −2) 2b+
( )
+
2b−
2b+ − b− (b+ − 2) 2b−
≤
2b −b (b −2)
A2 + − + (J(t)) 2b+ −b− (b+ −2)
2b+
2
b− (b+ − 2) − (b+ −2) 2
+ A2 C ||∇z||22 .
2b+

Using the above inequality, we gain

( ) ( ) [( )
𝛽
2b−
1 2b+ − b− (b+ − 2)
J ′ (t) ≤ − 2l2 + ||∇z||22 +
2b −b (b −2)
+ 2𝛽 A2 + − +
2 lb− 2b+
2 ] (66)
2b−
b− (b+ − 2) (b+ −2) 2
−
(J(t)) 2b+ −b− (b+ −2) + A2 C ||∇z||22 .
2b+

In (66), we take
[ ] b+−2
𝛽C2 (1 + 2lb− )(b+ − 2) 2
A2 = ,
lb+ (4l2 + 1)
𝛽(1 + 2lb− )(2b+ − b− (b+ − 2)) 2b+ −b−−(b+ −2)
2b

C5 = A2 ,
2lb+ b−
2b−
C6 = > 1.
2b− − b+ (b− − 2)
Thus, the lower bound for blow-up time T⋆ is given by

∞
⋆ d𝜎
T ≥ . (67)
∫ C5 𝜎 C6
J(0)

Now, considering the case of N ≥ 3, since we have Equation (60),

( 2N−b+ (N−2)
) b− ( N(b+ −2)
) b−
b+ b+
b
||z||b− ≤ B||z||2 2
B ||z|| 2N
−1 2
. (68)
+
N−2

b− N(b+ −2)
From the hypothesis (H1 ), we have 0 < 4b+
< 1. So by applying the inequality (55), we get

( 2N−b+ (N−2)
) 4b− 4b+ −Nb− (b+ −2) (
N(b+ −2)
) 4 Nb− (b+ −2)
4b+ −Nb− (b+ −2) 4b+ N(b+ −2) 4b+
b
||z||b− ≤ B||z||2 2
B ||z|| 2N
−1 2
,
+
( )
N−2

4b+ − Nb− (b+ − 2) 4b− b− (2N−b+ (N−2))

≤ B 4b+ −Nb− (b+ −2) (J(t)) 4b+ −Nb− (b+ −2)
4b+
( )
Nb− (b+ − 2) − 4
+ B N(b+ −2) ||z||22N .
4b+ N−2
NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN 17

Sobolev embedding gives

( )
b 4b+ − Nb− (b+ − 2) 4b− b− (2N−b+ (N−2))
||z||b− ≤ B 4b+ −Nb− (b+ −2) (J(t)) 4b+ −Nb− (b+ −2)
+ 4b+
( ) (69)
Nb− (b+ − 2) − 4
+ B N(b+ −2) C2 ||∇z||22 .
4b+

Hence, by applying (69) in (53), we get

[ ( ) N𝛽C2 (1 + 2lb )(b − 2) ]
1 − + − 4
J ′ (t) ≤ − 2l2 + + B N(b+ −2) ||∇z||22
2 4lb+
(1 + 2lb− )(4b+ − Nb− (b+ − 2)) 4b −Nb4b−(b −2) b− (2N−b+ (N−2))
+𝛽 B + − + (J(t)) 4b+ −Nb− (b+ −2) .
4lb− b+

Here, we choose
( ) N(b+ −2)
N𝛽C2 (1 + 2lb− )(b+ − 2) 4
B= ,
2lb+ (4l2 + 1)
( )( )
1 + 2lb− 4b+ − Nb− (b+ − 2) 4b−
C7 = 𝛽 B 4b+ −Nb− (b+ −2) ,
lb− 4b+
b− (2N − b+ (N − 2)) 2b+ b− − Nb− (b+ − 2)
C8 = = > 1.
4b+ − Nb− (b+ − 2) 4b+ − Nb− (b+ − 2)
Hence, we get
J ′ (t) ≤ C7 J(t)C8 . (70)
Now, by letting J(t) = 𝜎, a lower bound for blow-up time is given by

∞
⋆ d𝜎
T ≥ . (71)
∫ C7 𝜎 C8
J(0)

Thus, the inequalities (59), (64), (67), and (71) together ensures the existence of a lower bound for the blow-up
time T⋆ .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The first author is grateful to the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India for awarding the Inspire
Research Fellowship (IF170052). There are no funders to report for this submission.

ORCID
Lakshmipriya Narayanan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8999-7577

REFERENCES
1. Kaplan S. On the growth of solutions of quasi-linear parabolic equations. Comm Pure Appl Math. 1963;16:305-330.
2. Levine HA. Nonexistence of global weak solutions to some properly and improperly posed problems of mathematical physics: the method
of unbounded Fourier coefficients. Math Ann. 1975;214:205-220.
3. Levine HA, Park SR, Serrin J. Global existence and nonexistence theorems for quasilinear evolution equations of formally parabolic type.
J Differential Equations. 1998;142:212-229.
4. Peyne LE. Improperly Posed problems in Partial Differential Equations, Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics No 22: Society
for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; 1975.
5. Bellout H. Blow-up of solutions of parabolic equations with nonlinear memory. J Differential Equations. 1987;70:42-68.
6. Messaoudi SA. Blow up of solutions of a semilinear heat equation with a memory term. Abstr Appl Anal. 2004;2:87-94.
7. Messaoudi SA. Blow-up of solutions of a semilinear heat equation with a visco-elastic term. Progr Nonlin Differ Equa Appl. 2005;64:351-356.
8. Tian S. Bounds for blow up time in a semilinear parabolic problem with viscoelastic term. Comput Math Appl. 2017;74(4):736-743.
18 NARAYANAN AND SOUNDARARAJAN

9. Fang ZB, Sun L. Blow up of solutions with positive initial energy for the nonlocal semilinear heat equation. J Korean Soc Ind Appl Math.
2012;16(4):235-242.
10. Liu G, Chen H. Global and blow up of solutions for a quasilinear parabolic system with viscoelastic and source term. Math Meth Appl Sci.
2012;37(1):148-156.
11. Han Y, Gao W, Li H. Blow-up of solutions to a semilinear heat equation with a viscoelastic term and a nonlinear boundary flux. C R Acad
Sci Paris Ser I. 2015;353:825-830.
12. Li H, Han Y. Blow-up of solutions to a viscoelastic parabolic equation with positive initial energy. Bound Value Probl. 2017;1:1-9.
13. Antontsev SN, Shmarev SI. Evolution PDEs with nonstandard growth conditions. Atlant Studies Differ Equa. 2015;4:xviii+-409.
14. Zennir K, Miyasita T. Lifespan of solutions for a class of pseudo-parabolic equation with weak-memory. Alexandria Eng J. 2020;59:957-964.
15. Yang J, Yu H. Sharp threshold for blow up and global existence in a semilinear parabolic equation with variable source. Bound Value Probl.
2017;2017:80.
16. Baghaei K, Ghaemi MB, Hesaaraki M. Lower bounds for the blow up time in a semilinear parabolic problem involving a variable source.
Appl Math Lett. 2014;27:49-52.
17. Liao M. Non-global existence of solutions to pseudo-parabolic equations with variable exponents and positive initial energy. C R
Mecanique. 2019;347(10):710-715.
18. Brezis H. Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations: Springer; 2011.
19. Diening L, Hästö P, Harjulehto P, Ružička MM. Lebesgue and Sobolev Spaces with Variable Exponents: Springer-Verlag; 2017.
20. Fan X, Zhang Q, Zhao D. Eigenvalues of p(x)- Laplacian Dirichlet problem. J Math Anal Appl. 2005;302:306-317.
21. Messaoudi SA, Talahmeh AA. Blow up in a semilinear pseudo-parabolic equation with variable exponents. Annalli Dell'Universita Di
Ferrara. 2019;65(2):311-326.
22. Levine HA. Some Nonexistence and instability theorems for solutions of formally parabolic equations of the form Put = −Au + 𝑓 (u). Arch
Ration Mech Anal. 1973;51:371-386.
23. Evans LC. Partial Differential Equations, Grad. Stud. Math., vol. 19: American Mathematical Society; 1998.

How to cite this article: Narayanan L, Soundararajan G. Existence and blow-up studies of a p(x)-Laplacian
parabolic equation with memory. Math Meth Appl Sci. 2020;1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.7144