Dafermos 85-Regularity - Conservation - Law - Without - Convexity

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 99A, 201-239, 1985
Regularity and large time behaviour of solutions of

a conservation law without convexity
C. M. Dafermos
Lefschetz Center for Dynamical Systems, Division of Applied Mathematics,
Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, U.S.A.
(MS received 17 May 1984)
Synopsis
Using the method of generalized characteristics, we discuss the regularity and large time behaviour of
admissible weak solutions of a single conservation law, in one space variable, with one inflection point.
We show that when the initial data are C°° then, generically, the solution is C°° except: (a) on a finite
set of C°° arcs across which it experiences jump discontinuities (genuine shocks or left contact
discontinuities); (b) on a finite set of straight line characteristic segments across which its derivatives of
order m, m = 1, 2 , . . . , experience jump discontinuities (weak waves of order m); and (c) on the finite
set of points of interaction of shocks and weak waves. Weak waves of order 1 are triggered by rays
grazing upon contact discontinuities. Weak waves of order m, m & 2, are generated by the collision of
a weak wave of order m - 1 with a left contact discontinuity.
We establish sharp decay rates for solutions with initial data of the following types: (a) with bounded
primitive; (b) with primitive having sublinear growth; (c) in L 1 ; (d) of compact support; and (e)
periodic.
1. Introduction
Despite its apparent simplicity, the initial value problem for a single, nonlinear,
conservation law
dtu(x, t) + dj(u(x, t)) = 0, -oo< x <oo, 0S (1.1)
u(x, 0) = U0(x), -co<x<oo, (1.2)
is well-posed, in the classical sense, only locally in time. Indeed, no matter how
smooth the initial data uo(-) are, the solution of (1.1), (1.2) generally stays smooth
only up to a critical time beyond which waves break and discontinuities (shocks)
develop. Nevertheless, (1.1), (1.2) is globally well-posed in a weak sense. Most
notably, when uo(-) is bounded and has locally bounded variation on (—°°, °°),
there exists a unique admissible global solution of (1.1), (1.2), in the class BV of
functions of locally bounded variation.
Natural questions arise concerning the regularity and large time behaviour of
admissible BV solutions of (1.1), (1.2). Regularity is delimited on the lower end
by the inherent smoothness of general BV functions, described in Volpert [21],
and DiPerna [9], and on the upper end by known examples of solutions, with C°
smooth initial data, which experience discontinuities on an everywhere dense
Research supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. MCS 8205355, in
part by the U.S. Army under Contract No. DAAG-29-83-K-0029, and in part by the Office of Naval
Research under Contract No. N00014-83-K-0542.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Sussex Library, on 22 May 2018 at 11:10:28, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0308210500014256
202 C. M. Dafermos
subset of the upper half-plane. Even so, considering the experience with numer-
ous known solutions, one is tempted to conjecture that solutions of (1.1), (1.2)
with smooth initial data are generically piecewise smooth.
The large time behaviour of solutions of (1.1), (1.2) is affected by a number of
dissipative mechanisms induced by entropy increase (most pronounced in the
presence of strong shocks), the spreading of rarefaction waves and the mutual
cancellation of interacting shocks with rarefaction waves. The analysis of these
mechanisms in the context of (1.1) provides the model as well as the technical pre-
requisite for exploring the large time behaviour of solutions of systems of hyper-
bolic conservation laws (DiPerna [8], Liu [16]).
When f(u) is convex on (°°, °°), a detailed description of the structure and
large time behaviour of solutions of (1.1), (1.2) is available, elicited either from an
explicit representation (Lax [15], Oleinik [19]), or by the method of generalized
characteristics (Dafermos [5]). The set of points of discontinuity of an admissible
BV solution is the countable union of Lipschitz arcs (shocks). Every shock is
genuine, i.e. it absorbs incoming signals and never becomes a source emitting
outgoing signals. The collision of two (or more) shocks always produces a single
outgoing shock, so shock interactions tend to simplify the wave pattern. When the
initial data are C° smooth, then, generically, the solution is C°° smooth on the
complement of the shock set which, in turn, is the locally finite union of smooth
arcs (Schaeffer [20], Dafermos [5]). Due to wave spreading, solutions with initial
data of compact support decay as O(t~*) and form, asymptotically, the profile of
an N-wave. On the other hand, in solutions with periodic initial data, waves are
confined and so they interact vigorously inducing O(f -1 ) decay to the mean value,
at a uniform rate, independent of the size of the data!
When f(u) has inflection points, the situation is more complicated. In the first
place, shocks may be either genuine or contact discontinuities. The latter may
become signal emitting sources. Moreover, the collision of shocks may generate
wave fans containing centred rarefaction waves. Consequently, the structure of
the wave pattern will be considerably more intricate. Liu [17] shows that the set
of points of discontinuity of any admissible BV solution of (1.1), (1.2) constructed
by the random choice method of Glimm [11] is the countable union of Lipschitz
arcs. Beyond that, there is no information on the global structure of the shock set
and, in particular, it is still unknown whether solutions with smooth initial data
are generically piecewise smooth.
When f(u) has inflection points, the dissipative mechanisms that affect the
asymptotic behaviour of solutions become weaker, the more so as the inflection
points are "flatter". The information on large time behaviour recorded in the
literature is far from definitive.
Our objective here is to discuss the regularity and asymptotic behaviour of
solutions of (1.1), (1.2) by a direct approach, without making appeal to any
particular construction scheme. We consider f(u) with just one inflection point,
normalized so that
/(0) = f(0) = f'(0) = 0, uf'(u)<0, uÔ. (1.3)
A typical example is provided by the equation
dtu(x, t)-dx[\u(x, t)\mu(x, t)] = 0, (1.4)
with m > 1.
Solutions of a conservation law without convexity 203
The case (1.3) captures the essential features of the large time behaviour of
solutions under general f(u); however, as a model for exploring the structure of
solutions, it is somewhat special, in that, just as in the convex case, collisions of
shocks never produce outgoing centred rarefaction waves. On the other hand,
unlike the convex case, under assumption (1.3), the initial-value problem (1.1),
(1.2) admits solutions which contain left contact discontinuities as well as rarefac-
tion waves radiating out of contact discontinuities. The reader who wishes to get a
feel of the geometric structure of piecewise smooth solutions of (1.1) under
assumption (1.3) may consult the paper of Ballou [1].
In contrast to the convex case, no explicit representation for the solution of
(1.1), (1.2) is known, under assumption (1.3). However, the method of
generalized characteristics is still applicable here.
We recall that a classical characteristic associated with a C 1 solution u(x, t) of
(1.1) is a trajectory x(-) of the ordinary differential equation
X(t) = f'(u(x(t),t)). (1.5)
Classical characteristics are straight lines along which u(x(t), t) remains constant.
A generalized characteristic associated with an admissible BV solution u(x, t) of
(1.1) is still a trajectory x(') of (1.5), in the sense of Filippov [10]. The fastest and
slowest signals that reach the point x at time t follow the minimal and maximal
backward characteristics £(•) and £(•) through (x, t).
When f(u) has no inflection point, the extremal backward characteristics £(•),
£(•) are straight lines across which u(x, t) is continuous and along which u(£(t), t),
u(£(t), t) remain constant. From the perspective of the method of generalized
characteristics, it is this property that induces the special structure of solutions.
Under assumption (1.3) on f(u), the extremal backward characteristics are no
longer necessarily straight lines. Even so, it turns out that these characteristics are
endowed with special geometric structure. The minimal backward characteristic
£(•) through (x, t) is a convex C 1 curve along which the function u(£(t), t) is
continuous and monotone. Moreover, £(•) is composed of arcs of left contact
discontinuities and straight line segments of classical characteristics. On the other
hand, the maximal backward characteristic £(•) through (x, t) is a convex
polygonal line each side of which is a classical characteristic. These results are
established in Section 2.
By monitoring the field of the extremal backward characteristics, one can
unravel the intricacies of the shock set and thus provide the description of the
structure of solutions at any desired degree of detail. As an illustration, we show
in Section 3 that, generically, solutions with C°° initial data are C°° smooth except
along a finite collection of piecewise C°° arcs, which are genuine shocks or left
contact discontinuities, and a finite collection of weak waves, i.e. straight line
characteristic segments across which derivatives beyond a certain order, called the
order of the wave, experience jump discontinuities.
Shocks are generated either as a result of breaking of waves or as the outcome
of the collision of other shocks and keep propagating until the next collision. The
collision of two or more shocks always produces a single outgoing shock.
All weak waves emanate tangentially out of left contact discontinuities and
terminate upon colliding with a genuine shock or contact discontinuity. Weak
waves of order 1 are triggered by rays grazing upon contact discontinuities. In
204 C. M. Dafermos
particular, a weak wave of order 1 is emitted from any point at which a genuine
shock turns into a left contact discontinuity. Weak waves of order m, m § 2, are
generated by the collision of a weak wave of order m - 1 on the right side of a left
contact discontinuity.
The generic structure of solutions, described above, is more complex than
indicated in Guckenheimer [13]. By contrast, in the convex case, weak waves may
only be generated on the x-axis by singularities of the initial data and so,
generically, a solution of (1.1), (1.2) with C°° initial data will be either discontinu-
ous or C°° smooth at any fixed point of the upper half-plane.
The remainder of the paper discusses the large time behaviour of solutions of
(1.1), (1.2) under assumption (1.3). In Section 4, we establish an estimate which
yields optimal decay rates under a variety of assumptions on the initial data uo(-),
for instance uo(-) with bounded primitive, uo(-) in L1(-°o, oo), u^-) in Lq(-oo, co),
q > 1, etc. We thus strengthen and/or generalize earlier results by Cheng [3],
Kruzkov and Petrosjan [14], and Benilan and Crandall [2].
Section 5 deals with initial data of compact support. We show that the support
of the solution u(x, t) spreads and, asymptotically, f'(u(x, t)) forms the profile of a
triangular wave. A similar result, in the homogeneous case (1.4), was established
by Liu and Pierre [18] via a scaling argument.
In Section 6, we take up the case of periodic initial data with zero mean. We
demonstrate that f'(u(x, t)) decays as Oir1) at a uniform rate, independent of the
size of the data! Such behaviour was first conjectured by Greenberg and Tong
[12] and was established by them as well as by Conlon [4], albeit only for a special
class of initial data.
Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 may be read independently of one another; however,
they all rely heavily upon Section 2. Though elementary in character, the analysis
in Sections 2 and 3 is lengthy and occasionally even tortuous. The reader whose
principal interest lies in the asymptotic behaviour of solutions may wish to skim
through Section 2, reading the statements of Theorems 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 which
summarize the main conclusions of this section, and then proceed directly to any
one of the following sections.
2. Generalized characteristics
Throughout the paper, f(u) stands for a C 2 function, defined on (—°°, =°), which
satisfies (1.3). To avoid degeneracy, we assume, further, that/"(u) is nonincreas-
ing on some neighbourhood of zero.
In what follows, u(x, t) denotes a bounded admissible BV solution of (1.1), that
is, a bounded measurable function defined on (—°°, °°)x[0, oo), with distributional
derivatives dxu, dtu that are locally finite Borel measures, which satisfies the
entropy inequality
d,Tj(u(x, t)) + dxq(u(x, t))S0, (2.1)
for every pair of functions r)(u), q(u), where TJ(U) is concave and
q(u):=\Uf'(v)V'(v)dv. (2.2)
In particular, choosing TJ(U) = ±U, q(u) = ±/(u), (2.1) implies that u(x, t) satisfies
(1.1) in the sense of measures.
The initial value problem (1.1), (1.2), with uo(-) bounded and of locally
bounded variation on (—°°, °°), admits a unique admissible BV solution. The
entropy inequality (2.1) induces a dissipative mechanism which manifests itself in
the following well-known estimates.
For any 0ST<t<c°, -oo< a <b<oo,
fsup{u(x, t):aSxgb}Ssup{u(y,T):aK((T)Sygfe + K(!T)},
1 inf {wfe():agxSf)}§ inf My, T): a - K(t - T) S y ^ b + K(t - T)},
s -T)}, (2.4)
\u(x,t)-u(x,T)\dx^K(t-T)TVy{u(y,T):a-K(t-r)^y^
(2.5)
where
K: = sup{|f (uo(x))|: -™<x<™}. (2.6)
In particular, for any fixed te[0, =»), u(-, f) is a function of locally bounded
variation on (—°°, °°) and thus one-sided limits u(x±, t) exist at every point (x, f) of
the upper half-plane. For convenience, we normalize our solution by making it
continuous from the left, u(x, t) = u(x-, t), -co<x<oo, 0^t<oo.
The following two propositions record essentially familiar properties of admissi-
ble BV solutions of (1.1) which are used repeatedly in the sequel. For the sake of
completeness, we sketch the proofs.
LEMMA 2.1. Let ip(-): [a, b] -> (-<*>, oo), ^(.) : [ a , b] -» (-<», «>), 0 S a < b < o ° , be
Lipschitz curves such that (Kt) ^ x(0, t e [a, b]. Consider any concave function
T)(u) on (-oo,°°) and define q(u) by (2.2). Then, for a^
'X(T) rxdr)
J *(T)
T)(U(X, T)) dx -
•'I(/(O-)
-n(u(x, or)) dx
(2.7)
'V(T) f»W
J T| (u (x, T)) dx - i) (u (x, a)) dx

I(/(T) •'IJ/CO-)
f
(2.8)
u(x, T) dx — u(x, cr) dx
=f•"cr
(2.9)
206 C. M. Dafermos
Proof. We apply (2.1) on the nonnegative Lipschitz test function cp(x, t), i.e.
f J
f [v(u)dt<p+q(u)dx<p]dxdt^0, (2.10)
Jo -»
where q>(x,t) = h(x,t)g(t),
0, t<a,
{t-a)le, <r
g(f) = (2.11)
(T-t)/e, ig
0,
(2.12)
0,
with e > 0 . By letting e 4 0 in (2.10), we arrive at (2.7).
On applying (2.7) for the curves «/r*(t):= t(/(t)-e, x*(t):=x(f)-e, e > 0 , and
letting e 1 0, we deduce (2.8). Finally, choosing in (2.8) r\(u) = ±u, q(u) = ±f(u),
we verify (2.9). •
LEMMA 2.2. Let x(')'- [a, b~\ —> (-°°, °°), OSa < b <°°, be a Lipschitz curve. Then,
for almost all points in the (possibly empty) set of te [a, b] with
f(u(x(t)+,t))-f(u(X(t),t))
u(X(t)+,t)-u(x(t),t) '
f'(u(x(t)+, t))<x(t)^f'(u(x(t), 0). (2.14)
Proof. By applying (2.7) for i(i(t) := x(0> te[a, b], we conclude that, for almost
all t in [a, b],
(2.15)
By choosing in (2.15) -r)(u) = ±u, q(u) = ±/(u), we obtain (2.13). Next, assuming
for definiteness u(xU), t)<u(x(t)+, t), we fix any ve(u(x(t), t), u(x(t)+, t)) and
set in (2.15) TJ(u): = (u-vy, q(u): = (f(u)-f(v))+ which yields
-{f(u(X(t), t))- (2.16)
whence we easily get the right half of (2.14). The left half of (2.14) now follows
from the properties of the graph of f(u) upon noticing that, by (2.13), x(t) is the
slope of the chord that joins the points (u(x(t), t), f(u(x(t), ())) and (u(x(t)+, t),
))). •
DEFINITION 2.1. A generalized characteristic of (1.1), associated with the admis-
sible BV solution u(x, t), is a Lipschitz trajectory x('): [a, b]—>(—°°, °°), 0 S a <
b <°°, in the sense of Filippov [10], of the ordinary differential equation (1.5), i.e.
X(t) e [f'(u(X(t)+, t)), f'(u(X(t), t))l (2.17)
for almost all t in [a, b].
As a consequence of the Filippov theory, through any point of the upper
half-plane, there passes a funnel of generalized characteristics, confined between a
minimal and a maximal one. The main objective of this section, culminating in
Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, is to describe the properties of the extremal backward
characteristics through the typical point of the upper half-plane. Another useful
consequence of the general theory of (1.5) is that the limit of any convergent
sequence of generalized characteristics is itself a characteristic.
Typical examples of generalized characteristics are classical characteristics and
shocks. In fact, combining (2.17) with Lemma 2.2, we infer that a Lipschitz curve
x(-): [a, b]—»(-<», oo) is a (generalized) characteristic if and only if
(f'(u(X(t),t)) when u(x(t),t)=u(X(t)+,t),
x(t)=\f(u(x(t)+,t))-f(u(x(t),t)) (2.18)
, . — when u(x(t),t)j=u(x(t)+,t),
I u(x(t)+,t)-u(x(t),t)
for almost all t in [a, b], i.e. generalized characteristics propagate with either
characteristic speed or with shock speed.
DEFINITION 2.2. A characteristic x(')'- [a. b] —* (-°°, oo) of (1.1), associated with
the admissible BV solution u(x, t), is called a left contact or a right contact if
X(t) = f'(u(x(t),t)) (2.19)
or
)\ (2.20)
for almost all t in [a, b].
By virtue of Lemma 2.2 (cf. in particular (2.14)), if *(•): [a, b]-» (-<», oo) Js a
right contact then u(x(t), t) = u(x(t)+, t), for almost all t in [a, b]. Therefore, all
right contacts are also left contacts. The converse, of course, is not generally true.
This is a manifestation of the fact that under assumption (1.3), admissible solu-
tions of (1.1) may contain left contact discontinuities but not right contact discon-
tinuities.
Much of the special structure of solutions of (1.1) stems from the fact that the
extremal backward characteristics through any point of the upper half-plane are
left and/or right contacts. This property may be inferred from related results in
Wu [22] and Dafermos [5,6]. Here we provide a relatively shorter, self-
contained, proof.
LEMMA 2.3. The minimal (or maximal) backward characteristic through any
point (x, t), -°°<x<°°, 0<F<°°, is a left (or right) contact on [0, t].
Proof. Let £(•) denote the minimal backward characteristic through (x, t). We
fix e > 0 and construct a piecewise Lipschitz continuous function xE('): (0> H—*
(-oo, oo) by the following procedure. We let Ci(-) denote the minimal backward
208 C. M. Dafermos
characteristic through ( x - e , t) and define xE(t):= CiU), t1<fSt, where ^ = 0 if
£i(0<£W on O S t S t ; otherwise tx is the maximum number in [0, F] with the
property Ciih)= C(h)- H fi>0, we repeat the above procedure by constructing the
minimal backward characteristic £2(-) through (£(fi) — e, ti) and then define
Xs(t)'-=£2(t), f 2 <t = ti, where f2 = 0 if £2(t)<£(f) on O S f ^ ; otherwise t2 is the
maximum number in [0, t j with the property £2(t2) = £(t2). Continuing this
process, if necessary, we complete in a finite number (order O(e x)) of steps the
construction of xe(') o n (0> fl-
it is clear that x e (t)<£(t) on 0 < t ^ t and xe (£)-»£({), as e | 0 , uniformly on
(0, f ]. Consequently, as e [ 0, w(xe(0+, t)—>• u(£(t), f), boundedly almost
everywhere on (0, t]. Therefore, using Definition 2.1, we obtain for any 0<cr<
C(T) - £(cr) = lim (xe (T) - Xe (or)} g lim sup f XAt) dt

£ I0 E10 J CT
a lim sup f /'(u(x e (0+,t))dt= f f'(u(at),t))dt
s[ T ^(f)dt = ^(T)-C((T). (2.21)
Hence
C(T)-f(<r)= f f'(u(at),t))dt, 0«T<TÎ (2.22)
whence £(f) = /'(w(£(t)51)), almost everywhere on [0, t]. This shows £(•) is a left
contact.
The same analysis demonstrates that the maximal backward characteristic
through (x, t) is a right (and thereby also left) contact. •
The following proposition reveals an interesting property of left contact charac-
teristics.
LEMMA 2.4. Let *(•): [«, b]-» (-<», °°) be a left contact characteristic of (1.1),
associated with the admissible BV solution u(x, i). Then the function f'(u(x(t), t)) is
nondecreasing on [a, b]. In particular, x(') is a convex curve.
Proof. Wefixaô~<r'Sb and apply (2.8) with >f>(t):= x(*)~e> £ > 0 , to get
TJ(U(X, T)) dx - TJ(U(X, o-)) dx

r
{q(u(x(t)-e,0)-q(M(x(0,0)
-f'(u(x(t), t))Mu(X(t)-e, t))-n(u(X(t), t))]}dt, (2.23)
= u
where use has been made of x(t) f'( (x(t), t)) almost everywhere on [a, b].
In (2.23), we choose
T)(u):=-exp[-af(u)], (2.24)
where a is a sufficiently large positive constant to make 17 (u) concave on the
convex hull of the range of u(x, i), and q(u) is computed through (2.2). With this
choice and after a short calculation, setting r = f'(w) — f'(v), we deduce
q(w)-q(v)-f'(v)[7](w)-T](v)]
=f 6 exp(~ad) dOÔ. (2.25)
By multiplying (2.23) by 1/e, letting e | 0 and using (2.25), we conclude that

TI(M(X(T), T))&TJ(U( X (O-), or))
whence f (U(*(T), T))&/'(u(x(<r), cr)). D
The assertion of Lemma 2.4 allows the possibility of u(x(t), t) switching sign
rapidly along a left contact characteristic. The next proposition indicates that sign
switching takes place in an "orderly" fashion.
LEMMA 2.5. Let x("): [a, &]—*(~°°, °°) be a left contact characteristic of (1.1),
associated with the admissible BV solution u(x, t). Assume, further, that u(x(t), 0 =
0 (or SO) for almost all t in [a, b]. Then the function u(x(t), t) is nonincreasing (or
nondecreasing) on [a, b]. In particular, u(x(t), t)S0 (or SO) for all t in [a, b).
Proof. Assume, for definiteness, u(x(t), ()§0 almost everywhere on [a, b]. We
employ again (2.23) where now
T,( U ):=-u + ,q(u):=-/(u)-. (2.26)
We note that under this choice
q(w)-q(v)-f'(v)lr,(w)-T](v)]^0, ue[0,°°), we (-00,00). (2.27)
Thus, upon multiplying (2.23) by 1/e and letting e | 0, we deduce T](U(X(T), T ) ) S
7](U(X(CT), O-)) and so U(X(T), T ) ^ U ( X W , cr).
The case u(x(t), f) = 0 almost everywhere on [a, b] is treated in a similar
fashion. •
We are now prepared to give a preliminary, still crude, description of the
structure of maximal backward characteristics.
LEMMA 2.6. Let £(•) denote the maximal backward characteristic through any
point (x, f) e (—oo, 00) x (0,00) with u(x,t)j=0. Then [0, () is the union of an at
most countable set of pairwise disjoint half-open intervals, [0, t) = U n t^m bn), so
that for each n
+,bn), te(an,bn), (2.28)
if u(£(bJ+,b n )>0,
if u(|(b n )+,bJ<0,
+, bn)) = liminf {/'(u(x, t)): (x, t)-»>(f(^), bn)}, (2.30)
sgnu(|(b n ),b fl )^sgnM(|(b n )+,b n ), unless bn = l (2.31)
In particular, the restriction of £(•) on (a^ bn) is a straight line with slope
f'(u($(bn)+, bn)). Furthermore, if ti= bn for all n, i.e. t is a cluster point of {bn}, then
m m x { ( , t ) : x £
£ 10 1 t f
g|u(x+, t)-u(x, f)| + |u(x+, F)| + |u(x, t)\. (2.32)
210 C. M. Dafermos
Proof. By Lemma 2.3, £(•) is a right, and thereby also left, contact characteristic
of (1.1). Hence, u(£(t)+, 0 = u($(t), t) almost everywhere on [0, F]. Furthermore,
on account of Lemma 2.4, /'(w(£(0, t)) is nondecreasing on [0, t) so, in particular,
u(|(t),t)Ôfor all te[0, F].
We set S + : = {te[0, F]:u(|(0±, 0>0}, S_: = {f e[0, F]: u(£(0±, 0<0}. Upon
assuming S + / 0 , we fix <reS + and note that, by virtue of (2.4) and (2.5),
u(£(t)±, t)>0 for o-St<cr + S, when S is sufficiently small. Therefore, S+ has
nonempty interior.
Assume (a, b) is any maximal connected component of the interior of S+. By
Lemma 2.5, u(£(t), t) is nonincreasing on [a, b]. We proceed to show that
w(£(0+, 0 is nondecreasing on (a, b].
We fix cre(a,b) and note that (2.4), (2.5) imply u(x, t)>0 for a^tâ + 8,
| ( t ) S x S ^ ( t ) + E0, where 8 > 0 , e o >0. We apply (2.9) with a<r<a + 8,
«M0: = £(0, x(t) • = 1(0 + e, 0 < e < e0, to get
u(x, T) dx —
, 0)
x[„(£(*), 0 " «(l(0 + e, 0]} dt. (2.33)
Since u(£(0, 0 > 0 , u(|(0 + e, 0 > 0 on [<r, T], the right-hand side of (2.33) is
nonnegative. Thus, multiplying (2.33) by 1/e and letting e 10, we obtain
U ( | ( T ) + , r ) g u(£(o-)+, cr), i.e. u(£(0+, 0 is locally nondecreasing from the right.
Next we fix T e (a, b] and observe that since £(•) is maximal,
limi(0Sliminf {f(u(x, t)): (x, O ^ ( I ( T ) , T)}. (2.34)
Therefore, for any 0>0, there are S > 0 and e o >0 such that
f(u(!(0, t))Slimf(t)s/'( u (x, 0) + 0 (2-35)

it
for T - S < K T , ^ ( 0 S x S | ( 0 + eo. We then fix T - 5 < C T < T , 0 < e < e o and apply
(2.9) with i//(0:=£(0, *(0:=£(0 + e thus rederiving (2.33). A review of the
properties of the function f(u) shows that, so long as (2.35) holds with 6
sufficiently small, the integrand on the right-hand side of (2.33) is nonnegative.
Thus, multiplying (2.33) by 1/e and passing to the limit as e I 0, we deduce
U(£(T)+, T ) § U(£(<T)+, a), i.e. u(£(0+, 0 is locally nondecreasing from the left.
Upon combining the above information, we conclude u(£(0+, 0 is nondecreas-
ing on (a, b] and this together with u(|(0+, 0 = "(1(0, 0 almost everywhere on
[a, b] and the fact that u(£(0, 0 is nonincreasing on [a, b] yields u(£(0+, 0 =
w(£(0, t)=u = constant on (a, b) and u(£(b)+, b)Su. At the same time,
f'(u) = lim i(O=liminf {/'(w(x, 0)- (x, 0 —*• (£(b), b)}Si/'(w(£(b)+, b)),
(2.36)
so u = u($(b)+, b) and (2.36) holds as equality.
By Lemma 2.5, u(^(a), a) S u. Note also that, unless b = t, u(i;(b), b) must have
the oppposite sign to u(ij(b)+, b), since otherwise b would have been a point in
the interior of S+.
We now write the union of the interiors of S+ and S- as the at most countable
union [Jn (a*, bn) of pairwise disjoint open intervals. By our discussion, above,
(2.28), (2.29), (2.30) and (2.31) hold for all n. We claim [0, i) = U n [a*. &„)• To
see this, wefixre[0, t). If sgn U(£(T)+, T) = sgn U(|(T), T) then Te[an,bn) for
some n. Thus assume sgn U(£(T)+, T)^sgn U(£(T), T), say, for definiteness,
"(£(T)+, T ) > 0 , U(|(T), T ) < 0 . If T=f= 0^ for every n, then there is a decreasing
sequence foj such that bnt | T and u(£(bnt), b^)>0, u(^(bnk)+,bnJ<0. This,
however, leads to a contradiction since, by virtue of (2.4), (2.5), the decreasing
variation of u(-,bnj over the interval | ( r ) - e S x S £ ( r ) + e, with e > 0 small,
should be very small asfc—» °°.
It remains to prove (2.32). For definiteness, assume u(x, t)<0, u(x+, t)>0 (all
other possible combinations may be treated similarly). If t^ bn for every n, we can
find an increasing sequence {bnj, with bnk j 1 asfc—»°°, such that u(£(bnk), b n j >
0, u(|(bnk)+, & n J<0. By using (2.4), (2.5), we easily see that for anyfixede > 0
and k sufficiently large, TVx{u(x, bnj: x-e-K{t-bnJ^x^x + e+K(t-bnk)}
exceeds |u(x+, t)~u(x, t)\ + \u(x+, t)\ + \u(x, t)\. By letting k^ôo and e | 0, we
arrive at (2.32). •
We now turn our attention to minimal backward characteristics.
LEMMA 2.7. Let £(•) denote the minimal backward characteristic through any
point (x, t)e(-°°, °°)x(0, °°). If u(x, t)<0 (or >0), then u(£(t), t) is a nondecreas-
ing (or nonincreasing) function on [0, t] which is continuous from the left on (0, t].
Proof. On account of Lemma 2.5, it would suffice to establish a local result,
namely, that for arbitrary (x, t) the function u(£(t), t) is continuous from the left
at t.
We pick an increasing sequence {xH} such that ^ t x , n —»• °°, and
limlim TVx{u(x, t): x^-e-K(t-t)^x^xn + e+K(t-t)}
< | u ( x n + , f ) - u ( x n , t)\ + \u(xn+, t)| + |u(x n , t)\, n = 1, 2 , . . . . (2.37)
We let £„(•) denote the maximal backward characteristic through (xn, t). By virtue
of Lemma 2.6, u(^n(t)+,t) = u($n(t),t)=u(xn+,t), for ( in a maximal interval
(a^, t), and the restriction of £„(•) on (a,,, t) is a straight line with slope
f'(u(xn+, t)).
Assume first {an} is bounded away from t, say a n g f - 8 < t , n = l , 2 , . . . . Then
the sequence {£„(•)}, restricted on (t — 8,t], converges to a characteristic £*(•)
through (Jc, t) which is a straight line with slope f'(u(x, t)) along which
u(£*(t), t)=u(x, t), t<=(t-8,t]. By Lemma 2.4, £*(•) must coincide with the
restriction of £(•) on (t-8, t] and so u(£(t), t) is indeed continuous from the left
at t.
Assume now an —* t, as n —* °°. We claim that in this case
for n large, (2.38)
212 C M. Dafermos
i.e. the point (£,(0,,), an) lies on the graph of £(•)• The proof of (2.38) is lengthy
and is presented in two stages, depending on whether or not (x, t) is a point of
strong wave interaction.
In order to identify points of strong wave interaction, we fix 6 > 0 and introduce
the (possibly empty) set
Sfe : = {{%, t): limlim TVx{u(x, t): x-e-K(t-t)^x^x + e + K(t-t)}

£ 10 t t [
(2.39)
We note that any bounded subset of the upper half-plane contains a finite number
of points of ye.
For definiteness, we assume u(x, t)<0 (the case u(x, f)>0 can be treated in
the same fashion). We set u:=u(x, t) and identify the unique u*>0 with
f'(u*) = f'(u). We set 0=imm{-u, u*} and distinguish the cases (x, t)<£Sfe and
(x, t)eSee.
Assume first (x, t)£¥e so there are e > 0 , S > 0 with the property
TVx{u(x, f):x-e
<\u(x+, t)-u(x, f)|+^min{-u, u*},te[t-8, t]. (2.40)
Since an —> t, n —»• °°, we may assume, without loss of generality, that an>t-8,
n = l, 2, Lemma 2.6 guarantees u(£n(an), a n )gu(x fI , t), u(^n(an)+, a J > 0
and /'(«(4(a ri )+, a n ))g/'(w(l n (a fl ), ^ ) ) . Then, using (2.40), keeping e sufficiently
small, we infer
u(x, a n )<|u, for x-eK(Fan)Sxg^n(an) (2 41)
u(x, a n )>|u*, for i n ( ) ^ K ( )
We now fix any (x*, t*) with a n < t * < f, x - e - K ( t - t*)gx*=i
x + e + K ( t - ( * ) . Let |(-) denote the maximal backward characteristic through
(x*, t*). By Lemma 2.6, keeping in mind (2.28), u(£(0+, t) = u(£(t), t) =
u(x*+, (*) for ( in a maximal interval (a, t*). If a S a n > F - 5 , then u(x*+, t*)S
û*, because u(x*+, t*)>lu* would imply, by virtue of Lemma 2.6, u(£(a), a ) g
u(x*+, t*)>3U*, u(|(a)+, a ) < 0 which contradicts (2.40). On the other hand, if
a<an, then it follows from (2.41) that either u(x*+, t*)<|u or u(x*+, f*)gfu*.
We have thus demonstrated that for any (x, t) with an<t<t and
x-e-K(t-t)^x^x + e+K(t-t), it is either u(x, t ) a | i i * or u(x, 0=!"*- Con-
sequently, for every t e [art, t ], there is a well-defined x(t), lying between x — e —
K(t-1) and x + e+K(t-t), such that u(x, t)£|w* when x(t)<x<x + e+K(t~t)
and u(x, t) = 4"* when x - e - K ( t - t ) < x ; < x ( 0 - In particular, x(t) = x"> x(«n) =
|n(On), n = 1, 2 , . . . . By (2.5) and Lemma 2.2, x(-) is a Lipschitz curve which
satisfies (2.13), (2.14), for almost all t, and so it is a characteristic which joins
(x, t) with ( ^ ( a j , an), n = 1, 2 , . . . . Since £(•) is the minimal backward charac-
teristic through (x, t), it follows that £(f) = x(0 and so u(£(t), f)=4"*- By combin-
ing this with £(t)S£ n (t), te[an, (], we verify our claim (2.38). At the same time,
by Lemma 2.3, f'(u(£(t), t)) S f'(u) = f'(u*) and so u(£(i), 0 = u < 0 for f G [an, t ].
From the above discussion and Lemma 2.5, it follows that so long as the graph
of £(•) does not meet any point of Sfg, 6=lmin{-u, u*}, the function u(£(t), t)
stays negative, nondecreasing.
We now turn to the case (x, F) is a point of strong wave interaction, in the sense
(x,F)e5?8, 0=|min{-u, u*}. We fix e > 0 , S > 0 so small that (x, F) is the only
point of Sfe/2 contained in the trapezoid {(x, t): i - 8 S t S J , x-e-K(t-t)^
x ^ x + e +K(t — t)}. Since an^>t, n—»°°, w e may assume without loss of
generality an>t-8, n = 1, 2 , . . . . By Lemma 2.6, u($n(an),an)û(xn+,t),
u(£ n (a n )+,aJ>0 and f (u(| n (a n )+, a j ) ^ / ' ( u ( | n ( o j , a j ) . Suppose our claim
(2.38) is not valid, say £n(an)<£(an), n = 1, 2 , . . . . We select y m 4 ( a j < y n <
£(aj, such that u(ym o n )>|u(4,(o n )+, a j X ) . Let £,(•) and £*(•) denote the
minimal backward characteristics through (£„(<!„), a^ and (ym a,,), respectively.
Since the trapezoid {(x, t): F - S ^ f ^ a ^ , x - e - K ( F - f ) = x = x + e+K(F-f)} does
not contain any point of 5?e/2, it follows that u(£n(t), t) is a negative nondecreasing
function on [t-8, a^] while u(£*(t), t) is a positive nonincreasing function on the
same interval. Moreover, £ n (t)S£*(0^£O), t e [ F - S , a j . As n ^ o o , £n(f) t £(*)
and f*(f) f ^(t), t € [ ( - 8 , t) which is a contradiction, since this would imply that
u(C(t), t) is at the same time positive and negative for all te[t-8, t). We have
thus established the validity of (2.38) even when (x, t) e ife. Since the trapezoid
{(x, (): ( - 8 S ( g a w x - e -K(t~t)^x^x +s+K(t-t)} does not contain any
point of 5ê, it follows from our earlier discussion that u(£(t), t) retains the sign of
uidan),^), i.e. minus, on (F-S, a,,]. Since an^t, n-*°°, we conclude
u(£(f), f)<0 for te(t-8,t].
It remains to prove u(£(t), t) is continuous from the left at t. To this end, we
combine (2.38) with £(f)S£n(t), te^, F], and use Lemma 2.4 to get
f'(u(x, t))^f'(u(C(t), t))Sess-sup f(r)a lira 1 ( T ) = f (u(xn+, t)) (2.42)
for any te(On, F). By letting n—»°°, we deduce from (2.42) Mmf'(u(£(t),t)) =
t T t
f'(u(x, t)), whence lim u(£(t), t) = u(x, t). The proof is now complete. •
Lemma 2.7 allows us to refine the information on maximal backward charac-
teristics provided by Lemma 2.6.
LEMMA 2.8. Under the notation and assumptions of Lemma 2.6, the decom-
position [0, F) = Un [«n> ^n) is finite.
Proof. Fix any n with bnj=t and assume, for definiteness, u(£(fon), b n )<0.
Lemma 2.6 yields u ( | ( a j , a n )gu(|(b n )+, &n)>0. Let £,(•) and ^*(-) denote the
minimal backward characteristics through (^(an), a^) and (^(bn), bn), respectively.
By Lemma 2.7, u({B(0),0)&u(£n(aB)> aB) = u(|(a B ),o B ) and u(£*(0),0)S
b j , K). Therefore,
\u(i(bn)+, bJ-ui&K), bn)muo(L(0))-uo(C(0))\. (2.43)
Moreover, since f(u(£(bn)+,bn))^f'(u($(bn),bn))^f(u(x,t))<0, the left-hand
side of (2.43) is bounded away from zero by a constant independent of n. We now
note that £*(t)<£„(*), 0^tân, and the open intervals {(£*(0), £„(()))} are pair-
wise disjoint. Therefore, summing up (2.43) over all n with bn i= t and using the
214 C. M. Dafermos
fact that uo(-) has locally bounded variation, we conclude that the collection
{[an, bn)} is finite. •
We say Oleinik's £s-condition is satisfied at a point (x, t) of discontinuity of
u(x, t) with u(x+, t) — u(x, t ) > 0 (or <0) when the chord that joins the points
(u(x, t), f(u(x, t))) and (u(x+, t),f(u(x+, t))), on the u-f plane, lies below (or
above) the graph of f(u) between u(x, i) and u(x+, t). As is well-known, in any
admissible BV solution, Oleinik's E-condition may fail at most on a set of points
of discontinuity with zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure. In fact, (2.13),
(2.14) guarantee that Oleinik's Ii-condition holds for almost all points along any
shock. The next proposition shows that actually Oleinik's E-condition holds for
every point of discontinuity away from the x-axis. This is a manifestation of the
fact that under the current assumptions (1.3) on /(u), the interaction of shocks
(genuine or contact discontinuities) always generates a single shock rather than
centred rarefaction waves.
LEMMA 2.9. Let (x, F)e(-°°, °°)x(0, °o) such that u(x+, t)û(x, t). Then
f))< /(u(x_ + F))-/(u(xF)) g
u(x+, t)-u(x, t)
Proof. Without loss of generality, assume u(x, F)^0, since (2.44) is trivially
true when u(x, F) = 0, u(x+,t)i=0. Let £(•) and £(•) denote the minimal and
maximal backward characteristics through (x, ()• Wefixe > 0 , s<t, and apply
(2.9) with T=t,a=t-e, i^(-) = f(•), x (-) = |(-) to get
6
u(x,t-e)dx=
{/(u(f (0, 0) - i(tM£(t), t)} dt. (2.45)
By Lemmas 2.6 and 2.8, when e is sufficiently small, u($(t),t) = u(x+,t),

i(t) = f'(u(x+,t)), t-e<t<t. By Lemma 2.7, lim u(£(f), t) = u(x, F), lirn£(f) =
t ft t tF
f(u(x, t)). Finally, again by Lemma 2.6 (cf. (2.30)), liminf {f'(u(x, t)): (x, r)-»
(x, F)} = /'("(*+, F)), whence it follows
flimsup{u(x, t): (x, f) —* (x, F)}û(x+, F), if u(x+, F)S0,
•{ _ (2-46)
[liminf {u(x, f): (x, t)-*(x, F)}gu(x+, t), if u(x+, t ) ^ 0 .
On multiplying through (2.45) by 1/e, letting e | 0 and employing the above
information, we obtain
f(u(x+, t))-f(u(x, t))-f'(u(x, F))[u(x+, t)-u(x, t)M ~„ .„ ._ '_. ""„'
ISO if u(x+, () = 0.
(2.47)
Since, by (2.46), u(x+, F) and u(x+, t) — u(x, t) have the same sign, (2.47) implies
the right half of (2.44). The left half of (2.44) then follows automatically from the
assumed properties (1.3) of f(u). •
Our next project is to study forward characteristics emanating from points on
the upper half-plane.
LEMMA 2.10. Let (x, t) be a point on the upper half-plane such that
u(x+, t)û(x, t) and (2.44) holds. Then there is a Lipschitz shock (genuine or
contact discontinuity) x(') through (x, t), defined on an interval [t, t + 8), S > 0 .
The functions u(x(f), f) and u(x(t)+, t) are continuous from the right at t. The
function x(') is differentiate from the right at t and
f(u(x(t)+,t))-f(u(X(t),t))
{ZA
u(x(t)+,t)-u(x(t),t) • *}
Furthermore, x(') is the maximal forward characteristic through (x, t) and, when
(2.44) holds as a strict inequality, then x(') is the unique forward characteristic
through (x, t).
Proof. For definiteness, assume u(x, t ) < 0 < u ( x + , t). All other sign combina-
tions, compatible with (2.44), can be treated along similar lines. We select e > 0
sufficiently small that
TVx{u(x, t): x - e S x S x + e}<|u(x+, t)-u(x, t)|+|u(x+, t) (2.49)
andfix8 > 0 with 8 < e/2K.
Suppose there is (x*, (*) with t<t*<t + 8, x-e+K(t*- t)<x<
x + e-K(t*-t) such that \u(x+,t)<u(x*,t*)<iu(x+,t). Let £(•) denote the
maximal backward characteristic through (x*, t*). By Lemmas 2.6 and 2.8,
u(£(t)+, t) = u(|((), t) = u(x*+, t*) for t on a maximal interval (a, t*) along which
the restriction of £(•) is a straight line with slope f(u(x*+, t*)). Now if a^t,
considering that, by Lemma 2.6, u(£(a), a)>u(x*+, t*)>û(x+, t) and
u(g(a)+, a)<0, we deduce easily
TVx{u(x, a):x-s+K(a-t)^x^x + e-K(a~t)}
>\u(x+, t)-u(x, F)l + iu(jc+, f) (2.50)
which is a contradiction to (2.4), (2.49). On the other hand, if a<t, then
w(£(t), t) = u(x*+, r*)e(!w(x+, t), |M(X+, t)) which is also a contradiction to
(2.49). We have thus shown that for every (x, t), with t<t<t + 8 and
x-e+K(t-t)<x<x + e—K(t—t), it is either u(x, t)g|u(x+, F) or u(x,t)^
|u(x+, t). Consequently, for every f e[f, t + 8), there is a well-defined x(t),
between x-e+K(t-t) and x + e~K(t-t), such that u(x, t ) ^ | u ( x + , t) for
x(t)<x<x + e-K(t-t) and u(x,t)û(x+,t) for x-e +K(t- t)<x^\(t)-
Clearly, x(i) = x. By virtue of (2.5), x(') is a Lipschitz curve which must satisfy, on
account of Lemma 2.2, (2.13) for almost all t in [f, t + S). Therefore, x(') is a
forward characteristic (shock) emanating from (x, t).
We proceed to show that u(x(t)+, t) is continuous from the right at t. Let £(•)
be the maximal backward characteristic through (x(f*), t*). As before, u($(t), t) =
u(x(t*)+, t*) for ( on a maximal interval (a, f*) along which the restriction of £(•)
is a straight line of slope f'(u(x(t*)+,t*)). Since w(£(a), a)û(x(t*)+, t*)^
|w(x+, () and u($(a)+, a)<0, it is not possible to have ai? t without violating
(2.4), (2.49). Therefore, a < t. In particular,
u(x(t)+, t) = u(x(t)-(t-t)f'(u(x(t)+, t)), t), (2.51)
whence lim u(x(t)+, t) = u(x+, t).

tit
216 C. M. Dafermos
The field of maximal backward characteristics through (x(t), t) forms a barrier
that would block any forward characteristic issuing from (x, i) and staying to the
right of x('), i-e. x(') is the maximal forward characteristic through (x, t).
We now focus our attention to the left side of x(')- I n the first place, the
minimal backward characteristic through any point (x,t), with F S f S f + 5,
x — e + K(t - t ) = x S x ( 0 , must be intercepted by the interval {(y, t): x — s < y S
Jc} and so, by Lemma 2.7, u(x, ()S0.
By virtue of (2.3), lim inf u(x(t), t) =g u(x, t). On combining this with (2.13) and
tit
(2.44), we deduce
tit u(x+, t)-u(x, t)
Suppose now lim sup u(x(t), t)>u(x, t), so let there be a sequence {tn}, tn I I as
<|t
nôo, such that u(x(tn),tn)û>u(x,t), n = 1, 2 , . . . . Since f("(x(O, O ) ^
f'(u)>f'(u{x, t)) and in view of (2.52), it follows that for large n, the minimal
backward characteristic £„(•) through (x(tn), O wu"l n e strictly to the left of x(0,
for t^t<tn. Therefore, the restriction of 4, (•) on f t, („) will be a straight line with
slope f'(u(x(tn), tH)) along which u(£n(t), t) = u(x(tn), tn). In particular,
~ (tn ~ t)f'(u(X(tn), tn)), t). (2.53)
Thus, letting n ^ ° ° , we deduce uixitn), trt)—> u(x, t) which is a contradiction to

u(x(tn), tn)=u>u(x, t). Hence we have shown that u(x(t), t) is continuous from
the right at (.
The continuity from the right of u(x(t), t) and u(x(t)+, t) at ( together with
(2.13) imply that x(') is differentiate from the right at t and the right derivative
at that point is given by (2.48).
When (2.44) holds as a strict inequality, the minimal backward characteristic
£(•) through (x(t*), t*), with t*-t positive small, lies strictly to the left of *(•) on
[(,(*) and is a straight line along which u(£(f), 0 = u(£(t)+, t) = u(x(t*), t*),
t^t<t*. The field of these characteristics forms a barrier that would block any
forward characteristic issuing from (x, () and staying to the left of x('), i-e. x(') is
the unique forward characteristic through (x, (). The proof of the lemma is now
complete. •
In view of Lemma 2.9, Lemma 2.10 describes all resolutions of discontinuities
that may occur away from the initial line t = 0. The resolution of discontinuities
for which (2.44) fails may also be analysed by the same techniques. It turns out
that the resolution approximates the solution of the Riemann Problem for (1.1)
corresponding to the states uo(x) and uo(x+). Accordingly, each discontinuity is
resolved into either a shock, or a centred rarefaction wave, or a wave fan
consisting of a rarefaction wave bordered from the right by a left contact
discontinuity. The details are not given here.
We are now prepared to provide the detailed description of the structure of the
backward and forward extremal characteristics. The results are collected in the
following three propositions.
THEOREM 2.1. Let £(•) denote the maximal backward characteristic through any
point (x, t)e (-00, oo)x(0,00).
When u(x,t)i"0 and/or u(x+,t)j=O, then there is a finite mesh 0 = a o <
a1<.. .<ak+1= t such that £(•) is a convex polygonal line with vertices at the
points ($(an), a,,), n = 0 , . . . , k +1. Furthermore,
, t) = u(|(a n+1 )+, a n+1 ), an<t<an+1, n = 0, ...,fc,
(2.54)
, a j = u(|(a n+1 )+, a ^ ) , n = 1,..., fc, (2.55)
u(|(a 1 )+,a 1 ), if (2.56)
if ( | ( ) ) 0
), an<f<an+1, n = O,...,k, (2.57)
„, /w x ^ f(u(${an)+, an))-f(u(i(an), a j )
f(u(i(an),an)) = ——— — , n = l, ...,fc. (2.58)
u(£(an)+,an)-u(Z(an),an)
When u(x, t) = u(x+, F) = 0, then there is a e [ 0 , f] such thaf £(t) = x, t e[a, t],
and u(|(t), t) = u(£(t)+, 0 = 0, t e (a, t] (a/so af f = a i/ a > 0). Moreover, if a > 0,
there is an increasing sequence 0 = ao<a1<a2<- • •, with a^ t a and £(0,,) I x as
n-^00, such that (2.54), (2.55), (2.56), (2.57) and (2.58) aH hoid /or n = 1, 2 , . . . .
In particular, lu(|(0>0 ||0, f (u(|(r), t)) 10, as 11 a. (2.59)
Proo/. Assume first u(x, t)j=O. By combining Lemmas 2.6 and 2.8, we deduce
the existence of a mesh 0 = a0 < . . . < afc+1 =-t for which (2.54), (2.56) and (2.57)
hold.
In addition to £(•), there issues from the point (£(aj, a,,), n = 1 , . . . , fc, a
forward shock xn(') and £(0<Xn(0 f° r t — an positive small (Lemma 2.10). By
virtue of (2.29), (2.57) and (2.48),
f (u(
, On))
On account of (2.44), all inequations in (2.60) must hold as equalities and so

(2.55) and (2.58) follow.
Suppose now u(x, t) = 0 but u(x+, t) =fi 0. Consider a decreasing sequence {*„},
xn i x as n —» °°, and let | n (-) denote the maximal backward characteristic through
(xn, t). The assertion of the theorem holds for £„("), with n large, since u(xn, t) —>
u(x+,t)j=0. At the same time, $n(t) I |(f) as n ^ o o , uniformly on [0,1]. In
particular, £(t)S/'(u(x+, ()) and so the analysis of Lemmas 2.6 and 2.8 applies to
£(•) and, as above, it leads to the assertion of the theorem.
Finally, assume u(x, t) = u(x+, t) = 0. Let a be the minimum number on [0, t]
with the property u(£(t), t) = u(£(t)+, t) = 0 for t e (a, (]. Then |(f) = x, t e[a, t]. If
a > 0 , the restriction of £(•) on [0, (*] with any t*e(0, a), is the maximal
backward characteristic through (|(t*), t*). Since u(|(t*), t*) i=- 0, we have a finite
mesh 0 = ao<a1<...<ak<t* and (2.54), (2.55), (2.56), (2.57) and (2.58) hold
for n = 1 , . . . , k. By letting t* t a, we verify the assertion of the theorem. •
218 CM. Dafermos
THEOREM 2.2. Let £(•) denote the minimal backward characteristic through any
point (x, F)e(—°°, °°)x(0, oo). Then u(£(t),t) is a continuous function on (0, F],
which is nondecreasing when u(x, F)<0, nonincreasing when u(x, F)>0 and
constant, equal to zero, when u(x, F) = 0. For te(O, F),
i(t)=r(u(at),t)) (2.6D
1
so, in particular, £(•) is a convex C curve. Furthermore, the interval (0, F) is
decomposed into the union of two disjoint subsets 6 and <# with the following
properties: € is the (at most) countable union of pairwise disjoint open intervals,
e = l)n(an,pn), such that u(C(.t),t)=u(C(t)+,t) = uU(an\an) = u(C(Pn),Pn) for
all tG(an,(3n) so the restriction of £(•) on (an, |3n) is a straight line with slope
f'(u(£(an), « J ) . -For any point te% u(C(t)+, t) + u(C(t), t) and
»«(«•)•'B-
Proof. A s s u m e first u(x,t)j=0. S e t <g: = { t e ( O , F): u(£(f)+, t)± u(£(t), t)} a n d

fix t e <#. By Lemma 2.10, a forward shock x(') issues from the point (£(t), t) and
£(T)^X(T) for r — t positive small. We then combine Lemmas 2.3, 2.4, 2.7 with
(2.48) and (2.44) to get
, 0) = ^7
at
f(0 ^^J
a(
f(0 S at^
It follows that all inequations in (2.63) hold as equalities. In particular, £(•) is

differentiable at any point of % and (2.61) holds there. Furthermore, (2.62) is also
satisfied at any t e <£.
Consider now the complement ©: = {te(0, f): u(£(t)+, t) = u(£(t), t)} of <g and
fix (*eC. Let |(-) denote the maximal backward characteristic through (£(t*), t*).
By Theorem 2.1, the restriction of £(•) on a maximal interval (a, t*] is a straight
line with slope f'(u(£(t*),t*)) along which u(f(f), t) = u(|(t)+, t) = u(|(a), a),
t e (a, f*], but w(|(a), a) ^ u(|(a)+, a). It is clear that £(•) must coincide with |(-)
on [a, t*]. On the other hand, in view of (2.3) and (2.62), there is a maximal
interval [t*, |3)cC. By the above discussion, u(C(t),t) = u(£(t)+,t) = u(£(a),a),
te(a,(3). Moreover, by Lemma 2.7, u(£(|3), |3) = limu(£(0, 0 = "(£(«),«)• It is
t T3
thus clear that 0 = |J n (an» |3n) with the claimed properties, u(£(t), t) is continuous
on (0, F], £(•) is C 1 on (0, F) and (2.61) holds for all te(0, F).
We now turn to the case u(x, F) = 0. The analysis here becomes quite compli-
cated, due to the possibility of accumulation of weak contact discontinuities to the
right of £(•)• The same phenomenon is responsible for the rather complicated
structure of the maximal backward characteristic through a point with u(x, F) =
u(x+, F) = 0 (cf. Theorem 2.1).
Pick any sequence {xn} such that xn<x, u(xn+, t) i= 0, xn t x as n —> °° and let
£„(•) denote the maximal backward characteristic through (xn, F). By Theorem 2.1,
the restriction of £„(•) on a maximal interval (cn, F) is a straight line with slope
f'(u(xn+,t)) along which u(£n(t),t) = u($n(t)+,t)=u(xn+,t), te(cn,t). Let
c : = l i m s u p c n . F o r te(c, t], u(£(f), t)= l i m u($n(t), t)= l i m u ( x r i + , t) = 0. I n p a r -
n—*c° n—x» n—*°°
ticular, if c = 0, the assertion of the theorem has been established.
Let us then assume c > 0 (possibly c = t) and proceed to show w(£(f)+, t) = 0
for all fe(0, c). Arguing by contradiction, suppose u(£(fo)+, b ) ^ 0 for some
be(0, c). Fix e > 0 so small that u(x, b) does not change sign in £(b)<x<
£(b) + 2e. Let u^<0 and u + > 0 be the two roots of the equation /'(") = —e/t. Fix
an integer N such that
N>—-—TVx{u0(x): x-Kt^x^x + Kt}. (2.64)

u+-u_
Next fix n sufficiently large that if 0 = ao<a1<.. .<ak+1= t is the mesh iden-
tified in Theorem 2.1 for £„(•), then a N + 4 >b, f (u(£n(aN+4), aN+4))>-e/t. That
such a selection of n is possible is guaranteed by the mechanism of generating the
mesh {a0, a l 5 . . . , a k+1 }, as reflected in (2.54)-(2.58), the assumed properties (1.3)
on f(u) and the fact u(Xn+, t)—*0, n —»• <». We now let £m(-) denote the minimal
backward characteristic through (£n(am), c^). We know that u(£m(t), () and
u(^m+1((), t) have constant and opposite signs on their domains. Therefore, since
u(x,b) does not change sign on the interval (£(b), £(b) + 2e), it follows that
£4(-), • • •, &J+3O) cannot intersect this interval. For m = 4 , . . . , N + 3, we have
£n(am)<x + e and so f'(u(£m(b),b)) = L(b)^-e/t. Hence, u(£m(b), 6 ) g ^ when
u(£m(b), b)<0 and u{Cm(b), b)û+ when u(^m(b), b)>0. Therefore, recalling
(2.64),
N+3
I |u(^ m+1 (b),b)-ua m (b),b)|>TV x {u o (x):x-KFSx^x + Kt}, (2.65)
m=4
which is a contradiction to (2.4). We have thus shown that u(x, t) = 0 implies

u(C(t), t) = u(C(t)+, 0 = 0, te(0, t], and this completes the proof of the
theorem. •
THEOREM 2.3. Let x(') denote the maximal forward characteristic issuing from
any point (x, t)e(~"°°. °°) x (0, °°) with u(x+, t)J=u(x, t). Then x(') is a shock on
[t, °°), i.e. u(x(t)+, t ) ^ u(x(t), t) for all t e [(, °°). Furthermore, the functions
u(xti), t), u(x(t)+, t) are continuous from the right on [t, =0), xi') ' s differentiate
from the right on [t, 00) and
^ M ^ ^ , ,e[f,»). (2.66)
dt ((t)+t)((t)t)
Proof. By Lemma 2.10, there is a maximal interval [(, (*) on which
u(xU)+,t)û(x(t),t), u(x(t),t) and u(x(t)+, t) are continuous from the right,
x(-) is differentiate from the right and d+x\dt is given by (2.66). Thus it suffices
to show t* = 00.
Arguing by contradiction, suppose f*<c°. Then u(x(t*)+, t*) = u(x(t*), t*). Let
£(•) and |(-) denote the minimal and maximal backward characteristics through
(x(t*), t*). We must have
te{t,t*). (2.67)
220 C. M. Dafermos
If u(x(t*)+, t*) = u(x(t*), t*) ^ 0, it follows from Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 that the
restrictions of both £(•) and £(•) on an interval (a, t*] coincide with the straight
line through (xti*), t*) of slope f'(u(x(t*), t*)). Therefore, (2.67) induces a
contradiction.
To exclude the possibility u(x(t*)+, t*) = u(x(t*), t*) = 0 requires more work.
In this case, by Theorem 2.2, f(0 = *(**)> t<=[0, f*). The structure of £(•) is
described by Theorem 2.1. We recall that $(t) = x(t*) for t e [a, t*] with a e [f, f*].
If a<t*, this would provide an immediate contradiction to (2.67). Let us thus
assume a = t* and consider the sequence 0 = ao< a\ <..., as stated in Theorem
2.1. Let £„(•) denote the minimal backward characteristic through (£(aj, an).
Since x(') is the maximal forward characteristic emanating from (JC, t), we must
have x(t)<L(t), teller]. As n ^ o o , £,(t) J, «fr(t), te[O,t*), where ^(-) is a
characteristic of (1.1) through (*((*), t*) and ^(OS^W, te[t, (*]• Now recall that
the functions u(£n(t), t) and u(^n+1(t), t) have constant and opposite signs on their
respective intervals of existence. Hence u(i{i(t)+, t) = lim u(£n(t), t) = 0, t e (0, (*),
so *(.t) = X(t*), te[O,t*l Then X (0 = x(t*), teftt*], and u(x(t)+,() =
"(x(0 5 0 = 0. te[t, t*], which is a contradiction. This completes the proof of the
theorem. •
Information on the structure of u(x, t) derives easily from the above three
theorems. For instance, combining Theorem 2.1 with (2.3), we deduce
C O R O L L A R Y 2 . 1 . If u(x+,t) = u(x,t) for some (x, t)e (—<*>, °°)x[0, oo), then
u(x, t) is continuous at (x, t ) .
Similarly, using Theorems 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, Lemma 2.9 and the properties of f(u),
it is easy to infer
COROLLARY 2.2. If x(') is a shock on (t, °°), then, for any l*e(F, °°),
f Hmsupf (u(x(t), t))^f'(u(X(t*), t*)\

< tU (2.68)
[ liminf f\u(X(t)+, t))^f'(u(x(t*)+, t*)).
When (2.68) hold as equalities, then the functions u(x(t), t), u(x(f)+> t) are
continuous at t= t* and the curve xi') is differentiate at t*. When thefirst(and/or
the second) of (2.68) holds as a strict inequality, then (x(t*), t*) is a collision point
of x(') with another shock or centred compression wave from the left (and/or the
right). In particular, if x(') is a left contact at t*, i.e.
f'(u(x(t*) t*)) = f
IS
then (2.68) hold necessarily as equalities and so x(') differentiate at t* and
X(t*) = f'(u(x(t*),t*)).
3. Regularity of solutions
As an \W\istrat\oiv oi the \i?,eiu\i\es?> oi the results oi Section 2, •we take vvp here
the issue of generic regularity of solutions. Throughout this section, f(u) is a C°°
function satisfying (1.3). In order to focus attention on the behaviour of solutions
on compact sets, we consider the family of C°° initial data uo(-) which coincide
outside a compact interval with a fixed function uo(-) such that df'(uo(y))/dy <0.
A property is said to hold "generically" if it is valid for an open dense set of intial
data, with respect to the standard C°° topology.
Generically, the function uo(-) changes sign across an at most finite set of points
-oo<yj<.. .<y,<oo. We let <pj(-) denote the maximal forward characteristic
emanating from (yf, 0). For small t > 0 , <pi_1(t)<<pi(t). This strict ordering may
persist for all te[0, o°); otherwise <p;(-) will collide with <Pj_i(O at a time st and so
(pi_1(t) = <pi(t) for te[s;,oo).
The upper half-plane is partitioned into l+l regions 01 u ..., 0tl+1 bordered by
the characteristics cpx(-), •. •, <Pi("), i-e.
tt: = {(x, t): 0=S t<s ( , <p,_1(t)<x<<p,(t)}> i = 1 , . . . ,1 +1, (3.1)
with the interpretation cpo(-) :=-<*, <p,+1(-): = 0°, S;==° if cpj_1(t)<cpi(t), te[0,oo).
The minimal backward characteristic £(•) through any point (x, t) e £%; cannot
be intercepted by <P;_i(-), since cpi_1(-) is a maximal forward characteristic, nor
can it cross cpf(-), since £(•) is minimal. Therefore, £(•) is trapped in 9lt and so
£(0)e(Vj_i, y;). In particular, by virtue of Theorem 2.2, u(x, t) does not change
sign in 0lt.
The restriction of u(x, t) on 0tt is partly influenced by the interval (y^!, y;) and
partly by the characteristic <p;(-)- In order to sort out these influences, with every
t e[0, St) we associate Oj(f)e[<Pi-i(0, <Pi(0] having the property that the maximal
backward characteristic through any point (x, t), with xG[cpj_1((), o-^t)), lies
strictly to the left of <p((-) on [0, t] while when XG[cr;(t), <p;(t)) then the maximal
backward characteristic through (x, t) is intercepted by <p;(-)- As we see later, a-;(-)
generally consists of a sequence of shocks and straight line characteristic segments
emanating from <pf(-)- The characteristic crt(-) divides the region 0tt into subreg-
ions
(3.2)
with the interpretation <T1+1(-): = 0 °.

The domain of dependence of % is the interval (y;, yj+1) and so the restriction of
u(x, 0 on % is unaffected by the point of inflection of /(•) at 0. Consequently, the
regularity of u(x, t) on % may be discussed by the familiar techniques which apply
to (1.1) when /(•) is convex (e.g. Dafermos [5]). Nevertheless, for the sake of
completeness, we present here an outline of the analysis.
LEMMA 3.1. Generically, the restriction of u(x, t) on % is C°° smooth except along
an (at most) finite collection of smooth shocks and on an (at most) finite set of
shock generation and shock interaction points.
Proof. For (x, t)e%, we let y(x, f) denote the interceptor £(0)e (y;_i, yf) by the
x-axis of the minimal backward characteristic £(•) through (x, t). Then
= y(x,t) + tf(uo(y(x,t))), (3.3)
u(x, t) = uo(y(x, t)). (3.4)
222 C. M. Dafermos
For fixed f*, with <pj_1(t*)<a-j(f*), the function x >-> y(x, (*) is nondecreasing
continuous from the left and so
1 +1* •%- f(uo(y(x, t*))) § 0, x e ( ^ ( t * ) , <r,(t*)). (3.5)

dy
A point (x*, f*) 6 % is called a shocfc generation point if along the (unique)
forward characteristic x(') through (x*, t*) it is u{x(t)+, t)f u(x(t), t), t>t*, but
no backward characteristic through (x*, t*) encounters any point of discontinuity
on the interval (0, t*).
Any shock generation point (x*, t*) e % which is itself a point of discontinuity,
i.e. u(x*+, t*) j= u(x*, t*), is the focus of a centred compression wave, that is, all
characteristics emanating from the x-axis in the interval [y_, y + ], with
y_:= y(x*, t*), y+:=y(x*+, t*), are straight lines converging to (x*, t*). In par-
ticular,
x* = y+t*f(uo(y)), ye[y_,y + ]. (3.6)
It is clear that (3.6) is nongeneric and so, generically, all shock generation points
are points of continuity of u(x, ()•
If (x*, t*)e % is a point of continuity of u(x, t) such that
£f(uo(y(x,f)))>0, (3.7)
dy
then, by the implicit function theorem, the functions y(x, t) and u(x, t) are C°° on
a neighbourhood of (x*, t*). Consequently, (x*, t*) may be a shock generation
point only if
l + t*-^f'(uo(y(x*,t*))) = 0. (3.8)
When (x*,t*) is a point of continuity of u(x,t), the intervals (y(x*, (*) —e,
y(x*, (*)) and (y(x*, t*), y(x*,t*) + s) must intersect the range of the map
xi->y(x,t*) for any e > 0 . Therefore, whenever (x*,t*) is a shock generation
point, it follows from (3.5), (3.8) that y(x*, t*) is a local minimum of the function
df(uo(y))/dy. It is easily seen that the converse is also true, namely, any point
(x*, t*) of continuity of u(x, t), such that y(x*, (*) is a local minimum of
df'(uo(y))/dy, satisfying (3.8), is necessarily a shock generation point. Hence,
generically, the set of shock generation points in % is finite and u(x, t) is C°° in
the vicinity of all other points of continuity.
Shocks generated in % may merge with but cannot cross the characteristics
<Pi_i(0 and (Ti(-). These shocks may also interact among themselves, the collision
of two or more of them always producing a single shock.
By Corollary 2.2, any shock x(') in % is C 1 except at the finite set of shock
interaction points. If, further,
ay
(3.9)
t* — f(uo(y(x(t*)+, **)))> 0,
dy
then u(x(t), t), u(\(t)+, t), and thereby also x(0, are C°° in the vicinity of t*. The
regularity of x(') m a v break only at points t* where at least one of the expressions
on the left-hand side of (3.9) vanishes. This, however, may occur, generically, only
at a finite number of points in %. The proof is complete. •
We now turn to the study of the regularity of u(x, t) in the region $?;. In view of
Theorem 2.3, <pf(-) starts out, at t = 0, as a classical characteristic with slope 0 then
it generally collides with a shock at a time r{ beyond which it propagates as a line
of discontinuity. The interval (T;, st) is partitioned into a subset on which (pt(-) is a
genuine shock and a subset on which cp;(-) is a left contact discontinuity. In order
to identify the latter, we recall Corollary 2.2 and define
(3.10)
The interior of $i is denoted by £°.

Fix a G(T;, st) and let {*„} be any decreasing sequence converging to <Pi(a), as
n—>oo. The sequence {£„(•)} of minimal backward characteristics through {(xn, a)}
then converges to a characteristic through (<pf(a), a), independent of the choice of
{xn}, which is called the right limiting minimal backward characteristic through
(<Pj(a), a) and is denoted by ira(-)- We note that right limiting minimal backward
characteristics have all properties of minimal backward characteristics, as de-
scribed by Theorem 2.2, except that irQ,(a) = /'(u(<pi(a)+, a)). In fact, va(-)
coincides with the maximal backward characteristic &,(•) through (cp;(a), a) up
until the latter is intercepted for the first time (if at all) by one of the <p,-(-)>7 > '•
LEMMA 3.2. Let Ti<a<y<j3<si be such that and
'iu^y), 7))g= max {/'("(<*(«), «)),/'(u(<p,O), ^))}. (3.11)
Then the interval (^(O), TT3(O)), formed by the interceptors at the x-axis of the right
limiting minimal backward characteristics 7ra(-) and 773(-) through (cpj(a), a) and
(<PiO), /3), contains at least one (local) maximum of the function f'(uo(y)).
Proof. Consider the right limiting minimal backward characteristics Tta(-), TTB(-),
TT^(-) through (<Pi(a), a), (cp;(|3), |3), (<Pi(y), y) and identify their interceptors
•rra(0), TT3(O), 77^,(0) by the x-axis.
If 7ra(0)<y, <TT 3 (0), for some j>i, then the assertion of the lemma is true
since /'(wo(v)) attains its maximum, namely zero, at Vj. Assume, otherwise,
y,_! < TTa (0) < 77y (0) < 7T0 (0) < V;. (3.12)
Note that (3.11) implies
f(M(<p i ( 7 )+,T))^max{f(u(cp j (a)+,a)),f(u(( (3.13)
Now TTg(-) is a convex curve that starts off with slope f'(u(<pi((i)+, (3)). In
particular, /'("o(7r3(0)))^/'(w(<P,(i3)+, 3)). ^ ( ^ i s confined strictly to the left of
iTp{-), and thereby also of <Pj(-), and ira(-) is confined to the left of TTT(-). Hence,
va(-) and Try(-) are straight lines with slopes /'(u(<pi(a)+, a)) and f'(u(<pi(y)+, y))
along which u(x, t) remains constant. Consequently, (3.13) implies
/'(UO(TT, (0))) g max ^ (0))), f K K (0)))} (3.14)
224 C. M. Dafermos
and this demonstrates that some (local) maximum of f'(uo(y)) is contained in the
interval (ira(0), irB(O)). •
A grazing ray upon cp;(-) is a straight line characteristic segment on an interval
[ a - e , a + S], a e ^ , e > 0 , <5>0, which is tangent on q>t(-) at ((pt(a),a).
LEMMA 3.3. Let T j < a < j 3 < s j be such that a e ^ and (<pt(a),a) is a contact
point of a grazing ray upon <pt(-). Assume that
f (u(<pf(a), a))af(«( f t (p), (3» (3.15)
and/or
(3.16)
and the restriction on an interval (y, |3) o/ fne minimal backward characteristic
through (<P((/3), |3) is a straight line segment lying strictly to the left o/<p;(-). Then the
interval (ira(0), TT-0(O)) formed by the interceptors at the x-axis of the right limiting
backward characteristics ira(-) and TT^(-) through (<pf(a), a ) and (cp;(|3), |3), must
contain at least one (local) maximum of the function /'("o(v))- In particular, the
number of grazing rays upon <&(•) with contact points (<P;(T), T) such that a-i(j)<
<PJ(T) cannot exceed the (generically finite) number of (local) maxima of f'(uo(y))
on (yt, oo) plus one.
Proof. By virtue of Lemma 3.2, it suffices to identify 7 6 ^ in the interval (a, /3)
such that (3.11) holds.
Assume first (3.15) holds and suppose the tangent on <p;(-) at ((pt(a), a)
is a characteristic on [a-e, a+ 8]. Set T = min {a + S, /3}, fix xe(<pj(a) +
(T-a)tpj(a), CP;(T)) and consider the minimal backward characteristic £(•) through
(x, T). Let 7 be the time of interception of £(•) by cp;(-)- Clearly, ye^t and
7 E (a, (3). Furthermore, £(•) will have to pass through the point (<Pi(a), a), since it
is trapped between <pt(-) and the grazing ray through (<Pi(a), a). Therefore,
f(u(<p i (7),7))af(u(<p i (a),a)) and so (3.11) holds.
Assume next o-((3)<<Pi(|3) and f (u(<pi(a), a))<f'(u(<pi((3), (3)). The minimal
backward characteristic £(•) through (tpj(|3), |3) will be intercepted by (p;(-) at
7 £ ^ i such that /'(w(<P;(7), 7)) = /'("(<Pi(|3), /3)). It suffices to show 7 > a . Indeed,
if it were y g a , then the minimal backward characteristic through (<pt(a),a),
being confined between <pt(-) and £(•), would have to pass through the point
(9,(7), 7). But then f'(u(q>t(a), a))a/'(u(«Pi(7), 7)) = f(u(«PiO), /3)), in contradic-
tion to our assumption, above. This completes the proof. •
LEMMA 3.4. The restriction of <pf(-) on £° is C 1 and, generically, piecewise C°°.
Specifically, &(•) is defined and satisfies
<Pi(0>0 (3.17)
/or aH f s ^ ? 6M^ those with the property that (q>i(t), t) lies on a grazing ray upon
some <pj(-),j>i. Away from these points <pf(-) is C m , m S 2 , in the vicinity of any
t e ^ f with the property that the right limiting minimal backward characteristic 7r,(-)
through (<pf(f), t) is intercepted by some <p,(-), j>i, at TG^>° in the vicinity of which
<p,(-) is C m ~ \ In particular, the number of points on $° across which a derivative
<Pim)(") of any order experiences a jump discontinuity cannot exceed the (generically
finite) number of (local) maxima of f'(uo(y)) on (y i+1 , °°) plus I — i.
Proof. By virtue of (3.10), if any one of the functions <pi(t), u(<Pj(t), t),
u(<pt(t)+, t) is C m , m g l , in the vicinity of a point te^J, then all three are and
û((Pi(t)+,t). (3.18)
at
By Corollary 2.2, no shock may collide with <p;(-) at any te^. Therefore, if
(a, /3) is a maximal connected component of ^>°, then the interceptors TT,(0) by the
x-axis of the right limiting minimal backward characteristic ir,(-) through points
(<Pi(t), (), te(a, |3), must all lie in the same interval (y,-i, y,), for some j>i. We
should distinguish three possible cases, depending on whether cpi(3)<orJ(j3) or
<f>i(a) = o-j(a) or <pi(a)<o-j(a), <pt(/3) = <7,(|3).
Assume first cpj(|3)<crJ(3), in which case <Pj(0<Oj(0 for all te(a, (3). Then all
7r,(-) are straight lines along which the solution remains constant. Consider the
map y = y(t) which carries t e (a, |3) to the interceptor -n-t(0) e (ty-i, v,). Then
(3.19)
/'(u(<Pi(()+, 0) = f("o(y(0)), te (a, p). (3.20)
The map y(-) is continuous and strictly increasing. On its range df'(uo(y))/dy S 0,
so, generically,
-f f(«o(y))>0, ye[y(«),y((3)]. (3.21)

dy
It then follows from (3.19), (3.20) that y(-) is C 1 on (a, |3) and
0). (3-22)
One may then show by induction that <pf(-) and u(<Pi(t)+, t) are C°° on (a, |3).
Furthermore, from (3.20),
~u(<pi(t)+,t) = ^-u0(y(t))^ (3.23)

at ay at
By combining (3.23), (3.21), (3.22), (3.18) and using Lemma 2.9, we conclude
that (3.17) holds for every t e ( a , |3).
The above discussion establishes completely the assertion of the lemma for i = I.
To cover the case of general i, we proceed by induction, assuming the result is
true for i +1,..., I.
Since we have already disposed of the case of (a, |3) with 9i(|3) <crJi(j3), we now
consider a maximal connected component (a,/3) of $\ with cpj(a) = a-,(a) and
thereby also cpj(t) = o-J(0, for all te(a, /3). Then, for te(a, /3), ir,(-) will be
intercepted by cp,(-) at T = r(t)e<0j. Thus
cp^t) = C P] (T(0) + [t - T(0]<P,(T(0), (3.24)

f'(u(cPi(t)+,»)) = f (U((P,(T(0), T(*))) = <Pi(T(t)). (3.25)
The function T(-) is strictly increasing and continuous from the right on (a, (3). In
fact T(-) is continuous at te (a, fi) unless (cpf(t), () lies on a grazing ray upon cpj(-).
226 C. M. Dafermos
Hence, by virtue of Lemma 3.3, the number of points of discontinuity of T(-) on
(a, |3) is generically finite. If t is a point of continuity of T(-), then T(t)e£°.
Assume that t e(a, (3) is a point of continuity of T(-) such that <£,•(•) exists at
T ( 0 - By the induction hypothesis, <PJ(T(())>0. It then follows easily from (3.24),
(3.25) that T(-) is differentiable at t and
^f(u(<pi(t)+,t)) <i>i(t)f(u(<Pi(t)+,t)). (3.26)

at
Since, by the induction hypothesis, (f>j() exists on ^ ° , except for a finite set of
points, it follows from (3.26) that f'(u((pi(t)+,t)), and thereby also cpj(-), is
differentiable at any point of continuity of the function T(-)- At any such point,
combining (3.18) with (3.26) and recalling Lemma 2.9, we verify (3.17). On the
other hand, (3.26) shows that cp;(-) experiences jump discontinuities across the
(generically) finite set of points of discontinuity of T(-), i.e. the set of t e (a, /3) for
which (<Pi(t), t) lies on a grazing ray upon cp,(-).
By using (3.24), (3.25) and (3.26), it is easy to see, further, that if ( e ( a , /3) is a
point of continuity of T(-) and cp,(-) is C""" 1 in the vicinity of r ( t ) e ^ , then cpt(•) is
C m in the vicinity of t. Therefore, by the induction hypothesis, cp;(-) is piecewise
C°° on (a, (3) and <p\m)(-) will experience a jump discontinuity across t only if
(pfn~1)(-) experiences a jump discontinuity across r(t).
It remains to consider maximal connected components (a, |3) of $\ with
<pi(a)<ai(a), <p;(|3) = or,(/3). There is ye (a, 0) such that <pt(y) = O-(Y) but <pf(f)<
<x,(t) for t e ( a , 7). As shown above, (pt(-) is C°° on (a, 7) and piecewise C°° on
(7, 0). Moreover, (3.17) holds for all te(a, 7) and those te(y, /3) for which <&(•)
is defined. Clearly, (^(7), 7) lies on a grazing ray upon <p,(-)- In general, <&(•) will
be discontinuous across 7.
The above discussion together with Lemma 3.3 imply that the number of points
on g° across which some derivative <p|m)(-) experiences a discontinuity cannot
exceed the (generically finite) number of (local) maxima of f'(uo(y)) on (y i+ i, 00)
plus l-i. This completes the proof. •
A straight line characteristic segment i? in (-<», °°)x(0, °°) will be called a weak
wave of order m, m = l, 2 , . . . , if u(x, t) is C" 1 ' 1 on an open neighbourhood % of
if, it is C°° on % \ i ? , and its partial derivatives of order m experience jump
discontinuities across if.
LEMMA 3.5. Fix (x*,t*)e'Xi. The minimal backward characteristic through

{%*, t*) is intercepted by <pj(-) at T*e^t; the graph of its restriction on (T*, t*) is
denoted by SB. When (x*, t*) lies on a grazing ray upon <Pi(-), then i£ is a weak
wave of order 1. When (x*, t*) does not lie on a grazing ray upon (p;(-) and <pt(-) is
C"1"1 in the vicinity of T* but <p\m)(-) experiences a jump discontinuity across T*,
then 56 is a weak wave of order m. Finally, if (x*, t*) does not lie on a grazing ray
upon cpj(-) and <pj(-) is C°° in the vicinity of T*, then u(x, t) is C°° in the vicinity of
(x*, n.
Proof. Keeping f* fixed, we consider the function T = T(X) which carries x e
(o-j(f*), <Pi(t*)) to the time of interception by <&(•) of the minimal backward
characteristics through (x, t*). Then
x = <pf ( T (x)) + [t* - T(x)]«Pi (T(X)), (3.27)
f'(u(x, t*)) = /'(M(<P«(T(X)), T(X))) = <pf(T(x)). (3.28)
The function T(-) is strictly increasing and continuous from the right. In fact T(-) is
continuous at x unless (x, (*) lies on a grazing ray upon <&(•)• Thus, by virtue of
Lemma 3.3, the number of points of discontinuity of T(-) is generically finite.
Assume x is a point of continuity of T(-) such that ipt(-) is denned at T(X). By
Lemma 3.4, 4>J(T(X))>0. It then follows from (3.27) that T(-) is diflerentiable at x
and
*(TW)Jr^=W (3 29)
-
From (3.28) and (3.29) it follows that
dj'(u(x,t*)) = -pr±^. (3.30)
Since, by Lemma 3.4, <&(•) is denned at all but a finite set of points in £f, the
validity of (3.30) is extended, by continuity, to every point of continuity of T(-).
Assume first that (x*, t*) does not lie on a grazing ray upon cp;(-), in which case
x* is a point of continuity of T(-). When <p;(-) is C°° in the vicinity of T* = T(X*),
then, by (3.29), T(-) is C°° in the vicinity of x* and so, by virtue of (3.30), u(x, t) is
C°° in the vicinity of (x*, t*). On the other hand, if <?;(•) is C""" 1 in the vicinity of
T* but <f>Sm)(O is discontinuous across T*, then (3.29), (3.30) imply that SE is a
weak wave of order m.
When (x*, t*) lies on a grazing ray upon <pf(-), then x* is a point of jump
discontinuity of T(-) and so, by (3.30), ££ is a weak wave of order 1. The proof is
complete. •
Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5 demonstrate that weak waves of order m, m = 2 , 3 , . . , ,
are being generated by the collision of <pj(-) with weak waves of order m — 1 while
weak waves of order 1 are triggered by grazing rays. In particular, a weak wave of
order 1 is emitted from any point at which a genuine shock turns into a left
contact discontinuity. The total number of weak waves, of any order, in $?( cannot
exceed the (generically finite) number of (local) maxima of f'(uo(y)) on (y i+ i, °°)
plus l—i.
In order to exhaust the study of points in £%f, it remains to discuss the structure
of the characteristic o-t(-) which separates % from $?f. Now <pt(-) and CTJ(-) start out
together at (yf, 0) and stay together up until the first time T at which a classical
characteristic originating on the x-axis grazes upon <pt(-) at (<P((T), T) and con-
tinues beyond T as a weak wave of order 1. For t>T,o-t(-) follows this weak wave
until (a) it collides with <pi_1(-), or (b) it collides with a shock generated in %, or
(c) it collides with (Pi(-) itself, or (d) it goes through a shock generation point and
develops into a shock. Subsequently, o-j(-) follows the shock until (if ever) it
collides with cp;(-)- The process is then being repeated, i.e. at(-) stays with <pj(-)
until, possibly, branching out again along a weak wave of order 1 triggered by a
grazing characteristic originating on the x-axis, etc. It is thus possible that <X;(-)
228 C. M. Dafermos
induce infinitely many shocks and weak waves of order 1, provided there are
infinitely many classical characteristics originating on the x-axis and grazing upon
<p;(-). However, the following proposition demonstrates that this situation is
nongeneric.
LEMMA 3.6. The set of a e ^ ; with the property that the tangent to <p;(-) at a is a
characteristic on the interval [0, a] is genetically finite.
Proof. Suppose {am} is an infinite sequence in £t such that, for each m, the
tangent t H-><pi(am) + (t-a m )(p i (a m ) is a characteristic on the interval [0, a m ].
Without loss of generality, assume {am} is monotone and, for definiteness, let {am}
be decreasing (the case {am} is increasing is similar).
The characteristic t^<pi(am) + (t — am)4>i(am), originating, at r = 0, from
xm:= <pj(am) — amcf>i(am), may terminate at t = am, in which case, recalling the
proof of Lemma 3.1, we have
l + a m ^ f ( u o ( x m ) ) = 0, (3.31)
or it may continue beyond t = am, as a grazing ray, up until t = (5m e (am, am_i) at
which (a) it encounters a shock generation point, so that
l + |3 m £f(u 0 (x m )) = 0, (3.32)
or (b) it collides with a shock generated at a point in % lying between the

characteristics t H-*(Pj(am) + (t-a m )<p j (a m ) and t ^cp i (a m _ 1 ) + (t-am_1)cpi(am_1)
or (c) it collides with cpf(-). In case (b), by Lemma 3.1, the function df'(uo(y))/dy
must attain a critical point in the interval [ ^ . ^ x,,,]. In case (c), by Lemma 3.3,
the function f'(uo(y)) must attain a local maximum in the interval (7rctm(0), T73m(0))
formed by the interceptors of the right limiting backward characteristics through
(<Pi(am),am) and (cp;Om), |3m). Therefore, generically, situations (b) or (c) may
arise only for a finite number of m.
Assume am 11*, as m—»°°. Then t*e<& and the tangent fi-»
<PiO*) + (f ~ f*)<Pi(f*) is the minimal backward characteristic £(•) through
((pi(t*), t*) on [0, t*] which is intercepted by the x-axis at a point £(0) = x*. We
also consider the maximal backward characteristic £(•) through (<p;(t*), t*) and set
|(0) = y*. For simplicity, we are assuming that £(•) does not encounter any <p,(-)
on [0, t*). (The case £(•) is intercepted by one or more <p,(-) is technically more
complicated but can be treated by essentially the same ideas.) We thus have
<P,(t*) = x* + t*f\uo(x*)) = y* + t*f (uo(y*)), (3.33)
Passing to the limit in (3.31) or (3.32) as m —»°°, we deduce
y o f( (x( ** ) ) = 00. (3.35)

ax
Our strategy is to show that, in addition to (3.33), (3.34), (3.35), the three
numbers x*, y*, t* are interrelated by a fourth, independent, relation and so the
current situation is nongeneric.
From (3.33), (3.34), (3.35) and the implicit function theorem, it follows that
there are C°° functions i^(-), x(-), y(") on an interval [t*,t* + 8), 5 > 0 , such that
«Kt*) = <p,(t*), x(t*) = x*, y(t*) = y* and
= x(0 + tf' (uo(x(t))) = y (() + tf' (uo(y(0)), (3.36)
(3.37)
A lengthy but straightforward computation, using (3.36), (3.37), (3.33), (3.34),

(3.35), yields
iHt*) = /'K0c*)), (3.38)
[f(u o (y*))-f (u o (x*))] 2 ^- uo(y*)

x(t*) = JT- 5L (3.39)
[uo(y*)-uo(x*)][—f(Mo(y*))-^f(«o(x*))J
«£('*) = -|j;x(t*) + r* J ^ f (uo(x*))i(t*)2. (3.40)
It is clear that tKa m ) = <pj(am), at least for m sufficiently large, and so

<Pi(t*) = i/r(t*), &(**) = «£(**). (3.41)
Now (3.41)! is a consequence of (3.34), (3.38) and does not provide new informa-
tion. In order to see the implications of (3.41)2, we compute &(**), just as in the
proof of Lemma 3.4, namely, by combining (3.18), (3.22) and (3.23). The result of
this lengthy calculation is
(3-42)
J
Ldy' d
From (3.40), (3.41), (3.35), (3.39) and (3.42), we conclude that either
dy
or
, d d2
2
t [f(«o(y ))-f'(uo(x *))] —- uo(y *) -r-^f'{uo{x *))
1+ — 2! ^ _ = o. (3.43)b
tuo(y*) - uo(x*)][j- /'(«o(y*)) " ^ f (MO(X*)) J
Equations (3.33), (3.34), (3.35) together with (3.43)a or (3.43)b provide four
independent relations for the three numbers x*, y*, t*. It is easily seen that this
makes the current hypothesis nongeneric. The proof is complete. •
230 C. M. Dafermos
We now summarize our findings into the following
THEOREM 3.1. The domain of an admissible solution u(x, t) of (1.1), (1.2) with
C°° initial data, which coincide outside a compact interval with a fixed function uo(-)
such that df'(uo(y))/dy<0, is genetically partitioned into four pairwise disjoint
subsets, namely, (-°°, °°)x[0, oo)=2>u W U5Û3", with the following properties:
(a) 2 is the set on which u(x, t) is C°°.
(b) if is either empty or it is the finite union of C°° arcs which are genuine shocks
or left contact discontinuities.
(c) W is either empty or it is the finite union of straight line characteristic
segments which are weak waves. All weak waves emanate tangentially out of
left contact discontinuities and terminate upon colliding with a genuine shock
or contact discontinuity. Weak waves of order 1 are triggered by grazing rays
upon contact discontinuities. Weak waves of order m S 2 are generated by the
collision of a weak wave of order m — 1 on the right side of a left contact
discontinuity.
(d) 3~ is a finite set of points which is nonempty if and only if £f is nonempty and
contains the shock generation points, the shock interaction points and the
points of interaction between shocks and weak waves.
4. Asymptotic behaviour of solutions

The nonlinearity of f(u) induces a variety of dissipative mechanisms, namely,
entropy increase, spreading of rarefaction waves, mutual cancellation of interact-
ing shocks and rarefaction waves, etc. These mechanisms are getting weaker as
f(u) gets "flatter" in the vicinity of the inflection point u = 0.
It turns out that the large time behaviour of solutions can be described
effectively by monitoring the time evolution of a conjugate function to /(u)
defined by
F(u): = f(u)-uf'(u). (4.1)
It is clear that F(0) = 0, F'(u) = -uf"(u)>0, for uÔ.
THEOREM 4.1. Let u(x, t) be the admissible, bounded, BV solution of (1.1), (1.2).
Then, for any (x*, f*)e(-oo, oo)x[0, oo),
inf | uo(x)dx: -°°<y <z<oo|gt*F(u(x*, t*))
gsupj uo(x) dx:-oo<y < z < o o i (4.2)
Proof. We fix (x*, t*) e(-°°, °°)x(0, °°) and assume, for definiteness, that
u(x*, t*)>0. The minimal backward characteristic through (x*, t*) is denoted by
£(•).
Let s be the smallest number in [0, t*) with the property u(x*, t ) S 0 for
s<tS=f*. Then u(x*, s ) ^ 0 and so, if £(•) is the minimal backward characteristic
through (x*, s), it is u(£(t), t)^0, te[0, s].
We apply (2.9) with a = 0, T = t*, x(t) = £(t), for (e [0, t*], and ^(t) = £(t), for
t e [ 0 , s ] , 4>(t) = x*, for te[s,t*]. By Theorem 2.2, i(t) = f'(u(£(t),t)), te(O,t*],
and £(t) = f(u(£(t), t)),te(O, s]. Hence, using (4.1), we obtain
ft* fs ft* f£(0)
F(u(£(t), 0) * - F(u(|(t), t)) dt- f(u(x*, t)) dt = uo(x) dx. (4.3)
Jo Jo Js Jj(O)
In view of the construction of £(•), £(•) and the properties of the functions f(u)
and F(u), each one of the three terms on the left-hand side of (4.3) is nonnega-
tive. Furthermore, by Theorem 2.2, u(£(t), t), and thereby also F(u(£(t), ()), is
nonincreasing on [0, t*] and so the first term on the left-hand side of (4.3) is
minorized by r*F(u(x*, t*)). Therefore, (4.3) yields the right half of (4.2). The left
half of (4.3) follows trivially from our assumption u(x*, f*)>0.
The case u(x*, t*)<0 is treated in a similar fashion and the case u(x*, (*) = 0
is, of course, trivial. The proof is complete. •
In particular, Theorem 4.1 yields O(f~1) decay of F(u(x,t)), providing the
initial data uo(-) have bounded primitive. When the inflection point of f(u) at
u = 0 is of algebraic order, as is the case in the model equation (1.4), then we can
establish decay of solution under the assumption that the primitive of uo(-) has
sublinear growth.
THEOREM 4.2. Let u(x, t) be the admissible, bounded, BV solution of (1.1), (1.2)
with initial data that satisfy
If uo(x) dx
for some M > 0 , q g l . Assume, further, that for any u in the range of u(x, t),
(4.4)
b\u\m^-uf"(u)^B\u\m, (4.5)
with B g b > 0 and m > 1. Then
t*\u(x*,t*)\m+«^N, (x*,f*)e(-oo,oo)x[0,oo), (4.6)
where
N: = ((1/m) + (l/q))""1 ^ [(1 + m)M|]". (4.7)
Proof. Note that (4.5) implies
|1+m. (4.8)
Fix any L>N and select e > 0 such that
(4.9)
where K is given by (2.6). The right-hand side of (4.9) is positive by virtue of

L>N and (4.7).
Assume that, for some t* > e,
t\u(x,t)\m+«^L, (x,0e(-oo,oo)x[0,t*-e]. (4.10)
It is clear that (4.10) does indeed hold, at least for sufficiently small e and (*. We
232 C. M. Dafermos
now claim that (4.10) implies
(*|u(x*,(*)| m+<! SL, x*e (-00,00). (4.11)
Once this claim has been established, we may proceed in steps of length e to infer
the validity of (4.11) for all points (x*, t*) on the upper half-plane and then pass
to the limit L IN thus arriving at (4.6).
To derive (4.11) from (4.10), let us assume, for definiteness, u(x*, t*)>0. We
retrace the steps in the proof of Theorem 4.1 thus rederiving (4.3). As before,
each one of the three terms on the left-hand side of (4.3) is nonnegative and the
first one of them is minorized by t*F(u{x*, t*)). Hence, using (4.3) together with
(4.8), (4.4), (2.61), (4.10) and (4.7), we obtain
(l/(l + m))bt*|u(x*, f*)|1+m=it*F(u(x*, t*))<j
) l-(l/q)
), 0) -
) l-(l/q)
uiat), ty
i) + (l/q))BL m / ( m + q )
_1_ f yn/(tn+q)\CQ — 1)/<Jj.iK(q — l)/(iri+C|)
S (1/(1 + m))bL(1+m)/<m+q)f*(q~1)/(m+<'), (4.12)

whence (4.11) immediately follows. The proof is complete. •
We note that initial data uo(-) which lie in Lq(-oo5 oo) or decay as O(\x\~llQ), for
|x|—»°°, do satisfy assumption (4.4) of Theorem 4.2.
Theorem 4.2 strengthens earlier results by Cheng [3] and Kruzkov and Petros-
jan [14]. The analogs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 in the convex case, f'(u)S0, are
recorded in Dafermos [5].
Since the assumptions in Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 involve the primitive of the
initial data wo(-), these propositions take a particularly natural form when re-
stated, in the obvious manner, for the Hamilton-Jacobi equation
dtv(x, t)+f{dxv(x, t)) = 0, (4.13)
which is related to (1.1) via the transformation u = dxv.
Using an elegant scaling argument, Benilan and Crandall [2] show that in the
homogeneous case, /(Au) = Km+1f(u), solutions of (1.1), (1.2) with uo(-)e
L1(-oo; oo) satisfy
(* lim — ||u(-, t*+h)-u(-, f*)||Lig— ||uo(-)||Li, f*e[0,oo). (4.14)
The following proposition indicates what the proper generalization of the above
result is in the nonhomogeneous case.
witk initial data uo{-) e L1^—a=, co). Then
t*TVx{F(u(x, t*)):-oo< x <oo}s2f |uo(x)| dx, t*e[0,°°). (4.15)
Proof. Take any mesh —oo<x_,<x_, +1 <.. . < x o < . . . <x,,<°° such that
u(xi+,t*) = u(xi,t*)j=O, i = —l,...,n, and M(X;, f*)<u(Xj +1 , t*) when i is even,
M(XJ, t*) > u(x;+1, t*) when i is odd. By a procedure to be described below, we will
construct through each point (xh t*), i = —I,..., n, a backward left contact charac-
teristic xt(') on [0, t*], ordered so that XiO)<Xi+i(t), te(0, t*], and we shall show
j, t*))\ ^ IJ
uo(x) dx -\J u(x, t*) dx . (4.16)
X,(0) x,
Once established, (4.16) will imply that t*TVx{F(u(x, t*)): -oo<x<00} is ma-
jorized by ||u(-, fs|s)||Li + ||i*0(-)llr.1- In combination with the well-known estimate
ll"('> t*)lli.1 = ll"o(-)llm this will yield immediatly the desired result (4.15).
When i is even and ufo, £*)<0 or when i is odd and ufo, f*)>0, then Xi(') is
simply the minimal backward characteristic through (x;, t*). On the other hand,
when i is even and u(Xj, t*)>0 or when i is odd and u(x;, f*)<0, then Xi(') is
constructed according to the following prescription: we let £(') denote the
maximal backward characteristic through (x;, t*). We consider the mesh 0 = ao<
a j < . . .<a k + 1 = t* associated with £(•), as described in the statement of Theorem
2.1. If fc=0 or fc = l, we define Xi(t) = £(t), te[0, t*]. If k > l , then we set
Xi(t) = £;(t) for (€[%_!,!*] and XiU) — C(t) for te[0, ak-x), where £(•) is the
minimal backward characteristic through (£(%_!), ak^^). It is easy to verify that
Xi(t)<Xi+i(t), te(O,t*], i = -l,...,n-l.
We now fix i and apply (2.9) with t(i(t):=Xi(t), *(*):= Xi+i(t), cr = 0, r = t*.
Since Xt(') and x»+i(") a r e l e r t contacts on [0, f*], by using (2.19) and (4.1), we get
dt-^ F(u(Xi(t),t))dt
u o (x)dx- u(x, f*)dx. (4.17)
We claim that the absolute value of the left-hand side of (4.17) is minorized by
the left-hand side of (4.16). This has to be verified for a number of possible
combinations. We discuss here explicitly two representative cases.
Assume first u(Xj, t*)<0<u(Xj +1 , t*) (in particular, i is even). In this case, Xi(')
and Xi+i(0 are the minimal backward characteristics through (Xj, t*) and (x;+1, t*).
By Theorem 2.2, ufait), t)û(x,, t*)<0 and u(Xi+1(t),t)û(xi+1,t*)>0, for
te[0, t*]. Therefore, in (4.17), the first integral on the left-hand side is minorized
by t*F(u(x;+1, t*)), the second integral on the left-hand side is majorized by
f*F(u(Xj, t*)) and so the left-hand side is positive and it is minorized by the
left-hand side of (4.16).
Next assume 0<u(xi,t*)<u(xi+l,t*) (in particular, i is even). In this case
Xi+iO) is the minimal backward characteristic through (Xj+1, t*) and so, as above,
the first integral on the left-hand side of (4.17) is minorized by ^FiuiXi+i, t*)).
On the other hand, by our prescription, XtU) is l(t), i-e. the maximal backward
characteristic through (xf, t*), for t&\_ak^, t*], and XiU) is l(t), i-e. the minimal
backward characteristic through (£,(ak^, ak-i), for te[0, ak^. The salient fea-
ture of this construction is that u(xi(t), 0 = u(xt, f*)>0 for te(ak,t*] while
234 C. M. Dafermos
"(Xi(O, 0 < 0 for fe[0, ak). Consequently,
F(u(Xi(t), 0) dtî^-ajFdiixt, t*)) + £F(U(XM, t)) dt
(4.18)
Therefore, the left-hand side of (4.17) is again minorized by the left-hand side of
(4.16).
Examining in this manner all possible combinations, we show that (4.17) always
implies (4.16) and thereby (4.15). This completes the proof. •
In the homogeneous case, f(\u) = \m+1f(u), (4.15) reduces to
|dx, f*e[0,<»), (4.19)
which is equivalent to (4.14). For the analog of Theorem 4.3 in the convex case,
see Dafermos [7].
5. Initial data of compact support

When MQ(-) has compact support, Theorem 4.1 yields O((~1) decay of F(u(x, t))
for the solution u(x, t) of (1.1), (1.2). However, more precise information on the
large time behaviour of solutions can be derived in this case.
For the homogeneous equation (1.4), Liu and Pierre [18] show, via a scaling
argument, that solutions with initial data M0(-)ei-1(-°°, °°) acquire asymptotically
a "triangular" profile which consists of a shock, propagating into a rest state,
relaxed from the rear by a rarefaction wave. In fact, the asymptotic profile is the
solution of (1.4) with initial datum a measure of mass
M:=J uo(x)dx (5.1)

concentrated at the origin. This should be contrasted with the situation when /(u)
is strictly convex, in which solutions behave asymptotically as N-waves (cf. Lax
[15]).
Here we take up the problem of the asymptotic behaviour of solutions of (1.1),
(1.2), with initial data uo(-) of compact support, for general f{u) satisfying (1.3),
and establish decay to a triangular profile at specific rates. From the perspective of
our approach, this asymptotic behaviour is induced by the fact that the intercep-
tors by the jc-axis of all backward characteristics, emanating from points in the
support of the solution, are confined within the support of the initial data.
In order to grade the flatness of f(u) in the vicinity of the inflection point u = 0,
we associate with every uÔ the unique u * ^ u with the property
We know sign u*^sign u and f'(u*)<f'(u). We make the assumption that there
is p, 0 < p < 1, such that
pf'(u*)^f'(u), uÔ. (5.3)
For instance, in the case of equation (1.4), f(u) = —\u\m u, (5.3) holds as an
equality with p the unique positive root of the equation
mp 1+1/m + (m + l ) p - 1 = 0. (5.4)
In particular, for m = 2, p = \.
For definiteness, assume the support of uo(0 is contained in the interval [-L, 0]
with L > 0 . Then, for any t > 0 , the support of u(-, t) will be contained in the
interval [x(t), 0] where x(') denotes the minimal forward characteristic emanating
from the point (—L, 0). Furthermore,
f°
u(x,t)dx = M, te[0,oo). (5.5)
J
x0)
where f(u) satisfies (1.3), (5.3) and uo(-) is supported in [—L, 0]. Then, as t —>°°,
f0,
0, (5.6)
Proo/. We fix any point (x*, (*) with u(x*, t*)j=O and consider the minimal
backward characteristic £(•) through (x*, t*). We let a e[0, f*] denote the time of
first encounter of £(•) with a point of discontinuity or, if no such encounter occurs
on [0, t*l a = 0.
By Theorem 2.2, the restriction of £(•) on [a, (*] is a straight line along which
u(x, t) is constant. Therefore,
x*- t*f'(u(x*, t*)) = £(a)-af\u{x*, t*)) = f ( a ) - a£(a). (5.7)
To establish (5.6), it suffices to show that the right-hand side of (5.7) is O(t*p).
Since £(t)S£(a), te[0, a], we deduce £(a)-at(a)^ ^(0)^0. Consequently,
the right-hand side of (5.7) is bounded from above by 0 and from below by £(a).
It remains to derive lower bounds for £(a). When a ^ l , £(a) > —(K + L) with K
given by (2.6).
We now suppose a > 1 and show
i(t)-(p/t)at)Ô, fe[l,a]. (5.8)

We first verify (5.8) for t e [ l , a] such that u(£(t)+, t) + u(£{t), t). Let |(-)
denote the maximal backward characteristic through (£(t), t). By virtue of
Theorems 2.1, 2.2 and (5.3),
t(t) = /'(«(£(0, 0) ^ fif'(u(f(0+, 0) = pi(0 ^ pi(r), T G [0, t], (5.9)
whence t£(t)Sp£(f)-p£(0)Sp£(t) = p£(t) and (5.8) holds.
Next consider t e (0, a] with u(£(t)+, 0 = u(^(f), t). On account of Theorem 2.2,
there is |3e(t, a] such that u(£(|3)+, |3)^ u(£(p), /3) and ^(T) = ^((3) for all TG
[t, |3]. As shown above, p£(|3) — |3£(|3)5iO and so
o (5.10)
which verifies (5.8) for this case as well.
236 C. M. Dafermos
By integrating (5.8) over [1, a],
(5.11)
p
It follows from (5.11) that £(a) is O(a") hence, a fortiori, O(t* ). Therefore, the
right-hand side of (5.7) is O(t*p) and the proof is now complete. •
In any concrete example, the location of the characteristic x(')> in Theorem 5.1,
is determined by combining (5.5) with (5.6). As an example, we state the result
for equation (1.4) with m =2, in which case, as noted above, p = j .
COROLLARY 5.1. Let u(x, t) be the admissible BV solution of the equation

dtu(x, t)-dxu3(x, 0 = 0 (5.12)
with initial data supported in [—L, 0] and satisfying (5.1). Then, as t—>°°,
fO, -oo<xSx(f),
2
u (x, 0 = ] -Cx/30 + O(t~*), x(t)<x<0, (5.13)
where
X (0 = 3(iM)M+O(^). (5.14)
6. Periodic initial data

Suppose u(x, 0 is the admissible BV solution of (1.1), (1.2) with initial data
uo(-) that are L-periodic and have mean zero, i.e.
+ L)=uo(x), x e (-00,00), (6.1)
uo(>x) dx = 0. (6.2)
Jo
It is clear that, for each fixed (e[0,00), u(-, t) will also be L-periodic with mean
zero.
By Theorem 4.1,
t*|F(u(x*,t*))|siJ \uo(x)\dx, (x*,t*)6(-°o,oo)x[0,°o). (6-3)
However, an additional dissipative mechanism is here present, induced by the fact

that the minimal (or maximal) backward characteristic that emanates from any
point in the interval {(x, r*): x*^x<x* + L} remains confined within the strip, of
width L, bordered by the minimal (or maximal) backward characteristics through
the points (x*, t*) and (x* + L, t*). In the convex case, i.e. /"(u)gO, the confine-
ment property of characteristics immediately implies oscx/'(w(x, t*))§L/f* (cf.
Dafermos [5]). Greenberg and Tong [12] have conjectured that L-periodic
solutions of (1.1), (1.4), with mean zero, decay according to |w(x, 01 = CT 1/m
where C is a constant that depends solely upon L and m and is, in particular,
independent of the initial data uo(-)- These authors, as well as Conlon [4], were
able to verify this conjecture albeit only for a very special class of initial data. Our
result here is
with f(u) satisfying (1.3), (5.3) and for initial data uo(-) conforming with (6.1),
(6.2). Then
-t*f'(u(x*,t*))^ML, (x*, t*) e(-«,oo)x[0,°o), (6.4)
where
- p + plogp)]. (6.5)
Proof. The first step is to show that
-tf (u(x+, F))^((M/2)- 1)L, (6.6)
for every (x, t) e (-», oo)x[0, °°) with sign u(x+, t) f sign u(x, t).
The proof of (6.6) is somewhat lengthy. We begin by constructing the maximal
backward characteristic £(•) through (x, t) and consider the mesh 0 = ao<a1<
.. . <a k + 1 = t, identified in Theorem 2.1.
For fixed n = 1 , . . . , k +1, we let £(•) denote the minimal backward characteris-
tic through (Kc^), a n ) and claim
at)^pa"~an-1f'(u(Z(an)+,an)), M o ^ o J . (6.7)
t-On-l
We first verify (6.7) for t e t a ^ , a,,] such that u(£(t)+, t)±u{£(t), t). Let *(•)
denote the maximal backward characteristic through (£(t), t). Then, using
Theorems 2.1, 2.2 and (5.3),
, 0) S fif'(u(C(t)+, 0) = Px(t) g PX(T), T e [a^1; t], (6.8)
whence
(t - a^dtit) 2 PX(0 - PX(aB_i). (6.9)

On combining (6.9) with
X(an_1) S f (^-a) = Ka,,) - (a* - a n _ 1 )/'(w(£(aj+, «„)) (6.10)
and x(t) = at)âan) = t(an), we arrive at (6.7).
Next we consider t&{an-x,an) with u(l(t)+, t) = u(£(t), t). On account of
Theorem 2.2, there is p e i t , ^ ] such that u(£(/3)+, j3) f u(£(/3), |3) and £(t) =
). By the above discussion,
(6.11)
which verifies (6.7) for this case as well.
We now integrate (6.7) over an interval (r, c^), T e {c^-j, o^), to get
a
f(aj-f(T)^p^-On.Jlog " fl"~1 f(u(aan)+, oj). (6.12)
At the same time, we have

= - ( a n -T)/'(u(f ( a j + , a,,)). (6.13)
238 C. M. Dafermos
We add up (6.12) and (6.13); use the fact that £(an) = £(an) and £ ( T ) - £ ( T ) < L
(since, otherwise, the maximal backward characteristic through (£(<!„) — L, a^)
would intersect £(•) on the interval (a,,.!, an)), and set r = an^1 + pic^ - ^ - i ) . The
result of this computation is
-(an -an^)f'(u(£(an)+, o j ) Si (1 - p + p log p)~lL. (6.14)

By virtue of (2.58), (5.2) and (5.3), we deduce
k+1
P -r(u($(an)+, o n ))S/'(u(x+, t)), (6.15)
so (6.14) yields
- ( a n - an_1)f'(u(x+, t)) S p k + 1 - ( l - p + p log p)xL. (6.16)

By summing up (6.16) for n = 1 , . . . , k +1, we arrive at (6.6) with M denned by
(6.5).
We now proceed to the proof of (6.4). We fix any (x*, f*)e(-°°, °°)x[0, °°).
Since u(-,t*) has zero mean per period, there is y * e [ x * - L , x*) such that
u(y*,(*)§0, u(y*+,(*)gO. Let *(•) and i/f(-) denote the maximal backward
characteristics through (x*, t*) and (y*, t*). For te[t*/2, t*), *0) = /'("(**, '*))•
Furthermore, using (6.6), - t * ^ ( ( ) g ( M - 2 ) L , (€[t*/2, (*). Hence
X(t*/2)^x*-(t*/2)f'(u(x*, t*)), (6.17)

(6.18)
Subtracting (6.18) from (6.17) and using x*>y*, ^((*/2)-i/r(t*/2)gL, we arrive

at (6.4). This completes the proof of the theorem. D
The value of the constant M in (6.4), recorded in (6.5), is far from optimal and
can be improved easily by more careful analysis.
References
1 D. P. Ballou. Solutions to nonlinear hyperbolic Cauchy problems without convexity conditions.
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 152 (1970), 441-460.
2 Ph. Benilan and M. G. Crandall. Regularizing effects of homogeneous evolution equations. Amer.
J. Math. Supplement dedicated to P. Hartman (1981), 23-39.
3 K.-S. Cheng. Asymptotic behavior of solutions of a conservation law without convexity condi-
tions. J. Differential Equations 40 (1981), 343-376.
4 J. G. Conlon. Asymptotic behavior for a hyperbolic conservation law with periodic initial data.
Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 32 (1979), 99-112.
5 C. M. Dafermos. Characteristics in hyperbolic conservation laws. In Nonlinear Analysis and
Mechanics, Vol. I, ed. R. J. Knops, pp. 1-58 (London: Pitman, 1977).
6 C. M. Dafermos. Generalized characteristics and the structure of solutions of hyperbolic conser-
vation laws. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 26 (1977), 1097-1119.
7 C. M. Dafermos. Asymptotic behavior of solutions of hyperbolic balance laws. In Bifurcation
Phenomena in Mathematical Physics, ed. C. Bardos and D. Bessis, pp. 521-533 (Dordrecht: D.
Reidel, 1979).
8 R. J. Diperna. Decay and asymptotic behavior of solutions to nonlinear hyperbolic systems of
conservation laws. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 24 (1975), 1047-1071.
9 R. J. Diperna. Singularities of solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic systems of conservation laws.
Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 60 (1975), 75-100.
10 A. F. Filippov. Differential equations with discontinuous right-hand side. Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 51
(I960), 99-128. English translation: Amer. Math. Soc. Transl, Ser. 2, 42, 199-231.
11 J. Glimm. Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of equations. Comm. Pure Appl.
Math. 18 (1965), 697-715.
12 J. M. Greenberg and D. D. M. Tong. Decay of periodic solutions of duldt + df(u)/dx = 0. J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 43 (1973), 56-71.
13 J. Guckenheimer. Solving a single conservation law. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 468, 108-134
(Berlin: Springer, 1975).
14 S. N. Kruzkov and N. S. Petrosjan. Asymptotics of solutions of the Cauchy problem for
first-order quasilinear equations. Dokl. Akad. Nauk CCCP 265 (1982). English translation:
Soviet. Math. Dokl. 26 (1982), 141-144.
15 P. D. Lax. Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws II. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 10 (1957),
537-566.
16 T.-P. Liu. Decay to N-waves of solutions of general systems of nonlinear hyperbolic conservation
laws. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 30 (1977), 585-610.
17 T.-P. Liu. Admissible solutions of hyperbolic conservation laws. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 240
(1981).
18 T.-P. Liu and M. Pierre. Source-solutions and asymptotic behavior in conservation laws.
J. Differential Equations 51 (1984), 419-441.
19 O. A. Oleinik. The Cauchy problem for nonlinear equations in a class of discontinuous functions.
Dokl. Akad Nauk CCCP 95 (1954), 451-454. English translation: Amer. Math. Soc. Transl, Ser.
2, 42, 7-12.
20 D. G. Schaeffer. A regularity theorem for conservation laws. Adv. in Math. 11 (1973), 368-386.
21 A. I. Volpert. The space BV and quasilinear equations. Mat. Sb. 73 (1967). English translation:
Math. USSR Sb. 2 (1967), 225-267.
22 Wu Zhuo-Qun. The ordinary differential equation with discontinuous right members and the
discontinuous solutions of the quasilinear partial differential equation. Sci. Sinica 13 (1964),
1901-1917.
(Issued 19 March 1985)

Dafermos 85-Regularity - Conservation - Law - Without - Convexity

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

Dafermos 85-Regularity - Conservation - Law - Without - Convexity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 99A, 201-239, 1985

Regularity and large time behaviour of solutions of

(MS received 17 May 1984)

J T| (u (x, T)) dx - i) (u (x, a)) dx

u(x, T) dx — u(x, cr) dx

C(T) - £(cr) = lim (xe (T) - Xe (or)} g lim sup f XAt) dt

a lim sup f /'(u(x e (0+,t))dt= f f'(u(at),t))dt

s[ T ^(f)dt = ^(T)-C((T). (2.21)

C(T)-f(<r)= f f'(u(at),t))dt, 0«T<T^I (2.22)

TJ(U(X, T)) dx - TJ(U(X, o-)) dx

=f 6 exp(~ad) dO^O. (2.25)

By multiplying (2.23) by 1/e, letting e | 0 and using (2.25), we conclude that

g|u(x+, t)-u(x, f)| + |u(x+, F)| + |u(x, t)\. (2.32)

limi(0Sliminf {f(u(x, t)): (x, O ^ ( I ( T ) , T)}. (2.34)

f(u(!(0, t))Slimf(t)s/'( u (x, 0) + 0 (2-35)

limlim TVx{u(x, t): x^-e-K(t-t)^x^xn + e+K(t-t)}

< | u ( x n + , f ) - u ( x n , t)\ + \u(xn+, t)| + |u(x n , t)\, n = 1, 2 , . . . . (2.37)

Sfe : = {{%, t): limlim TVx{u(x, t): x-e-K(t-t)^x^x + e + K(t-t)}

f'(u(x, t))^f'(u(C(t), t))Sess-sup f(r)a lira 1 ( T ) = f (u(xn+, t)) (2.42)

{/(u(f (0, 0) - i(tM£(t), t)} dt. (2.45)

By Lemmas 2.6 and 2.8, when e is sufficiently small, u($(t),t) = u(x+,t),

whence lim u(x(t)+, t) = u(x+, t).

tit u(x+, t)-u(x, t)

~ (tn ~ t)f'(u(X(tn), tn)), t). (2.53)

Thus, letting n ^ ° ° , we deduce uixitn), trt)—> u(x, t) which is a contradiction to

On account of (2.44), all inequations in (2.60) must hold as equalities and so

Proof. A s s u m e first u(x,t)j=0. S e t <g: = { t e ( O , F): u(£(f)+, t)± u(£(t), t)} a n d

It follows that all inequations in (2.63) hold as equalities. In particular, £(•) is

N>—-—TVx{u0(x): x-Kt^x^x + Kt}. (2.64)

which is a contradiction to (2.4). We have thus shown that u(x, t) = 0 implies

f Hmsupf (u(x(t), t))^f'(u(X(t*), t*)\

with the interpretation <T1+1(-): = 0 °.

1 +1* •%- f(uo(y(x, t*))) § 0, x e ( ^ ( t * ) , <r,(t*)). (3.5)

The interior of $i is denoted by £°.

-f f(«o(y))>0, ye[y(«),y((3)]. (3.21)

~u(<pi(t)+,t) = ^-u0(y(t))^ (3.23)

cp^t) = C P] (T(0) + [t - T(0]<P,(T(0), (3.24)

^f(u(<pi(t)+,t)) <i>i(t)f(u(<Pi(t)+,t)). (3.26)

LEMMA 3.5. Fix (x*,t*)e'Xi. The minimal backward characteristic through

dj'(u(x,t*)) = -pr±^. (3.30)

or (b) it collides with a shock generated at a point in % lying between the

Passing to the limit in (3.31) or (3.32) as m —»°°, we deduce

y o f( (x( ** ) ) = 00. (3.35)

= x(0 + tf' (uo(x(t))) = y (() + tf' (uo(y(0)), (3.36)

A lengthy but straightforward computation, using (3.36), (3.37), (3.33), (3.34),

[f(u o (y*))-f (u o (x*))] 2 ^- uo(y*)

«£('*) = -|j;x(t*) + r* J ^ f (uo(x*))i(t*)2. (3.40)

It is clear that tKa m ) = <pj(am), at least for m sufficiently large, and so

4. Asymptotic behaviour of solutions

inf | uo(x)dx: -°°<y <z<oo|gt*F(u(x*, t*))

gsupj uo(x) dx:-oo<y < z < o o i (4.2)

Proof. Note that (4.5) implies

where K is given by (2.6). The right-hand side of (4.9) is positive by virtue of

S (1/(1 + m))bL(1+m)/<m+q)f*(q~1)/(m+<'), (4.12)

(* lim — ||u(-, t*+h)-u(-, f*)||Lig— ||uo(-)||Li, f*e[0,oo). (4.14)

t*TVx{F(u(x, t*)):-oo< x <oo}s2f |uo(x)| dx, t*e[0,°°). (4.15)

u o (x)dx- u(x, f*)dx. (4.17)

F(u(Xi(t), 0) dt^i^-ajFdiixt, t*)) + £F(U(XM, t)) dt

|dx, f*e[0,<»), (4.19)

5. Initial data of compact support

M:=J uo(x)dx (5.1)

i(t)-(p/t)at)^O, fe[l,a]. (5.8)

f Hmsupf (u(x(t), t))^f'(u(X(t), t)\

1 +1* •%- f(uo(y(x, t))) § 0, x e ( ^ ( t ) , <r,(t*)). (3.5)

LEMMA 3.5. Fix (x,t)e'Xi. The minimal backward characteristic through

[f(u o (y))-f (u o (x))] 2 ^- uo(y*)

«£(') = -|j;x(t) + r* J ^ f (uo(x))i(t)2. (3.40)

inf | uo(x)dx: -°°<y <z<oo|gtF(u(x, t*))

(* lim — ||u(-, t+h)-u(-, f)||Lig— ||uo(-)||Li, f*e[0,oo). (4.14)

tTVx{F(u(x, t)):-oo< x <oo}s2f |uo(x)| dx, t*e[0,°°). (4.15)

t|F(u(x,t))|siJ \uo(x)\dx, (x,t*)6(-°o,oo)x[0,°o). (6-3)

X(t/2)^x-(t/2)f'(u(x, t*)), (6.17)

Subtracting (6.18) from (6.17) and using x>y, ^((/2)-i/r(t/2)gL, we arrive