arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 10 Mar 2016

Transcript

1 A CONTROLLABILITY RESULT FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL F. W. CHAVES-SILVA 1, AND S. GUERRERO 2 arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 1 Mar 216 Abstract. In this paper we study the controllability of a coupled Keller-Segel-Navier-Stokes system. We show the local exact controllability of the system around some particular trajectories. The proof relies on new Carleman inequalities for the chemotaxis part and some improved Carleman inequalities for the Stokes system. Résumé. Dans cet article, nous étudions la contrôlabilité d un système de Keller-Segel-Navier- Stokes couplé. Nous montrons la contrôlabilité exacte locale du système autour de quelques trajectoires particulières. La preuve repose sur de nouvelles inégalités de Carleman pour la partie de la chimiotaxie et sur des inégalités de Carleman améliorées pour le système de Stokes. 1. Introduction and main results Let Ω R N (N = 2, 3 be a bounded connected open set whose boundary Ω is regular enough. Let T > and ω 1 and ω 2 be two (small nonempty subsets of Ω, with ω 1 ω 2 when N = 3. We will use the notation = Ω (, T and Σ = Ω (, T and we will denote by ν(x the outward normal to Ω at the point x Ω. We introduce the following usual spaces in the context of fluid mechanics V = {u H 1 (Ω N ; div u = }, H = {u L 2 (Ω N ; div u =, u ν = on Ω} and consider the following controlled Keller-Segel-Navier-Stokes coupled system n t + u n n = (n c in, c t + u c c = nc + g 1 χ 1 in, u t u + (u u + p = ne N + g 2 e N 2 χ 2 in, u = in, n = c = ; u = on Σ, n(x, = n ; c(x, = c ; u(x, = u in Ω, where g 1 and g 2 are internal controls and the χ i : R N R, i = 1, 2, are C functions such that supp χ i ω i, χ i 1 and χ i 1 in ω i, for some ω i ω i, with ω 1 ω 2 when N = 3, and 1 Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Laboratoire Jean A. Dieudonné, UMR CNRS 6621, Parc Valrose, 618 Nice Cedex 2, France (fchaves@unice.fr. 2 Sorbonne Université, UPMC Univ. Paris 6, UMR 7598 Laboratoire Jacques-Louis Lions, Paris, F-755 France (guerrero@ann.jussieu.fr. F. W. Chaves-Silva has been supported by the ERC project Semi Classical Analysis of Partial Differential Equations, ERC-212-ADG, project number (1.1

2 2 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO e = (,, e 1 = (1,, and e N = { (, 1 if N = 2; (,, 1 if N = 3. The unknowns n, c, u and p are the cell density, substrate concentration, velocity and pressure of the fluid, respectively. System (1.1 was proposed by Tuval et al. in [21] to describe large-scale convection patterns in a water drop sitting on a glass surface containing oxygen-sensitive bacteria, oxygen diffusing into the drop through the fluid-air interface (for more details see, for instance, [6, 19, 2]. In particular, it is a good model for the collective behavior of a suspension of oxygen-driven bacteria in an aquatic fluid, in which the oxygen concentration c and the density of the bacteria n diffuse and are transported by the fluid at the same time. The main objective of this paper is to analyze the controllability problem of system (1.1 around some particular trajectories. More precisely, we consider (M, M R 2 + and aim to find g 1 and g 2 such that the solution (n, c, u, p of (1.1 satisfies (1.2 n(t = M; c(t = M e MT ; u(t =. (1.3 Moreover, for the case N = 2, we want to show that we can take g 2. Remark 1.1. Noticing that (n, c, u, p = (M, M e Mt,, Mx N is a solution of (1.1, we see that (1.3 means we are driving the solution (1.1 to a prescribed trajectory. To analyze the controllability of system (1.1 around (M, c e Mt,, Mx N, we first consider its linearization around this trajectory, namely n t n = M c + h 1 in, c t c = Mc M e Mt n + g 1 χ ω1 + h 2 in, u t u + p = ne N + g 2 χ ω2 e N 2 + H 3 in, (1.4 u = in, n = c = ; u = on Σ, n(x, = n ; c(x, = c ; u(x, = u in Ω, where the functions h 1 and h 2 and the vector function H 3 are given exterior forces such that (h 1, h 2, H 3 belongs to an appropriate Banach space X (see (4.5. Our objective will be to find g 1 and g 2 such that the solution (n, c, u, p satisfies n(t =, c(t = and u(t =. Moreover we want that ( u n + (n c, nc + u c, (u u belongs to X. Then we employ an inverse mapping argument introduced in [1] to obtain the controllability of (1.1 around (M, c e Mt,, Mx N. It is well-known that the null controllability of (1.4 is equivalent to a suitable observability inequality for the solutions of its adjoint system ϕ t ϕ = M e Mt ξ + ve N + f 1 in, ξ t ξ = Mξ M ϕ + f 2 in, v t v + π = F 3 in, v = in, ϕ = ξ = ; v = on Σ, ϕ(x, T = ϕ T ; ξ(x, T = ξ T ; v(x, T = v T in Ω, Ω ϕ T (xdx =, (1.5

3 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 3 where (f 1, f 2, F 3 L 2 ( L 2 ( L 2 (, T ; V. In this work, we obtain the observability inequality as a consequence of an appropriate global Carleman inequality for the solution of (1.5. With the help of the Carleman inequality that we obtain for the solutions of (1.5 and an appropriate inverse function theorem, we will prove the following result, which is the main result of this paper. Theorem 1.2. Let (M, M R 2 + and (n, c, u H 1 (Ω H 2 (Ω V, with n, c, Ω n dx = M and c = on Ω. We have 1 Ω If N = 2, there exists γ > such that if (n M, c M e MT, u H 1 (Ω H 2 (Ω V γ, we can find g 1 L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω, and an associated solution (n, c, u, p to (1.1 satisfying (n(t, c(t, u(t = (M, M e MT, in Ω. If N = 3, there exists γ > such that if (n M, c M e MT, u H 1 (Ω H 2 (Ω V γ, we can find g 1 L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω and g 2 L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω and an associated solution (n, c, u, p to (1.1 satisfying (n(t, c(t, u(t = (M, M e MT, in Ω. Remark 1.3. Assumption 1 Ω Ω n dx = M in Theorem 1.2 is a necessary condition for the controllability of system (1.1. This is due to the fact that the mass of n is preserved, i.e., 1 Ω Ω n(x, tdx = 1 Ω Ω n (xdx, t >. (1.6 In the two dimensional case, because we want to take g 2 =, we only have a control acting on the second equation of (1.4. Therefore, in the Carleman inequality for the solutions of (1.5, we need to bound global integrals of ϕ and ξ and v in terms of a local integral of ξ and global integrals of f 1, f 2 and F 3. For the three dimensional case, we have two controls, g 1 acting on (1.1 2 and another control g 2 acting on the third component of the Navier-Stokes equation ( In this case, in the Carleman inequality for the solutions of (1.5, we need to bound global integrals of ϕ and ξ and v in terms of a local integral of ξ another in v 3 and global integrals of f 1, f 2 and F 3. For both cases, N = 2 or 3, the main difficulty when proving the desired Carleman inequality for solutions of (1.5 comes from the fact that the coupling in the second equation is in ϕ and not in ϕ. Concerning the controllability of system (1.1, we are not aware of any controllability result obtained previously to Theorem 1.2. For the controllabity of the Keller-Segel system with control acting on the component of the chemical, as far as we know, the only result is the one in [2], where the local controllability of the Keller-Segel system around a constant trajectory is obtained. On the other hand, for the Navier-Stokes equations, controllability has been the object of intensive research during the past few years and several local controllability results has been obtained in many different contexts (see, for instance, [5, 7, 11] and references therein. It is important to say that it is not possible to combine the result in [2] with any previous controllability result for the Navier-Stokes system in order to obtain controllability results for

4 4 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO (1.1. In fact, for the first two equations in (1.5, one cannot use the Carleman inequality obtained in [2]. This is due to the fact that for the obtainment of a suitable Carleman inequality for the adjoint system in [2], it is necessary that ϕ =, which is no longer the case for (1.5. For this reason, to deal with the chemotaxis part of system (1.5, we borrow some ideas from [3]. For the Stokes part of (1.5, it is also not possible to use Carleman inequalities for the Stokes system obtained in previous works as in [1] and [4]. Indeed, since in (1.5 the coupling in the second equation is in ϕ, and we have a term in ve N in the first equation, for the Stokes equation, we need to show a Carleman inequality with a local term in ve N. Actually, in [1] a Carleman inequality for the Stokes system with measurement through a local observation in the Laplacian of one component is proved. However, that result cannot be used in our situation (see Remark 2.4. For this reason, we need to prove a new local Carleman inequality for solutions of the Stokes system (see Lemma 2.3. This paper is divided as follows. Section 2 is devoted to prove a suitable observability inequality for the solutions of (1.5. In Section 3, we prove the null controllability of system (1.4, with an appropriate right-hand side. Finally, in Section 4 we prove Theorem Carleman inequality In this section we prove a Carleman inequality for the adjoint system (1.5. This inequality will be the main ingredient for the obtention of a controllability result for the nonlinear system (1.1 in the next section. We begin introducing several weight functions which we need to state our Carleman inequality. The basic weight will be a function η C 2 (Ω verifying η (x > in Ω, η on Ω, η (x > x Ω\ω, where ω is a nonempty open set with { ω ω1 if N = 2; ω1 ω 2 if N = 3. The existence of such a function η is proved in [9]. For some positive real number λ, we introduce: φ(x, t = eλη (x l(t 11, α(x, t = eλη(x e 2λ η l(t 11, φ(t = min φ(x, t, φ (t = max x Ω x Ω φ(x, t, α (t = max x Ω where l C ([, T ] is a positive function satisfying l(t = t for t [, T/4], l(t = T t for t [3T/4, T ], and l(t l(t/2, t [, T ]. Remark 2.1. From the definition of φ and φ, it follows that φ(t φ(x, t e λ η φ(t, for every x Ω, every t [, T ] and every λ R +. (2.1 α(x, t, α = min α(x, t, (2.2 x Ω

5 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 5 We also introduce the following notation: Î β (s; q := s 3+β e 2sα φ 3+β q 2 dxdt + s 1+β I β (s; q := Îβ(s; q + s 1+β where β and s are real numbers and q = q(x, t. e 2sα φ 1+β q 2 dxdt, (2.3 e 2sα φ 1+β ( q t 2 + q 2 dxdt, (2.4 The main result of this section is the following Carleman estimate for the solutions of (1.5. Theorem 2.2. There exist C = C(Ω, ω and λ = λ (Ω, ω such that, for every λ λ, there exists s = s (Ω, ω, λ, T such that, for any s s, any (ϕ T, ξ T, v T L 2 (Ω L 2 (Ω H and any (f 1, f 2, F 3 L 2 ( L 2 ( L 2 (, T ; V, the solution (ϕ, ξ, v of system (1.5 satisfies s 5 e 2s α φ5 z 2 2 dxdt + s 5 e 5s α φ5 v 2 dxdt + (s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt + s 3 i 2 + Î(s, ψ + I 2 (s, e 3 2 s α φ 9/2 ξ + + e 5s α φ 6 ϕ 2 dxdt C (s 33 e 2sα φ 3 z i 2 dxdt + Î 2(s; z i e 2sα+3s α φ 6 ϕ 2 dxdt (2.5 e 2sα+3s α φ61 χ 1 2 ξ 2 dxdt + (N 2s 9 e 2sα φ 9 χ 2 2 v 1 2 dxdt ω 1 (,T ω 2 (,T + e 3s α φ 9 f 1 2 dxdt + s 15 e 2sα+3s α φ24 f 2 2 dxdt + e 3 2 s α F 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V. (2.6 We prove Theorem 2.2 in the case N = 3 and, with the due adaptations, the case N = 2 is performed in the exact same way. The plan of the proof contains five parts: Part 1. Carleman inequality for v: We write e 3 2 s α v = w+z, where w solves, together with some q, a Stokes system with right-hand side in L 2 (, T ; V and z solves, together with some r, a Stokes system with right-hand side in L 2 (, T ; H 3 (Ω H 1 (, T ; V. Applying regularity estimates for w and a Carleman estimate for z, we obtain a Carleman inequality for v in terms of local integrals of z 1 and z 3 and a global integral in F 3. Part 2. Carleman inequality for ϕ: We write e 3 2 s α φ 9/2 ϕ = η + ψ, where η solves a heat equation with a L 2 right-hand side and ψ solves a heat equation with right-hand side in

6 6 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω. Applying a Carleman inequality for ψ and regularity estimates for η we obtain a global estimate of ϕ in terms of a local integral of ψ and global integrals of ξ, v 3 and f 1. Part 3. Carleman inequality for ξ: Using (1.5 2, we obtain a Carleman estimate for the function e 3 2 s α φ 9/2 ξ. Combining this inequality with the Carleman inequality from the previous step, global estimates of ξ and ϕ in terms of local integrals of ξ another in ψ and global integrals of v 3, f 1 and f 2 are obtained. Part 4. Estimate of z 3 : Using (1.5 1, we estimate a local integral in z 3 in terms of local integrals of ξ and ψ and some lower order terms. Part 5. Estimate of ψ: In the last part, we use (1.5 2 to estimate a local integral of ψ in terms of a local integral of ξ and global integrals in f 1 and f 2. and Along the proof, for k R and a vector function F with m-coordinates, we write and, for every p F L 2 (,T ;H k (Ω := F L 2 (,T ;H k (Ω m F L 2 (,T ;H k ( Ω := F L 2 (,T ;H k ( Ω m. F W k,p (Σ = F W k,p (Σ m. We will also denote ω j, j N, to represent subsets ω := ω ω 1 ω 2 ω 1 ω 2 and, for a fixed j N, we will denote by θ j a function in C (ωj such that θ j 1 and θ j 1 on ω j 1. (2.7 Proof of Theorem 2.2. For an easier comprehension, the proof is divided into several steps. Step 1: Carleman estimate for v. Let us consider ρ(t := e 3 2 s α and write where (w, q and (z, r are the solutions of w t w + q = ρf 3 in, w = in, w = on Σ, w(t = in Ω, (ρv, ρπ = (w, q + (z, r, (2.8 (2.9

7 and respectively. For w, Lemma A.6 yields CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 7 z t z + r = ρ v in, z = in, z = on Σ, z(t = in Ω, (2.1 w 2 L 2 (,T ;H 3 (Ω + w 2 H 1 (,T ;V C ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V. (2.11 For z, we prove the following Carleman estimate. Lemma 2.3. There exist C = C(Ω, ω and λ = λ (Ω, ω such that, for every λ λ, there exists s = s (Ω, ω, λ, T such that s 5 e 2s α φ5 z 2 2 dxdt + s 5 e 2s α φ5 ρ 2 v 2 dxdt + (s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 z i 2 dxdt + Î 2(s; z i C ( ρf 3 2L2(,T ;V + s5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt. ω 3 (,T (2.12 Remark 2.4. A similar result to Lemma 2.3 was obtained in [1, Proposition 3.2]. However, we cannot apply that result to system (2.1 because it would give a global term in z 2 in the right hand-side which could not be absorbed by the left hand-side of the inequality. Moreover, the regularity required for the vector function F 3 is not as optimal as in Lemma 2.3. For this reason, we give the proof of Lemma 2.3 in the Appendix B. Step 2. Carleman inequality for ϕ. We write ρ φ 9/2 ϕ = η + ψ, where the functions η and ψ stand to solve η t η = ρ φ 9/2 f 1 in, η = on Σ, η(t = in Ω (2.13 and ψ t ψ = M e Mt ρ φ 9/2 ξ + ρ φ 9/2 v 3 (ρ φ 9/2 t ϕ in, ψ = on Σ, (2.14 ψ(t = in Ω, respectively. Using standard regularity estimates for the heat equation with Neumann boundary conditions, we have η 2 H 1 (,T ;L 2 (Ω + η 2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω C ρ φ 9/2 f 1 2 L 2 (, (2.15 for some C >.

8 8 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO Next, from (2.14 we see that ( ψ t ( ψ = M e Mt ρ φ 9/2 ξ + ρ φ 9/2 v 3 (ρ φ 9/2 t ϕ in, ( ψ = ρ φ 9/2 v 3 on Σ, ψ(t = in Ω. (2.16 Applying [8, Theorem 1], we have the following estimate Î (s, ψ C (s 3 e 2sα φ 3 ψ 2 dxdt + e 2sα φ 9 ρ 2 ( ξ 2 + v 3 2 dxdt ω 4 (,T + s e 2sα φ 8 ρ 2 v 3 Σ 2 dσdt + s 2+2/11 e 2sα φ 6 ρ 2 ϕ 2 dxdt, (2.17 for any s s (Ω, ω, T, λ (a proof of (2.17 is achieved taking into account that since (ρ φ 9/2 t Cs 1+1/11 φ 3 ρ, α t + φ t CT φ 12/11 and φ 1 CT 22, for some C = C(Ω, ω, λ and any s s (Ω, ω, λ, T. Because ρ φ 9/2 ϕ = ψ + η, estimate (2.17 gives Î (s, ψ C (s 3 e 2sα φ 3 ψ 2 dxdt + e 2sα φ 9 ρ 2 ( ξ 2 + v 3 2 dxdt ω 4 (,T + s e 2sα φ 8 ρ 2 v 3 Σ 2 dσdt + s 2+2/11 e 2sα φ 3 ( ψ 2 + η 2 dxdt. (2.18 The last term on the right-hand side of (2.18 can be estimated as follows s 2+2/11 e 2sα φ 3 ( ψ 2 + η 2 dxdt C ρ φ 9/2 f 1 2 L 2 ( + δî(s, ψ, (2.19 for any δ > and any s s (Ω, ω, T, λ. Here we have used estimate (2.15 and the definition of Î(s, ψ. Therefore, combining (2.15, (2.18, (2.19, we obtain Î (s, ψ+ η 2 H 1 (,T ;L 2 (Ω + η 2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω + s3 e 2sα φ 6 ρ 2 ϕ 2 dxdt C (s 3 e 2sα φ 3 ψ 2 dxdt + e 2sα φ 9 ρ 2 ( ξ 2 + v 3 2 dxdt ω 4 (,T + s e 2sα φ 8 ρ 2 v 3 Σ 2 dσdt + ρ φ 9/2 f 1 2 L 2 (. (2.2 Step 3. Carleman inequality for ξ.

9 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 9 We consider the function ρ φ 9/2 ξ, which fulfills the following system: (ρ φ 9/2 ξ t ρ φ 9/2 ξ + Mρ φ 9/2 ξ = f 2 in, (ρ ˆφ 9/2 ξ = on Σ, (ρ φ 9/2 ξ(t = in Ω, (2.21 with f 2 = Mρ φ 9/2 ϕ (ρ φ 9/2 t ξ + ρ φ 9/2 f 2. From Lemma A.2, we have the estimate I 2 (s, ρ φ 9/2 ξ C (s 5 e 2sα φ 4 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt + s 4+2/11 φ 4 e 2sα ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt (2.22 ω 5 (,T + s 2 φ 2 e 2sα ( ψ 2 + η 2 dxdt + s 2 e 2sα φ 7 ρ 2 f 2 2 dxdt. Here we have used the fact that (ρ φ 9/2 t Cs 1+1/11 φ 3 ρ. Using estimate (2.19 and the definition of Î(s, ψ, we see that I 2 (s, ρ φ 9/2 ξ C (s 5 e 2sα φ 4 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt (2.23 ω 5 (,T + φ 9 ρ 2 f 1 2 dxdt + s 2 e 2sα φ 7 ρ 2 f 2 2 dxdt +δî(s, ψ, for any δ > and any s s (Ω, ω, T, λ. Adding (2.2 and (2.23, absorbing the lower order terms, we obtain I 2 (s, ρ φ 9/2 ξ + Î(s, ψ + s 3 C (s for any s s (Ω, ω, T, λ. e 2sα φ 3 ψ 2 dxdt + s 5 ω 4 (,T φ 9 ρ 2 f 1 2 dxdt + s 2 e 2sα φ 9 ρ 2 v 3 2 dxdt + s Step 4. Estimate of a local integral of z 3. e 2sα φ 6 ρ 2 ϕ 2 dxdt e 2sα φ 7 ρ 2 f 2 2 dxdt Σ ω 5 (,T e 2sα φ 4 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt e 2sα φ 8 ρ 2 v 3 2 dσdt, (2.24 In this step we estimate the local integral of z 3 in the right-hand side of (2.12 in Lemma 2.3.

10 1 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO We begin using (2.16 to see that s ω 5 e 2sα φ 5 z 3 2 dxdt 3 (,T = s ω 5 e 2sα φ 5 z 3 ( φ 9/2( ( ψ t + ( ψ (ρ φ 9/2 t ϕ +M e Mt ρ ξ w 3 dxdt. 3 (,T We estimate each one of the terms in the right-hand side of (2.25. The first term is estimated as follows: (2.25 s 5 ω 3 (,T e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 z 3 ( ψ t dxdt We have because = s 5 (e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 t z 3 ψdxdt s 5 ω 3 (,T s 5 ω 3 (,T (e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 t z 3 ψdxdt Cs 9 e 2sα φ177/11 ψ 2 dxdt + δs 5 ω 4 (,T (e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 t Cs 1+1/11 φ6+1/11+9/2 e 2sα. For the other term in (2.26, we use (2.1 to see that ( z 3 t 2 z 3 = ρ v 3 and write s 5 e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 ( z 3 t ψdxdt = s 5 ω 3 (,T ω 3 (,T e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 ( z 3 t ψdxdt. (2.26 e 2sα φ5 z 3 2 dxdt, (2.27 ω 3 (,T e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 ψ( 2 z 3 + ρ v 3 dxdt. (2.28 Let us now estimate the terms on the right-hand side of (2.28. It is not difficult to see that s 5 e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 ψ 2 z 3 dxdt Cs 9 e 2sα φ18 ψ 2 dxdt + δî 2(s, z 3. ω 3 (,T ω 4 (,T (2.29 We also have s 5 e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 ψρ v 3 dxdt = s 5 e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 ψρ ρ 1 (z 3 + w 3 dxdt ω 3 (,T ω 3 (,T C (s 9 e 2sα φ178/11 ψ 2 dxdt + ρf 3 2 ω 4 (,T L 2 (,T ;V +δs 5 e 2sα φ5 z 3 2 dxdt. (2.3

11 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 11 Here we have used estimate (2.11 and the fact that ρ ρ 1 Cs 1+1/11 φ1+1/11. For the second term in (2.25, we have s 5 ω 3 (,T e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 z 3 ( ψdxdt (2.31 s 5 ω 4 (,T ( (θ4 e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 z (θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 z 3 + θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 2 z 3 ψdxdt because Cs 9 ω 4 (,T e 2sα φ18 ψ 2 dxdt + δ ( s 5 e 2sα φ5 z 3 2 dxdt + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 z 3 2 dxdt + Î 2(s, z 3, (θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 Cs φ 21/2 e 2sα 1 ω 4 and (θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 Cs 2 φ23/2 e 2sα 1 ω 4. We estimate the other three terms in (2.25 as follows. For the term in ξ, we use integration by parts to get s 5 ω 3 (,T e 2sα φ 5 ρ z 3 ξdxdt s 5 ( (θ4 e 2sα φ 5 ρ z z 3 (θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 ρ + θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 ρ 2 z 3 ξdxdt ω 4 (,T Cs 9 e 2sα φ 9 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt + δ ( s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z 3 2 dxdt + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 z 3 2 dxdt ω 4 (,T (2.32 because (θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 ρ Csφ 6 e 2sα ρ1 ω 4 and (θ 4 e 2sα ρφ 5 Cs 2 φ 7 e 2sα ρ1 ω 4. For the term in w 3, estimate (2.11 gives s 5 ω 3 (,T e 2sα φ 5 z 3 w 3 dxdt C ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V + δs5 e 2sα φ5 z 3 2 dxdt. (2.33 Finally, for the last term we have s ω 5 e 2sα φ 5 φ9/2 z 3 (ρ φ 9/2 t ϕdxdt Cs 7 e 2sα φ6 φ 5 z 3 ( ψ + ηdxdt 3 (,T ω 3 (,T Cs 9 e 2sα φ12 φ 5 ψ 2 dxdt + C ρf 3 2 ω 3 (,T L 2 (,T ;V + δs5 e 2sα φ 5 z 3 2 dxdt, (2.34 because (ρ φ 9/2 t Cs 1+1/11 φ 3 ρ.

12 12 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO Thus, we have the following estimate for the local integral of z 3 : s 5 ω 3 (,T e 2sα φ 5 z 3 2 dxdt C (s 9 e 2sα φ18 ψ 2 dxdt + s 9 e 2sα φ 9 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt + ρf 3 2 ω 4 (,T ω 4 (,T L 2 (,T ;V + δ ( s 5 e 2sα φ5 z 3 2 dxdt + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 z 3 2 dxdt + Î 2(s, z 3. Step 5. Estimate of a local integral of ψ. (2.35 In this step, we estimate the local integral of ψ in the right-hand side of (2.35. For that, we use (1.5 to write s 9 ω 4 (,T e 2sα φ 18 ψ 2 dxdt ( M s9 ω 5 (,T θ 5 e 2sα φ 18 φ 9/2 ρ ψ(ξ t + ξ Mξ + f 2 Mρ 1 φ9/2 ηdxdt. The rest of this step is devoted to estimate each one of the terms in the right-hand side of the above integral. For the first term, we have the following estimate Claim 2.5. For any δ >, there exists C > such that s 9 ω 5 (,T θ 5 e 2sα φ 18 φ 9/2 ρ ψξ t dxdt C ( s ω 33 e 2sα φ61 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt + ρf (,T L 2 (,T ;V + δ ( I 2 (s, ρ φ 9/2 ξ + Î(s, ψ + s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z 3 2 dxdt. (2.37 We prove Claim 2.5 in appendix C. Next, we integrate by parts the second term in (2.36 to obtain s 9 ω 5 (,T θ 5 e 2sα ρφ 18 φ 9/2 ψ ξdxdt = s 9 ω 5 (,T ψ (e 2sα ρφ 18 φ 9/2 θ 5 ξdxdt s 9 ω 5 (,T θ 5 e 2sα ρφ 18 φ 9/2 ( ψ ξdxdt. Cs 17 ω 5 (,T e 2sα φ26 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt + δî(s, ψ. (2.38 because (e 2sα ρφ 18 φ 9/2 θ 5 Cs φ 29/2 ρe 2sα 1 ω 5.

13 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 13 Next, s 17 θ 6 e 2sα φ26 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt = s 17 ω 6 (,T + s17 2 ω 6 (,T θ 6 e 2sα φ26 ρ 2 ξξdxdt ω 6 (,T (θ 6 e 2sα φ26 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt (2.39 Cs 33 ω 6 (,T e 2sα φ61 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt + δi 2 (s, ρ φ 9/2 ξ, because (θ 6 e 2sα φ26 ρ 2 Cs 2 φ28 ρ 2 e 2sα 1 ω 6. Finally, for the last three terms, we have s9 θ 5 e 2sα φ 18 φ 9/2 ρ ψξdxdt ω 5 (,T Cs15 φ24 e 2sα ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt + δî(s, ψ, ω 5 (,T s 9 θ 5 e 2sα ρφ 18 φ 9/2 ψf 2 dxdt Cs 15 ω 5 (,T and s ω 9 θ 5 e 2sα φ 18 ψ ηdxdt C 5 (,T (2.4 ω 5 (,T φ24 e 2sα ρ 2 f 2 2 dxdt + δî(s, ψ (2.41 φ 9 ρ 2 f 1 2 dxdt + δî(s, ψ. (2.42 Gathering (2.24, (2.36-(2.42, we obtain, after absorbing the lower order terms, the estimate: Î (s, ψ + I 2 (s, ρ φ 9/2 ξ + e 2sα φ 6 ρ 2 ϕ 2 dxdt + e 2s α φ 6 ρ 2 ϕ 2 dxdt C (s 33 e 2sα φ61 ρ 2 ξ 2 dxdt + ω 6 (,T + e 2sα φ 9 ρ 2 v 3 2 dxdt + s Σ φ 9 ρ 2 f 1 2 dxdt + s 15 e 2sα φ 8 ρ 2 v 3 2 dσdt φ 24 e 2sα ρ 2 f 2 2 dxdt, (2.43 for C = C(Ω, ω and every s s (Ω, ω, T, λ. Notice that we can add the last term in the lef-hand side of (2.43 because ϕ =. To finish the proof, we notice that e 2sα φ 9 ρ 2 v 3 2 dxdt + s e 2sα φ 8 ρ 2 v 3 Σ 2 dσdt (2.44 Cs e 2sα φ 8 (z 3 + w 3 2 dxdt C ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V + δs5 e 2sα φ5 z 3 2 dxdt,

14 14 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO for any δ >. Moreover, we also have since s 5 ω 3 (,T e 2sα φ 5 z 1 2 dxdt s 5 ( (θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 z (θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 z 1 + θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 2 z 1 z 1 dxdt ω 4 (,T Cs 9 e 2sα φ 9 z 1 2 dxdt + δ ( s 5 e 2sα φ5 z 1 2 dxdt ω 4 (,T + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 z 1 2 dxdt + Î 2(s, z 1, (2.45 (θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 Csφ 6 e 2sα 1 ω 4 and (θ 4 e 2sα φ 5 Cs 2 φ 7 e 2sα 1 ω 4. From (2.12, (2.35, (2.43, (2.44 and (2.45, we finish the proof of Theorem Null controllability for the linear system In this section we solve the null controllability problem for the system (1.4, with a right-hand side which decays exponentially as t T. Indeed, we consider the system L(n, c, u + (,, p = (h 1, h 2 + g 1 χ ω1, H 3 + g 2 e N 2 χ ω2, u = in, n = c (3.1 = ; u = on Σ, n(x, = n ; c(x, = c ; u(x, = u in Ω, where L(n, c, u = ( n t n + M c, c t c + Mc + M e Mt n, u t u ne N := (L 1, L 2, L 3 (n, c, u. (3.2 The aim is to find (g 1 χ ω1, g 2 χ ω2 L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω L 2 ( (g 2, if N = 2 such that the solution of (3.1 satisfies n(x, T = c(x, T = u(x, T =. (3.3 Furthermore, it will be necessary to solve (3.1 - (3.3 in some appropriate weighted space. Before introducing such spaces, we improve the Carleman estimate given in Theorem 2.2. This new Carleman inequality will only contain weight functions that do not vanish at t =. Let us consider a positive C ([, T ] function such that and define our new weight functions as l(t = { l(t/2 if t T/2 l(t if 3T/4 t T, β(x, t = eλη(x e 2λ η, γ(x, t = eλη(x l(t 11 l(t, 11 (3.4

15 γ(t = min x Ω CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 15 γ(x, t, γ (t = max x Ω φ(x, t, β (t = max x Ω β(x, t, β = min β(x, t. (3.5 x Ω With these new weights, we state our refined Carleman estimate as follows. Proposition 3.1. Let (ϕ T, ξ T, v T L 2 (Ω L 2 (Ω H and (f 1, f 2, F 3 L 2 ( L 2 ( L 2 (, T ; V. There exists a positive constant C depending on T, s and λ, such that every solution of (1.5 verifies: T Ω T + Ω T e 5s β γ 6 ϕ 2 dxdt + e 5s β γ 4 ξ 2 dxdt + T Ω T Ω e 5s β γ 6 ϕ ( ϕ Ω 2 dxdt e 5s β γ 6 ξ 2 dxdt + e 5s β γ 5 v 2 dxdt + ϕ( ( ϕ Ω ( 2 L 2 (Ω + ξ( 2 L 2 (Ω + v( 2 L 2 (Ω Ω C ( e 2sβ +3s β γ 61 χ 1 2 ξ 2 dxdt + (N 2 e 2sβ +3s β(γ 9 χ 2 2 v 1 2 dxdt ω 1 (,T + e 3s β γ 9 f 1 2 dxdt + γ 24 e 2sβ +3s β f 2 2 dxdt + ω 2 (,T e 3s β( F F 3 2 dxdt, (3.6 where ( ϕ Ω (t = 1 ϕ(x, tdx. Ω Ω Proof. The proof of Proposition 3.1 is standard. It combines energy estimates and the Carleman inequality (2.5. For simplicity, we omit the proof. Now we proceed to the definition of the spaces where (3.1-(3.3 will be solved. The main space will be: E = { (n, c, u, p, g 1, (N 2g 2 E : e 5/2s β γ 3 L 1 (n, c, u L 2 (, e 5/2s β γ ( 2 L 2 (n, c, u g 1 χ 1 L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω, e 5/2s β γ ( 5/2 L 3 (n, c, u + p e N 2 g 2 χ 2 L 2 (, L 1 (n, c, udx = and n = c } = u = on Σ, Ω

16 16 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO where E = { (n, c, u, p, g 1, (N 2g 2 : e 3/2s β γ 9/2 n L 2 ( + e sβ 3/2s β γ 12 c L 2 ( + χ 1 e sβ 3/2s β γ 61/2 g 1 L 2 ( + (N 2 χ 2 e sβ 3/2s β(γ 9/2 g 2 L 2 ( + e 3/2s βu L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω <, e 5/4s β γ 13/4 n L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω L (, T ; H 1 (Ω, e 5/4s β γ 1/4 c L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω, e 3/2s β γ } 2 2/11 u L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω L (, T ; V. Notice that E is a Banach space for the norm: (n, c, u,p, g 1, (N 2g 2 E = e 3/2s β γ 9/2 n 2 L 2 ( + e sβ 3/2s β γ 12 c 2 L 2 ( + χ 1 e sβ 3/2s β γ 61/2 g 1 2 L 2 ( + (N 2 χ 2e sβ 3/2s β(γ 9/2 g 2 2 L 2 ( + e 3/2s βu 2 L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω + e 5/2s β γ 3 L 1 (n, c, u 2 L 2 ( + e 5/2s β γ 2 ( L 2 (n, c, u g 1 χ 1 2 L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω + e 5/2s β γ 5/2 ( L 3 (n, c, u + p e N 2 g 2 χ 2 2 L 2 ( + e 5/4s β γ 13/4 n 2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω + e 5/4s β γ 13/4 n 2 L (,T ;H 1 (Ω + e 5/4s β γ 1/4 c 2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω + e 3/2s β γ 2 1/11 u 2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω + e 3/2s β γ 2 2/11 u 2 L (,T ;V. (3.7 Remark 3.2. For every (n, c, u, p, g 1, (N 2g 2 E, we have that (n c L 2 (e 5s β γ 6 ;. In fact, e 5s β γ 6 (n c 2 dxdt e 5s β γ 6 ( n 2 c 2 + n 2 c 2 dxdt ( e 5/4s β γ 13/4 n 2 e 5/4s β γ 1/4 c 2 + e 5/4s β γ 13/4 n 2 e 5/4s β γ 1/4 c 2 dxdt <. Remark 3.3. If (n, c, u, p, g 1, (N 2g 2 E, then n(t = c(t = u(t =, so that (n, c, u, p, g 1, (N 2g 2 solve a null controllability problem for system (3.1 with an appropriate right-hand side (h 1, h 2, H 3. We have the following result:

17 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 17 Proposition 3.4. Assume that: (n, c, u H 1 (Ω H 2 (Ω V, Ω n dx =, c = on Ω, (3.8 and e 5/2s β γ 3 h 1 L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω, e 5/2s β γ 2 h 2 L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω, e 5/2s β γ 5/2 H 3 L 2 (. Then, there exist (g 1 χ 1, (N 2g 2 χ 2 L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω L 2 (, such that, if (n, c, u, p is the associated solution to (3.1, one has (n, c, u, p, g 1 χ 1, (N 2g 2 χ 2 E. In particular, (3.3 holds. Proof. Following the arguments in [9, 1], we introduce the space { P = (z, w, y, q C 3 z (; = w = y = on Σ, z(x, T dx =, Ω y =, q(x, tdx =, q =, ( L 3(z, w, y + q } Σ = and consider the bilinear form on P : a ( (ẑ, ŵ, ŷ, q, (z, w, y, q := e 3s β γ 9 L 1(ẑ, ŵ, ŷl 1(z, w, ydxdt e 3s β ω 1 (,T Ω γ 24 e 2sβ +3s βl 2(ẑ, ŵ, ŷl 2(z, w, ydxdt ( [L 3(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ + q ] [L 3(z, w, y + q ] + [ L 3(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ + q ] : [ L 3(z, w, y + q ] dxdt e 2sβ +3s β γ 61 χ 1 2 ŵwdxdt + (N 2 e 2sβ +3s β(γ 9 χ 2 2 ŷ 1 y 1 dxdt. Here, we have denoted L is the adjoint of L, i.e., ω 2 (,T L (z, w, y = ( z t z + M e Mt w ye N, w t w + Mw + M z, y t y := (L 1, L 2, L 3(z, w, y. Thanks to (3.6, we have that a : P P R is a symmetric, definite positive bilinear form. We denote by P the completion of P with respect to the norm associated to a(.,. (which we denote by. P. This is a Hilbert space and a(.,. is a continuous and coercive bilinear form on P. Let us now consider the linear form G,(z, w, y, q = T ( h 1 zdxdt + h 2 wdxdt + H 3 ydxdt + n z( + c w( + u y( dx. Ω (3.9

18 18 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO It is immediate to see that G, (z, w, y, q = e 5/2s β γ 3 h 1 L 2 (,T ;L 2 (Ω e5/2s β γ 3( z ( z Ω L 2 ( + e 5/2s β γ 2 h 2 L 2 ( e 5/2s β γ 2 w L 2 ( + e 5/2s β γ 5/2 H 3 L 2 ( e 5/2s β γ 5/2 y L 2 ( + (n, c, u L 2 (Ω (z( ( z Ω (, w(, y( L 2 (Ω. In particular, we have that (see (3.6 G, (z, w, y, q ( C e 5/2s β γ 3 h 1 L 2 (,T ;L 2 (Ω + e 5/2s β γ 2 h 2 L 2 ( + e 5/2s β γ 5/2 H 3 L 2 ( + (n, c, u L 2 (Ω (z, w, y, q P. Therefore, G is a linear form on P and by Lax-Milgram s lemma, there exists a unique (ẑ, ŵ, ŷ, q P such that a ( (ẑ, ŵ, ŷ, q, (z, w, y, q = G, (z, w, y, q, (3.1 for every (z, w, y, q P. We set ( n, ĉ, û and = (e 3s β γ 9 L 1(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ, e 2sβ +3s β γ 24 L 2(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ, e 3s β(l 3(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ + q (L 3(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ + q (3.11 (ĝ 1, (N 2ĝ 2 = (e 2sβ +3s β γ 61 ŵχ 1, (N 2e 2sβ +3s β(γ 9 y 1 χ 2. (3.12 Let us show that the quantity e 3/2s β γ 9/2 n 2 L 2 ( + e sβ 3/2s β γ 12 ĉ 2 L 2 ( + e 3/2s βû 2 L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω + χ 1 e sβ 3/2s β γ 61/2 ĝ 1 2 L 2 ( + (N 2 χ 2e sβ 3/2s β(γ 9/2 ĝ 2 2 L 2 ( is finite. We begin noticing that T e 3s β û 2 H 1 (Ω dt = T = = e 3s β T e 3s β T sup < û, ζ > 2 ζ H 1 (Ω =1 H 1 (Ω,H 1 (Ω dt sup < L 3(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ + q (L 3(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ + q, ζ > 2 ζ H 1 (Ω =1 H 1 (Ω,H 1 (Ω dt ( sup e 3/2s β(l 3(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ + q, ζ 2 ζ H 1 (Ω =1 L 2 (Ω +( e 3/2s β (L 3(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ + q, ζ 2 L 2 (Ω dt e 3s β( L 3(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ + q 2 + (L 3(ẑ, ŵ, ŷ + q 2 dxdt.

19 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 19 Moreover, since y =, q = and ( L 3 (z, w, y+ q Σ =, we have that e 3/2s β ( L 3 (z, w, y+ q L 2 (, T ; V and the equality is achieved. It is now immediate to see that e 3/2s β γ 9/2 n 2 L 2 ( + e sβ 3/2s β γ 12 ĉ 2 L 2 ( + e 3/2s βû 2 L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω + χ 1 e sβ 3/2s β γ 61/2 ĝ 1 2 L 2 ( + (N 2 χ 2e sβ 3/2s β(γ 9/2 ĝ 2 2 L 2 ( = a ( ( n, ĉ, û, q, ( n, ĉ, û, q <. (3.13 Let us show that, ( n, ĉ, û is the weak solution of (3.1 with (g 1, g 2 = (ĝ 1, ĝ 2. First, it is not difficult to see that the weak solution (ñ, c, ũ of system (3.1 with g 1 = ĝ 1 and g 2 = ĝ 2 satisfies the following identity T (ñ, c, ũ (f 1, f 2 dxdt + < ũ, F 3 > H 1 (Ω,H 1 (Ω dxdt = h 1 ϕdxdt + h 2 ξdxdt + H 3 vdxdt + ĝ 1 χ 1 ξdxdt + (N 2 ĝ 2 χ 2 v 1 dxdt + (n, ϕ( + (c, w( + (u, v(, (f 1, f 2, F 3 L 2 ( 2 L 2 (, T ; V, (3.14 where (ϕ, ξ, v, π is the solution of L (ϕ, ξ, v + (,, π = (f 1, f 2, F 3 in, v = in, ϕ = ξ = ; v = on Σ, ϕ(x, T = ; ξ(x, T = ; v(x, T = in Ω. (3.15 Let us now take (f1 k, f 2 k, F 3 k C ( C ( C (, T ; V converging to (f 1, f 2, F 3 as k. Here V = {u C (Ω, u = in Ω}. Moreover, let (ϕk, ξ k, v k, π k be the solution of L (ϕ k, ξ k, v k + (,, π k = (f1 k, f 2 k, F 3 k in, v k = in, ϕ k = ξk = ; vk = on Σ, ϕ k (x, T = ; ξ k (x, T = ; v k (x, T = in Ω. (3.16 We have that (ϕ k, ξ k, v k, π k P and from energy estimates, we have that (ϕ k, ξ k, v k converges to (ϕ, ξ, v, π in the space L 2 ( L 2 ( L 2 (, T ; V (actually it converges in a better space. From (3.1 and the definition of ( n, ĉ, û, we have T nf1 k dxdt + ĉf2 k dxdt + < û, F3 k > H 1 (Ω,H 1 (Ω dxdt T = h 1 ϕ k dxdt + h 2 ξ k dxdt + H 3 v k ( dxdt + n ϕ k ( + c ξ k ( + u v k ( dx Ω + χ 1 ĝ 1 ξ k dxdt + (N 2 χ 2 ĝ 2 v1dxdt. k (3.17 ω 1 (,T ω 2 (,T

20 2 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO We may pass to the limit in (3.17 to conclude that ( n, ĉ, û also satisfies (3.14 for every (f 1, f 2, F 3 L 2 ( L 2 ( L 2 (, T ; V. The following lemma says that, possibly changing q in (3.11, ( n, ĉ, û is in fact the weak solution of (3.1. Lemma 3.5. Let u L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω with u = and such that T < u, F > H 1 (Ω,H 1 (Ω dt = for every F L 2 (, T ; V. Then there exist q L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω, with q =, such that u = q. Proof. The result follows from de Rham s theorem. From Lemma 3.5, identities (3.14 and (3.17, we conclude that ( n, ĉ, û is in fact the weak solution of (3.1. Let us now show that ( n, ĉ, û belongs to E. Indeed, it only remains to check that e 5/4s β γ 13/4 n L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω L (, T ; H 1 (Ω, and that e 5/4s β γ 1/4 ĉ L 2 (, T ; H 3 (Ω e 3/2s β γ 2 2/11 û L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω L (, T ; V. To this end, let us introduce (n, c, u = ρ(t( n, ĉ, û, which satisfies n t n = M c + ρh 1 + ρ t n in, c t c = Mc M e Mt n + ρg 1 χ 1 + ρh 2 + ρ t ĉ in, u t u + p = n e N + ρg 2 χ 2 e N 2 + ρh 3 + ρ t û in, u = in, n We consider four cases: = c = ; u = on Σ, n (x, = ρ(n ; c (x, = ρ(c ; u (x, = ρ(u in Ω, (3.18 Case 1. ρ = e 5/4s β γ 13/4. In this case, we have that ρ t Ce 5/4s β γ 9/2 Ce 3/2s β γ 9/2 (3.19 and ρ t Ce sβ 3/2s β γ 12. (3.2

21 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 21 From (3.13, it follows that ρ tˆn and ρ t ĉ belong to L 2 (. Therefore, from well-known regularity properties of parabolic systems (see, for instance, [17], we have { e 5/4s β γ 13/4ˆn L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω L (, T ; H 1 (Ω, e 5/4s β γ ( /4 ĉ L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω. Case 2. ρ = e 5/4s β γ 1/4. In this case, a simple calculation gives ρ t Ce 5/4s β γ 13/4 (3.22 and from Case 1, we conclude that ρ t ĉ belongs to L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω. Using the definition of ĝ 1 (see (3.12 and (3.6, we can also show that (e 5/4s β γ 1/4 ĝ 1 2 Ca((ẑ, ŵ, (ẑ, ŵ, (3.23 for some C >, since e 7/2s β+4sβ γ 122 1/2 Ce 5s β γ 6. Hence it follows that e 5/4s β γ 1/4 ĝ L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω. Therefore, from the regularity theory for parabolic systems, we deduce that { e 5/4s β γ 1/4 n L (, T ; H 1 (Ω L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω, e 5/4s β γ (3.24 1/4 ĉ L 2 (, T ; H 3 (Ω. Case 3. ρ = e 3/2s β γ 1 1/11. In this case, we have and it follows that ρ t Ce 3/2s β. (3.25 e 3/2s β γ 1 1/11 û L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω L (, T ; H. Case 4. ρ = e 3/2s β γ 2 2/11. In this case, we have ρ t Ce 3/2s β γ 1 1/11. (3.26 and it follows that e 3/2s β γ 2 2/11 û L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω L (, T ; V. This finishes the proof of Proposition 3.4. Remark 3.6. For every a >, and every b, c R, the function s b e as βγ c is bounded.

22 22 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO 4. Null controllability to trajectories In this section we give the proof of Theorem 1.2 using similar arguments to those employed, for instance, in [1]. We will see that the results obtained in the previous section allow us to locally invert the nonlinear system (1.1. In fact, the regularity deduced for the solution of the linearized system (1.4 will be sufficient to apply a suitable inverse function theorem (see Theorem 4.1 below. Thus, let us set n = M + z, c = M e Mt + w and u = y and let us use these equalities in (1.1. We find: L(z, w, y + (,, p = (y z + (z w, zw + y w, (y y + (, g 1 χ 1, (N 2g 2 χ 2, y = in, z = w = ; y = on Σ, z(x, = n M; w(x, = c M ; y(x, = u in Ω, (4.1 This way, we have reduced our problem to a local null controllability result for the solution (z, w, y of the nonlinear problem (4.1. We will use the following inverse mapping theorem (see [12]: Theorem 4.1. Let E and G be two Banach spaces and let A : E G be a continuous function from E to G defined in B η ( for some η > with A( =. Let Λ be a continuous and linear operator from E onto G and suppose there exists K > such that and that there exists δ < K 1 such that e E K Λ(e G (4.2 A(e 1 A(e 2 Λ(e 1 e 2 δ e 1 e 2 (4.3 whenever e 1, e 2 B η (. Then the equation A(e = h has a solution e B η ( whenever h G cη, where c = K 1 δ. Remark 4.2. In the case where A C 1 (E; G,using the mean value theorem, it can be shown, that for any δ < K 1, inequality (4.3 is satisfied with Λ = A ( and η > the continuity constant at zero, i. e., A (e A ( L(E;G δ (4.4 whenever e E η. In our setting, we use this theorem with the space E and where G = X Y, X = {(h 1, h 2, H 3 ; e 5/2s β γ 3 h 1 L 2 (, e 5/2s β γ 2 h 2 L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω, (4.5 e 5/2s β γ 5/2 H 3 L 2 ( and h 1 (x, tdx = a. e. t (, T }, Y = {(z, w, y H 1 (Ω H 2 (Ω V; Ω Ω z dx =, w = on Ω} (4.6

23 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 23 and the operator ( A(z, w, y, g 1, (N 2g 2 = L(z, w, y + (,, p + (y z + (z w, zw + y w, (y y (, g 1 χ 1, (N 2g 2 χ 2, z(.,, w(.,, y(.,, (z, w, y, p, g 1, (N 2g 2 E. We have ( A (,,,, = L(z, w, y + (,, p (, g 1 χ 1, (N 2g 2 χ 2, z(.,, w(.,, y(.,, for all (z, w, y, p, g 1, (N 2g 2 E. In order to apply Theorem 4.1 to our problem, we must check that the previous framework fits the regularity required. This is done using the following proposition. Proposition 4.3. A C 1 (E; G. Proof. All terms appearing in A are linear (and consequently C 1, except for (y z + (z w, zw + y w, (y y. However, the operator ( (z, w, y, g1, g 2, ( z, w, g 1, g 2 (y z + (z w, z w + y w, (y ỹ (4.7 is bilinear, so it suffices to prove its continuity from E E to X. In fact, we have (z w X1 = z w + z w L 2 (e 5s β γ 6 ; for a positive constant C. For the other term, we have C e 5/2s β γ 3 z w L 2 ( + e 5/2s β γ 3 z w L 2 ( ( C e 5/4 β γ 13/4 ze 5/4 ˆβ γ 1/4 w L 2 ( + e 5/4s β γ 13/4 ze 5/4s β γ 1/4 w L 2 ( ( C e 5/4s β γ 13/4 z L (,T ;H 1 (Ω e 5/4s β γ 1/4 w L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω + e 5/4s β γ 13/4 z L (,T ;L 2 (Ω e 5/4s β γ 1/4 w L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω, y z X1 = y z L 2 (e 5s β ˆγ 6 ; C e 5/4s β γ 13/4 y L (,T ;V e 5/4s β γ 13/4 z L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω C e 3/2s β γ 2 2/11 y L (,T ;V e 5/4s β γ 13/4 z L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω

24 24 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO Analogousy, z w X2 + y w X2 = y w L 2 (e 5s β γ 4 ;,T ;H 1 (Ω + z w L 2 (e 5s β γ 4 ;,T ;H 1 (Ω Finally, for the last term, we have C e 3/2s β γ 2 2/11 y L (,T ;V e 5/4s β γ 1/4 w L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω + C e 5/4s β γ 13/4 z L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω e 5/4s β γ 1/4 w L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω (y ỹ X3 C (y ỹ L 2 (e 5s β γ 5 ; C e 3/2s β γ 2 2/11 y L (,T ;V e 3/2s β γ 2 2/11 ỹ L 2 (,T ;L 2 (Ω Therefore, continuity of (4.7 is established and the proof Proposition 4.3 is finished. An application of Theorem 4.1 gives the existence of δ, η > such that if (n M, c M, u η/(k 1 δ, then there exists a control (g 1, (N 2g 2 such that the associated solution (z, w, y, p to (4.1 verifies z(t = w(t =, y(t = and (z, w, y, g 1, (N 2g 2 E η. This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.2. Appendix A. Some technical results In this section, we state some technical results we used along this paper. The first result will be a Carleman estimate for the solutions of the parabolic equation: N u t u = f + j f j in, (A.1 j=1 where f, f 1,..., f N L 2 (. The following result is proved in [15, Theorem 2.1]. Lemma A.1. There exists a constant λ only depending on Ω, ω, η and l such that for any λ > λ there exist two constants C(λ > and ŝ(λ, such that for every s ŝ and every u L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω H 1 (, T ; H 1 (Ω satisfying (A.1, we have s 1 e 2sα φ 1 u 2 dxdt + s e 2sα φ u 2 dxdt Recall that C ( s 1/2 e sα φ 1/4 u 2 H 1/4,1/2 (Σ + s 1/2 e sα φ 1/4+1/11 u 2 L 2 (Σ N + s 2 e 2sα φ 2 f 2 dxdt + e 2sα f j 2 dxdt j=1 +s ω (,T u H 1 4, 1 2 (Σ = ( u 2 H 1/4 (,T ;L 2 ( Ω + u 2 L 2 (,T ;H 1/2 ( Ω 1/2. e 2sα φ u 2 dxdt. (A.2

25 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 25 We now state a Carleman estimate for solutions of the heat equation with homogeneous Neumann boundary condition. Lemma A.2. There exist C = C(Ω, ω and λ = λ (Ω, ω such that, for every λ λ, there exists s = s (Ω, ω, λ such that, for any s s (T 11 +T 22, any q L 2 (Ω and any f L 2 (Ω, the weak solution to q t q = f in, q = on Σ, (A.3 q(x, = q in Ω, satisfies I β (s, q C (s β e 2sα φ β f 2 dxdt + s β+3 e 2sα φ β+3 q 2 dxdt, for all β R. ω (,T The proof of Lemma A.2 can be deduced from the Carleman inequality for the heat equation with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions given in [9]. The next technical result is a particular case of [4, Lemma 3]. Lemma A.3. Let β R. There exists C = C(λ > depending only on Ω, ω, η and l such that, for every λ 1, there exist ŝ 1 (λ such, for any s ŝ 1 (λ, every T > and every u L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω, we have s 3+β e 2sα φ 3+β u 2 dxdt C s 1+β e 2sα φ 1+β u 2 dxdt + s 3+β T ω e 2sα φ 3+β u 2 dxdt. (A.4 Remark A.4. In [4], slightly different weight functions are used to prove Lemma A.3 Indeed, the authors take l(t = t(t t. However, this does not change the result since for proving this result we only use integration by parts in the space variable. We now present two regularity results for the Stokes system (see [18]. Lemma A.5. For every T > and every F L 2 (, there exists a unique solution u L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω H 1 (, T ; H to the Stokes system u t u + p = F in, u = in, (A.5 u = on Σ, u(x, = in Ω, for some p L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω and there exists a constant C >, depending only on Ω, such that u L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω + u H 1 (,T ;H C F L 2 (.

26 26 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO Moreover, if F L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω and satisfies the compatibility condition p F = F ( in Ω, where p F is any solution of the Neumann boundary value problem p F = F ( in Ω, p F = F ( ν on Ω, (A.6 then u L 2 (, T ; H 4 (Ω H 1 (, T ; H 2 (Ω and there exists a constant C >, depending only on Ω, such that ( u L 2 (,T ;H 4 (Ω + u H 1 (,T ;H 2 (Ω C F L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω + F H 1 (,T ;L 2 (Ω. Lemma A.6. If F L 2 (, T ; V, then u L 2 (, T ; H 3 (Ω H 1 (, T ; V and there exists a constant C >, depending only on Ω, such that u L 2 (,T ;H 3 (Ω + u H 1 (,T ;V C F L 2 (,T ;V. Furthermore, if F L 2 (, T ; H 3 (Ω H 1 (, T ; V then u L 2 (, T ; H 5 (Ω H 1 (, T ; H 3 (Ω H 2 (, T ; V and there exists a constant C >, depending only on Ω, such that u L 2 (,T ;H 5 (Ω + u H 1 (,T ;H 3 (Ω + u H 2 (,T ;V C ( F L 2 (,T ;H 3 (Ω + F t L 2 (,T ;V. Appendix B. Carleman Inequality for the Stokes operator In this section we prove Lemma 2.3 used in the proof of Theorem 2.2. Proof. For better comprehension, we divide the proof into several steps. Step 1. Estimate of (z i, i = 1, 3. We begin noticing that since F 3 L 2 (, T, V, we have that ρ v L 2 (, T ; H 3 (Ω H 1 (, T ; V (see Lemma A.6 above. Therefore, we can apply the operator to the equation of z i (see (2.1, i = 1, 3, to get Ẑi,t Ẑi = ( (ρ v i in, (B.1 where Ẑi = z i. Here, we have used the fact that r = in. Next, we apply Lemma A.1 to (B.1, with i = 1, 3, and add these estimates. This gives Î 2 (s; Ẑi C ( s 1 2 e sα φ 1 4 Ẑi 2 + H 1 4, 1 2 (Σ s 1 2 e sα φ 1/4+1/11 Ẑ i 2 L 2 (Σ (B.2 + e 2sα ρ 2 v i 2 dxdt + s e 2sα φ Ẑi 2 dxdt. ω 1 (,T Notice that this can be done because the right-hand side of (B.1 belongs to L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω.

27 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 27 Now, using Lemma A.3, with β =, we see that s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt C ( s e 2sα φ Ẑi 2 dxdt + s 3 ω 2 (,T e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt for every s C 1, where Z i := z i. In (B.2, we estimate the local integral of Ẑi, i = 1, 3, as follows: s e 2sα φ Ẑi 2 dxdt s θ 2 e 2sα φ Z i 2 dxdt ω 1 (,T ω 2 (,T = s (e 2sα φθ 2 Z i 2 dxdt s θ 2 e 2sα φ (ẐiZ i dxdt 2 ω 2 (,T ω 2 (,T, (B.3 Cs 3 ω 2 (,T e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + δî 2(s; Ẑi, (B.4 for any δ >, since (e 2sα φθ 2 Cs 2 φ 3 e 2sα 1 ω 2. Hence, (s 3 C e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + Î2(s; Ẑi ( s 1 2 e sα φ 1 4 Ẑi 2 H 1 4, 1 2 (Σ + s 1 2 e sα φ 1/4+1/11 Ẑ i 2 L 2 (Σ + e 2sα ρ 2 v i 2 dxdt + s 3 e ω 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt. 2 (,T (B.5 Using again Lemma A.3, with β = 2, i = 1, 3, we get s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt C (s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + s ω 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt, (B.6 3 (,T for every s C 1.

28 28 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO From (B.5 and (B.6, we obtain (s 5 C + e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z 3 2 dxdt + Î 2(s; Ẑ3 ( s 1 2 e sα φ 1 4 Ẑi 2 H 1 4, 1 2 (Σ + s 1 2 e sα φ 1/4+1/11 Ẑ i 2 L 2 (Σ e 2sα ρ 2 v i 2 dxdt + s 3 ω 2 (,T e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + s ω 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt, 3 (,T (B.7 for every s C 1. Step 2. Estimate of v i, i = 1, 3. By (2.11 and the fact that s 11/5 e 2s α φ11/5 is bounded, we estimate the integrals involving v i, i = 1, 3, on the right-hand side of (B.7. Indeed, e 2sα ρ 2 v i 2 dxdt = e 2sα ρ 2 ρ 2 (ρv i 2 dxdt C (s 2+2/11 e 2s α φ2+2/11 w i 2 dxdt + s 2+2/11 e 2s α φ2+2/11 Z i 2 dxdt C ( ρf 3 2L2(,T ;V + s2+2/11 e 2s α φ3 Z i 2 dxdt. (B.8 since α t 2 CT 2 φ 2+2/11. Therefore, from (B.7 and (B.8, we have (s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + Î 2(s; Ẑi C ( ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V + s 1 2 e sα φ 1 4 Ẑi 2 + H 1 4, 1 2 (Σ s 1 2 e sα φ 1/4+1/11 Ẑ i 2 L 2 (Σ + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt. (B.9 ω 2 (,T ω 3 (,T Step 3. Estimate of a global term of z 2. From the fact that defines a norm in H 2 (Ω H 1 (Ω, we have s 5 e 2s α φ5 z 2 2 dxdt C s 5 e 2s α φ5 z i 2 dxdt, (B.1

29 since z Ω = and z =. Hence, s 5 e 2s α φ5 z 2 2 dxdt + C CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 29 (s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + Î 2(s; Ẑi ( ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V + s 1 2 e sα φ 1 4 Ẑi 2 H 1 4, 1 2 (Σ + s 1 2 e sα φ 1/4+1/11 Ẑ i 2 L 2 (Σ + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt. (B.11 ω 2 (,T ω 3 (,T Step 4. Estimate of the local integral of Z i, i = 1, 3. We have s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt s 3 θ 3 e 2sα φ 3 z i 2 dxdt ω 2 (,T ω 3 (,T = s3 (e 2sα φ 3 θ 3 z i 2 dxdt s 3 θ 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i z 3 dxdt 2 ω 3 (,T ω 3 (,T since Cs 5 ω 3 (,T e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt + δî 2(s; Ẑi, (B.12 From (B.11, we get s 5 e 2s α φ5 z 2 2 dxdt+ (s 5 C Step 5 Estimate of the L 2 boundary terms. Using the fact that (e 2sα φ 3 θ 3 Cs 2 φ 5 e 2sα 1 ω 3. e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + Î 2(s; Ẑi ( ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V + s 1 2 e sα φ 1 4 Ẑi 2 H 1 4, 1 2 (Σ + s 1 2 e sα φ 1/4+1/11 Ẑ i 2 L 2 (Σ + s ω 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt. (B.13 3 (,T e s α Ẑ i 2 L 2 (Σ es α Ẑ i 2 L 2 ( + s1/2 e s α φ1/2 Ẑ i L 2 ( s 1/2 e s α φ 1/2 Ẑi L 2 ( (B.14 it is not difficult to see that we can absorb s 1 2 e sα φ 1/4+1/11 Ẑ i 2 L 2 (Σ large enough. in (B.13 by taking s Step 6. Estimate of the H 1 4, 1 2 boundary terms.

30 3 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO To eliminate the H 1 4, 1 2 boundary terms, we show that z i, i = 1, 3, multiplied by several weight functions are regular enough. We begin noticing that, from (2.11, we have s 5 e 2s α φ5 ρ 2 v 2 dxdt C ( ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V + s5 e 2s α φ5 z 2 dxdt. (B.15 Thus, the term s 5/2 e s α φ5/2 ρv 2 L 2 ( is bounded by the left-hand side of (B.16 and ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V : s 5 e 2s α φ5 z 2 2 dxdt + s 5 e 2s α φ5 ρ 2 v 2 dxdt with + (s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + Î 2(s; Ẑi (B.16 C ( ρf 3 2L2(,T ;V + s 12 e sα φ 14 Ẑi 2H + 14, 12 (Σ s5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt.. ω 3 (,T We define now z := l(tz, r := l(tr, l(t = s 3/2 1/11 φ3/2 1/11 e s α. From (2.1, we see that ( z, r is the solution of the Stokes system: z t z + r = lρ v l z in, z = in, z = on Σ, z(t = in Ω. Taking into account that and using Lemma A.5, we have that α t CT φ 1+1/11, ρ Cs 1+1/11 φ1+1/11 ρ, lρ Cs 5/2 φ5/2 e s α ρ, l Cs 5/2 φ5/2 e s α, z L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω and z 2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 ( H 1 (,T ;L 2 ( ( s C 5/2 φ5/2 e s α ρv 2 L 2 ( + s5/2 φ5/2 e s α z 2 L 2 (, (B.17 thus, lz 2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 ( H 1 (,T ;L 2 ( is bounded by the left-hand side of (B.16. Next, let z := l (tz, r := l (tr, with l (t = s 1/2 2/11 φ1/2 2/11 e s α.

31 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 31 From (2.1, (z, r is the solution of the Stokes system: zt z + r = l ρ v (l z in, z = in, z = on Σ, z (T = in Ω. Let us show that the right-hand side of this system is in L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω. For the first term, we write and since l ρ v = l ρ l 1 ρ 1 lρv = l ρ l 1 ρ 1 ( z + lw l ρ l 1 ρ 1 C, we see that l ρ v = L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω. Moreover, because the regularity of z and the one of w give From (B.18, (2.11 and (B.17, we have (l ρ l 1 ρ 1 Cs φ 1+1/11 l ρ v H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω. l ρ v 2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 ( H 1 (,T ;L 2 ( C ( s 5/2 φ5/2 e s α ρv 2 L 2 ( + s5/2 φ5/2 e s α z 2 L 2 ( For the other term, we write and since (B.18 + C ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V, (B.19 (l z = l 1 (l z (B.2 l 1 (l C we have that (l z L 2 (, T ; H 2 (Ω. From the regularity of z, and the fact that ((l l 1 Cs φ 1+1/11, we have that (l z H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω and (l z 2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 ( H 1 (,T ;L 2 ( ( s C 5/2 φ5/2 e s α ρv 2 L 2 ( + s5/2 φ5/2 e s α z 2 L 2 (. (B.21 and Using Lemma A.5 once more, we obtain z L 2 (, T ; H 4 (Ω H 1 (, T ; H 2 (Ω z 2 L 2 (,T ;H 4 ( H 1 (,T ;H 2 ( C ( s 5/2 φ5/2 e s α ρv 2 L 2 ( + s5/2 φ5/2 e s α z 2 L 2 ( + C ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V. (B.22 Let us now define ẑ = lz, where l = s 5/22 φ 5/22 e s α.

32 32 F. W. CHAVES-SILVA AND S. GUERRERO From (2.1, (ẑ, r is the solution of the Stokes system: ẑ t ẑ + r = lρ v l z in, ẑ = in, ẑ = on Σ, ẑ(t = in Ω. Noticing that l Cs 1 5/22+1/11 φ 5/22+1+1/11 e s α = C(l 1/2 ( l 1/2 and interpolating H 2 (Ω and H 4 (Ω, we obtain l z L 2 (,T ;H 3 (Ω C lz 1/2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω l z 1/2 L 2 (,T ;H 4 (Ω and l z L 2 (, T ; H 3 (Ω. Next, interpolating L 2 (Ω and H 2 (Ω, we obtain We also have the following estimate l z t L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω C lz t 1/2 L 2 (,T ;L 2 (Ω l z t 1/2 L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω. ( l z L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω C s 5/2 e s α φ5/2 z 1/2 1/2 lz L 2 (,T ;L 2 (Ω L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω. Therefore, the following estimate holds (B.23 l z 2 L 2 (,T ;H 3 (Ω H 1 (,T ;H 1 (Ω ( s C 5/2 φ5/2 e s α ρv 2 L 2 ( + s5/2 φ5/2 e s α z 2 L 2 ( + ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V. (B.24 Next, writing and using the fact that lρ v = lρ (l 1/2 l 1/2 ρ 1 ( l 1/2 (l 1/2 z + l 1/2 (l 1/2 w lρ (l 1/2 l 1/2 ρ 1 C, the regularity of z, z and the one of w, we have that lρ v L 2 (, T ; H 3 (Ω and the following estimate holds lρ v 2 L 2 (,T ;H 3 (Ω ( s C 5/2 φ5/2 e s α ρv 2 L 2 ( + s5/2 φ5/2 e s α z 2 L 2 ( + ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V. (B.25 It is immediate to see that and because we also have that ((l 1/2 l1/2 z t L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω C (l 1/2 l1/2 z H 1 (,T ;H 1 (Ω C lz 1/2 H 1 (,T ;L 2 (Ω l z 1/2 H 1 (,T ;H 2 (Ω ( lρ (l 1/2 l 1/2 ρ 1 Cs φ 1+1/11, ( lρ (l 1/2 l 1/2 ρ 1 (l 1/2 l1/2 z L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω C s 5/2 e s α φ5/2 z 1/2 1/2 lz L 2 (,T ;L 2 (Ω L 2 (,T ;H 2 (Ω.

33 CONTROLLABILITY FOR A CHEMOTAXIS-FLUID MODEL 33 Hence, lρ v H 1 (, T ; H 1 (Ω and we have the estimate lρ v 2 L 2 (,T ;H 3 (Ω H 1 (,T ;H 1 (Ω ( s C 5/2 φ5/2 e s α ρv 2 L 2 ( + s5/2 φ5/2 e s α z 2 L 2 ( + ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V. (B.26 Therefore, from Lemma A.6, we conclude that and has the estimate lz L 2 (, T ; H 5 (Ω H 1 (, T ; H 3 (Ω (B.27 lz 2 L 2 (,T ;H 5 (Ω H 1 (,T ;H 3 (Ω ( s C 5/2 φ5/2 e s α ρv 2 L 2 ( + s5/2 φ5/2 e s α z 2 L 2 ( + ρf 3 2 L 2 (,T ;V. (B.28 Now, since and lẑi L 2 (,T ;H 1 (Ω H 1 (,T ;H 1 (Ω C lz L 2 (,T ;H 5 (Ω H 1 (,T ;H 3 (Ω s 1 2 e sα φ 1 4 Ẑi 2 H 1 4, 1 2 (Σ s 1/22 lẑi 2 H 1 4, 1 2 (Σ, the H 1 4, 1 2 boundary terms on the right-hand side of (B.16 can be absorbed by its left-hand side by taking s large enough. Therefore, we conclude that s 5 e 2s α φ5 z 2 2 dxdt + s 5 e 2s α φ5 ρ 2 v 2 dxdt + (s 5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt + s 3 e 2sα φ 3 Z i 2 dxdt + Î 2(s; Ẑi C ( ρf 3 2L2(,T ;V + s5 e 2sα φ 5 z i 2 dxdt., ω 3 (,T which is exactly (2.12. Appendix C. Proof of Claim 2.5 In this section, we prove Claim 2.5 used in the proof of Theorem 2.2. First, we use integration by parts to see that s 9 ω 5 (,T θ 5 e 2sα φ 18 φ 9/2 ρ ψξ t dxdt (B.29 = s 9 ω 5 (,T θ 5 e 2sα ρ φ 9/2 φ 18 ( ψ t ξdxdt (C.1 s 9 ω 5 (,T θ 5 (e 2sα ρφ 18 φ 9/2 t ψξdxdt.