## A note on the existence of traveling-wave solutions to a Boussinesq system

Filipe Oliveira

Abstract. We obtain a one-parameter family

$$( u _ { \mu } ( x, t ), \eta _ { \mu } ( x, t ) ) _ { \mu \geq \mu _ { 0 } } = ( \phi _ { \mu } ( x - \omega _ { \mu } t ), \psi _ { \mu } ( x - \omega _ { \mu } t ) ) _ { \mu \geq \mu _ { 0 } }$$

of traveling-wave solutions to the Boussinesq system

$$\begin{cases} \ u _ { t } + \eta _ { x } + u u _ { x } + c \eta _ { x x x } = 0 & ( x, t ) \in \mathbb { R } ^ { 2 } \\ \eta _ { t } + u _ { x } + ( \eta u ) _ { x } + a u _ { x x x } = 0 \end{cases}$$

in the case a, c &lt; 0, with non-null speeds ω µ arbitrarely close to 0 ( ω µ - - - - -→ µ → ∞ + 0). We show that the L 2 -size of such traveling-waves satis- fies the uniform (in µ ) estimate ‖ φ µ ‖ 2 2 + ‖ ψ µ ‖ 2 2 ≤ C √ | a | + | c , | where C is a positive constant. Furthermore, φ µ and -ψ µ are smooth, non-negative, radially decreasing functions which decay exponentially at infinity.

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010). Primary 35Q35; Secondary 76B25.

Keywords. Traveling-waves, Dispersive equations, Boussinesq systems.

## 1. Introduction

In [1], with the purpose of describing the dynamics of small-amplitude long waves propagating on the surface of an ideal fluid in a channel of constant depht, the authors introduced the four-parameter family of Boussinesq systems

These systems are first-order approximations to the Euler equations in the small parameters α = A h &lt;&lt; 1 and β = h 2 l 2 &lt;&lt; 1, where h is the depht of the channel (subsequently scaled to 1), and A and λ represent a typical wave amplitude and a typical wavelenght respectively. Here, η x, t ( ) denotes the

$$\begin{cases} \ u _ { t } + \eta _ { x } + u u _ { x } + c \eta _ { x x x } - d u _ { x x t } = 0 \\ \eta _ { t } + u _ { x } + ( \eta u ) _ { x } + a u _ { x x x } - b _ { x x t } = 0. \end{cases} ( 1. 1 ) \\ \text{vstems are first-order approximations to the Euler equations in the}$$

The author was partially supported by FCT (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) through the grant PEst-OE/MAT/UI0209/2011.

deviation of free surface with respect to the undisturbed state (i.e. 1 + η x, t ( ) is the total depht of the liquid at time t and position x ) and u x, t ( ) is the horizontal velocity at height θ , 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. The four parameters a, b, c and d are given by

$$\text{ven py} \\ a & = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( \theta ^ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { 3 } \right ) \lambda, \ \ b = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( \theta ^ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { 3 } \right ) ( 1 - \lambda ) \\ c & = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } \right ) \mu, \quad d = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } \right ) ( 1 - \mu ), \\ \text{e, as stated in [1], \lambda \, and \, \mu \, are modeling parameters that do not possess} \\ \text{ect physical interpretation.}$$

where, as stated in [1], λ and µ are modeling parameters that do not possess a direct physical interpretation.

In [5], a correction of the c parameter is proposed in order to include the contribution of the surface tension:

$$\text{sources common}. \\ c = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } \right ) \mu - \tau. \quad & ( 1. 3 ) \\ \tau \text{ is given by } \tau = \frac { \Gamma } { \pi, \alpha }, \text{ where } \Gamma \text{ is the surface tension}$$

The Bond number τ is given by τ = Γ ρgh 2 , where Γ is the surface tension coefficient and ρ the density of water.

In [3], the authors prove the existence (and orbital stability) of travelingwaves to system (1.1) of the form

$$u ( x, t ) & = \phi ( x - \omega t ), \eta ( x, t ) = \psi ( x - \omega t ) \quad \quad ( 1. 4 ) \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \ dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots.$$

in the case a, c &lt; 0, b = d &gt; 0 and ac &gt; b 2 . Furthermore, in [4], the existence of such traveling-waves with small propagation speed is obtained in the case a, c &lt; 0 and b = d .

In the present paper we exhibit a new family of one-parameter travelingwaves in the case a, c &lt; 0 and b = d = 0. Our method has the advantage of providing radially decreasing functions and a uniform bound for the L 2 -size of the solution. More precisely, we prove the following result:

Theorem 1.1 . Let a, c &lt; 0. There exists a constant µ 0 = µ 0 ( a, c ) and a oneparameter family of nontrivial traveling-wave solutions to the Boussinesq system of the form

$$\begin{cases} \ u _ { t } + \eta _ { x } + u u _ { x } + c \eta _ { x x x } = 0 \\ \eta _ { t } + u _ { x } + ( \eta u ) _ { x } + a u _ { x x x } = 0 \end{cases}$$

$$& ( u, \eta ) = ( \phi _ { \mu } ( x - \omega _ { \mu } t ), \psi _ { \mu } ( x - \omega _ { \mu } t ) ), \quad \mu \geq \mu _ { 0 }, \\ & \iota \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \colon \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \ddots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots.$$

with ( φ , ψ µ µ ) ∈ H ∞ ( R ) × H ∞ ( R ), φ µ and -ψ µ non-negative and radially decreasing, with exponential decay at infinity.

Furthermore, the speed ω µ satisfies the estimate

$$\cdot \quad r & 0 > \omega _ { \mu } > - \frac { 1 } { C _ { 1 } } \, \overset { 3 } { \sqrt { | a | + | c | } } \mu ^ { - \frac { 2 } { 3 } } \\ \text{inform control of the $L^{2}$-norm of the tr}$}.$$

and the following uniform control of the L 2 -norm of the traveling-wave holds:

$$\| \phi _ { \mu } \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + \| \psi _ { \mu } \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } \leq C \sqrt { | a | + | c | },$$

where C is a positive constant independent of a , c and µ .

Remark 1.2 . We stated the existence of traveling-waves

$$\begin{matrix} & ( \phi ( x - \omega t ), \psi ( x - \omega t ) ), \\ & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \end{matrix}$$

with φ ≥ 0 and ψ ≤ 0, propagating with negative speed ω . Noticing that ( -φ x ( + ωt , ψ ) ( x + ωt )) is also a solution to (1.5), it is straightforward to deduce the existence of non-positive traveling-waves propagating with positive speed.

/negationslash

Remark 1.3 . As stated above, in [4], the authors also establish the existence of traveling-waves with small speed in the particular case a, c &lt; 0 and b = d = 0, although it is not clear, with the method used, if the solutions have a sign, are radially-decreasing or if an uniform (in the speed ω ) estimate such as (1.6) holds. On the other hand, of course, the method used in [4] has the important advantage of covering the case b = d = 0. Either way, it does not seem obvious to prove or to disprove that the traveling-waves found in both papers are the same.

Remark 1.4 . Note, in view of (1.2) and (1.3), that the case treated in Theorem 1.1 corresponds to λ = µ = 1, that is

$$a = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( \theta ^ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { 3 } \right ) \quad \text{and} \quad c = \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } ) - \tau. \\ 1 = \tau \quad \tau \quad \tau \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \tau \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \tau \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot$$

For θ 2 → 1 3 and τ → 1 3 we get a, c → 0. The estimate (1 6) then suggests .

This is consistent with the known fact (see [5]) that in the case 1 3 -τ = O ( β ), β → 0 it is necessary to introduce higher order terms in the approximation of the Euler equations in order to model solitary waves.

that the traveling-wave solutions vanish in this regime. Boussinesq

## 2. The minimization problem

In what follows we fix a, c &lt; 0. In order to prove Theorem 1.1 we introduce a variational problem whose minimizers, up to a rescaling, correspond to a traveling-wave profile. Let us first note that

$$( u, \eta ) = ( \phi ( x - \omega t ), \psi ( x - \omega t ) ), \quad \phi ( y ), \psi ( y ) \xrightarrow { \ y \to \infty } 0$$

is a solution to the Boussinesq system (1.5) if and only if φ and ψ satisfy the stationary equation

$$\begin{cases} \ a \phi ^ { \prime \prime } + \phi - \omega \psi + \phi \psi = 0 \\ c \psi ^ { \prime \prime } + \psi - \omega \phi + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \phi ^ { 2 } = 0. \end{cases}$$

For µ &gt; 0, we set

$$X _ { \mu } = \{ ( f, g ) \in H ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ) \times H ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ) \ \colon N ( f, g ) = \| f \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + \| g \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } = \mu \}$$

and consider the minimization problem m µ ( ) = inf { τ ( f, g ) : ( f, g ) ∈ X µ } , where

$$\tau ( f, g ) = - a \int f ^ { \prime 2 } - c \int g ^ { \prime 2 } + \int f ^ { 2 } g + 2 \int f g. \\ \intertext { a i t i o n } \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left [ \text{ for all } \mu \right > \theta \right ] \mu \right > - \right ] \infty$$

Proposition 2.1 . For all µ &gt; 0, m µ ( ) &gt; -∞ .

Proof Let ( f, g ) ∈ X µ . One only has to notice that by the Cauchy-Schwarz and Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities,

More precisely, m µ ( ) ≥ -C 3 √ | a | µ 10 3 -2 µ , where C is a positive constant.

$$u \, & \quad \cdot \quad u \, \quad \cdot \quad u \,, \\ & \quad \left | \int f g \right | \leq \| f \| _ { 2 } \| g \| _ { 2 } \leq \mu \quad \text{and} \\ \Gamma ^ { 2 } g \right | \leq \| f \| _ { 4 } ^ { 2 } \| g \| _ { 2 } \leq \| f ^ { \prime } \| _ { 2 } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \| f \| _ { 2 } ^ { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } \| g \| _ { 2 } \leq \mu ^ { \frac { 5 } { 2 } }$$

Hence,

$$& \left | \int f g \right | \leq \| f \| _ { 2 } \| g \| _ { 2 } \leq \mu \quad \text{and} \\ \left | \int f ^ { 2 } g \right | & \leq \| f \| _ { 4 } ^ { 2 } \| g \| _ { 2 } \leq \| f ^ { \prime } \| _ { 2 } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \| f \| _ { 2 } ^ { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } \| g \| _ { 2 } \leq \mu ^ { \frac { 5 } { 2 } } \| f ^ { \prime } \| _ { 2 } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } }. \\ \text{e,}, \\ \tau ( f, g ) & \geq - a \| f ^ { \prime } \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - \mu ^ { \frac { 5 } { 2 } } \| f ^ { \prime } \| _ { 2 } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } - 2 \mu = P ( \| f ^ { \prime } \| _ { 2 } ),$$

which is enough to conclude since 1 3 √ | a | ( 16 -1 3 -4 -1 3 ) µ 10 3 -2 µ is the minimum of P x ( ) = ax 4 µ 5 2 x 2 µ . /squaresolid

$$& \left | J \ J \ g \right | \geq \left \| J \left \| _ { 4 } \right \| g \right \| _ { 2 } \geq \left \| J \right \| _ { 2 } \left \| J \left \| _ { 2 } \left \| g \right \| _ { 2 } \geq \mu ^ { 2 } \left \| J \right \| _ { 2 } \tilde { \ }. \\, & \tau ( f, g ) \geq - a \right \| f ^ { \prime } \right \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - \mu ^ { \frac { 5 } { 2 } } \| f ^ { \prime } \right \| _ { 2 } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } - 2 \mu = P ( \| f ^ { \prime } \| _ { 2 } ), \\ \text{is enough to conclude since } \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( 1 6 ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 3 } } - 4 ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 3 } } \right \rangle \, \mu ^ { \frac { 1 0 } { 3 } } - 2 \mu \text{ is the}$$

$$= - a x ^ { 4 } - \mu ^ { \frac { 5 } { 2 } } x - 2 \mu$$

Proposition 2.2 . For all µ &gt; 0, m µ ( ) &lt; -C 3 √ | a | + | c | µ 5 3 , where C is a positive constant.

$$\xi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu \mu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nolimits _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ { \mu } _ { \ } d \Phi ^ \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \varepsilon \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \beta \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \appa \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \varphi \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \right.$$

Proof We fix a non-negative function h ∈ H 1 ( R ) such that ‖ h ‖ 2 = 1 and we put h λ ( x ) = λh λ x ( 2 ), where λ will be chosen later. Then, for all µ &gt; 0, ( f, g ) = 1 µ 2 3 h λ ( µ 1 3 x , ) µ 2 3 h λ ( µ 1 3 x ) X µ and

$$\vee \nu ^ { \frac { \pi } { 2 } } \ \sqrt { 2 } \ \nu ^ { r } \ \cdots \varepsilon ^ { \pi } \ \cdots \nu ^ { \pi } \ \cdots \cdots \\ m ( \mu ) \leq \tau ( f, g ) = \frac { | a | + | c | } { 2 } \mu ^ { \frac { 5 } { 3 } } \int ( h ^ { \prime } _ { \lambda } ) ^ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 \sqrt { 2 } } \mu ^ { \frac { 5 } { 3 } } \int h ^ { 3 } _ { \lambda } - \mu \int h ^ { 2 } _ { \lambda } \\ \leq \mu ^ { \frac { 5 } { 3 } } \left ( \frac { | a | + | c | } { 2 } \| h ^ { \prime } _ { \lambda } \| ^ { 2 } _ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 \sqrt { 2 } } \| h _ { \lambda } \| ^ { 3 } _ { 3 } \right ) \\ \leq \mu ^ { \frac { 5 } { 3 } } \lambda \left ( \lambda ^ { 3 } ( | a | + | c | ) \| h ^ { \prime } \| ^ { 2 } _ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 \sqrt { 2 } } \| h \| ^ { 3 } _ { 3 } \right ). \\ \text{We conclude the proof by choosing } \lambda = \frac { \epsilon } { 3 \sqrt { | a | + | c | } }, \text{with } \epsilon \text{ such that}$$

We conclude the proof by choosing λ = /epsilon1 3 , with /epsilon1

$$- C = \lambda ^ { 3 } ( | a | + | c | ) \| h ^ { \prime } \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 \sqrt { 2 } } \| h \| _ { 3 } ^ { 3 } < 0.$$

√ | a | + | c | such that 0. /squaresolid

## 3. Existence of Minimizers

Let µ &gt; 0 and ( f n , g n ) a minimizing sequence for m µ ( ). By denoting f ∗ the Schwarz symmetrization of | f | , it is well known that

$$\| f ^ { * \prime } \| _ { 2 } \leq \| f ^ { \prime } \| _ { 2 }, \ \| f ^ { * } \| _ { 2 } = \| f \| _ { 2 }, \ \int f g \leq \int f ^ { * } g ^ { * } \text{ and } \int f ^ { 2 } g \leq \int f ^ { * 2 } g ^ { * }.$$

Hence, τ ( f ∗ , -g ∗ ) ≤ τ ( f, g ) and ( f, g ) ∈ X µ implies that ( f ∗ , -g ∗ ) ∈ X µ . Therefore we can choose a minimizing sequence ( f n , g n ) with f n ≥ , g n ≤ 0 and f n , -g n radially decreasing.

We will now apply the concentration-compactness method ([6],[7]) to prove the compacity, up to translations, of the sequence ( f n , g n ) in L 2 ( R ) × L 2 ( R ) strong.

Following this method, we set the concentration function ρ n = f 2 n + g 2 n and put Q n ( ) = sup t y ∈ R ∫ y + t y -t ρ n . Also, we set Q t ( ) = lim n → ∞ + Q n ( ) and Ω = t lim t → ∞ + Q t ( ).

We start by ruling out vanishing:

Proposition 3.1 . There exists µ 0 = µ 0 ( a, c ) such that for µ ≥ µ 0 , Ω &gt; 0.

Proof Assume that Ω = 0. Since Q t ( ) is non-negative and non-increasing, for all t , Q t ( ) = 0. Hence,

$$\underset { n \rightarrow + \infty } { \lim } \sup _ { y \in \mathbb { R } } \int _ { y - t } ^ { y + t } f _ { n } ^ { 2 } = \underset { n \rightarrow + \infty } { \lim } \sup _ { y \in \mathbb { R } } \int _ { y - t } ^ { y + t } g _ { n } ^ { 2 } = 0. \\ \infty \text{Dwo} \, \neq \, \neq \, \neq \, \text{the hand} \, \text{in}$$

From the Proof of 2.1 one can infer that ( f n ) (and g n ) is bounded in H 1 ( R ). Arguing as in [6] (Lemma I.1), ‖ f n ‖ 4 → 0, hence ∫ f 2 n g n → 0 by CauchySchwarz. Furthermore,

$$\geq 2 \lim _ { n \to + \infty } \int f _ { n } g _ { n } \geq - 2 \mu, \\ \prod \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \circ \OC }$$

$$m ( \mu ) = \lim _ { n \to + \infty } & \left ( - a \int f _ { n } ^ { \prime \, 2 } - c \int g _ { n } ^ { \prime \, 2 } + \int f _ { n } ^ { 2 } g _ { n } + 2 \int f _ { n } g _ { n } \right ) \\ & \geq 2 \lim _ { n \to + \infty } \int f _ { n } g _ { n } \geq - 2 \mu, \\. & \quad \frac { 1 } { 2 }$$

which contradicts Proposition 2.2 for µ ≥ µ 0 = 2 3 2 C 3 2 1 √ | a | + | c | . /squaresolid

Next, we rule out dichotomy, that is 0 &lt; Ω &lt; lim n → ∞ + ∫ ρ n . It is sufficient to prove the following lemma:

Lemma 3.2 . For all µ ≥ µ 0 and for all θ &gt; 1, m θµ ( ) &lt; θm µ ( ).

Also, there exists δ &gt; 0 such that for all n large enough, ∫ | f n | 2 | g n | ≥ δ . Otherwise, up to a subsequence, ∫ f 2 n g n → 0, which is absurd for µ ≥ µ 0 , as seen in the previous proof of Proposition 3.1. Finally,

$$& \text{Proof We have $\tau(\theta^{\frac{1}{2}} f_{n},\theta^{\frac{1}{2}} g_{n})=\theta\tau(f_{n},g_{n})-(\theta^{\frac{3}{2}}-\theta)\int|f_{n}|^{2}|g_{n}|$.} \\ & \text{Also, there exists $\delta>0$ such that for all $n$ large enough, $i\int|f_{n}|^{2}|g_{n}|\geq \delta$.}$$

$$m ( \theta \mu ) \leq \tau ( \theta ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } f _ { n }, \theta ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } g _ { n } ) \leq \theta \tau ( f _ { n }, g _ { n } ) - \delta ( \theta ^ { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } - \theta ), \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots.$$

which yields the result: m θµ ( ) ≤ lim n → ∞ + θτ ( f n , g n ) -δ θ ( 3 2 -θ ) = θm µ ( ) -δ θ ( 3 2 -θ ) &lt; θm µ . ( ) /squaresolid

It is standard, from Lemma 3.2, to prove the strict subadditivity of m , that is

$$\forall \mu \geq \Omega, \ \ m ( \mu ) < m ( \Omega ) + m ( \mu - \Omega ),$$

(see for instance Lemma 2.3 in [8]) which is well-known to rule out dichotomy.

Hence, by Lions' Theorem, we are in the compactness situation. There exists a sequence ( y n ) such that, up to a subsequence, ( f n ( . -y n ) , g n ( . -y n )) converges strongly in L 2 ( R ) × L 2 ( R ) to some ( ˜ f, g ˜) ∈ X µ .

Since ( f n , g n ) is bounded in H 1 ( R ), using the compact embedding

$$H _ { r a d } ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ) \hookrightarrow L ^ { 4 } ( \mathbb { R } ), \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

Furthermore, ( f n , g n ) ⇀ f,g ( ) in H 1 ( R ) × H 1 ( R ) weak.

up to a subsequence, f n (respectively -g n ) converges strongly in L 4 to some radial non-negative function f (respectively -g ).

Since

$$& \| f _ { n } \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + \| g _ { n } \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } = \| f _ { n } ( \cdot - y _ { n } ) \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + \| g _ { n } ( \cdot - y _ { n } ) \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } \xrightarrow { \longrightarrow } \| \tilde { f } \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + \| \tilde { g } \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } = \mu, \\ & \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \colon$$

we have in fact that ( f n , g n ) → ( f, g ) in L 2 ( R ) × L 2 ( R ) strong and, in particular, ( f, g ) ∈ X µ . Hence,

From these inequalities, we deduce that τ ( f, g ) lim τ ( f n , g n ) = ( )

$$\text{s.s. } \cdots, \cdots, \cdots, \cdots, \\ \int f _ { n } g _ { n } \to \int f ^ { 2 } g, \int f _ { n } g _ { n } \to \int f g \text{ and } \\ \lim _ { n \to + \infty } | a | \int f _ { n } ^ { \prime } 2 + | c | \int g _ { n } ^ { \prime } 2 \leq | a | \int f ^ { \prime } ^ { 2 } + | c | \int g ^ { \prime 2 }. \\ \text{n these inequalities, we deduce that } \tau ( f, g ) \leq \lim _ { n \to + \infty } \tau ( f _ { n }, g _ { n } ) = m$$

Since ( f, g ) ∈ X µ , we have in fact τ ( f, g ) = m µ ( ) and ( f, g ) is for m µ ( ).

≤ n → ∞ + m µ . a minimizer

## 4. End of the Proof of Theorem 1.1

There exists a Lagrange multiplier λ ∈ R such that ∇ τ ( f, g ) = λ ∇ N f,g ( ), that is

$$\begin{cases} \ a f ^ { \prime \prime } + f g + g & = & \lambda f \\ c g ^ { \prime \prime } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } f ^ { 2 } + f & = & \lambda g. \end{cases} \text{$(4.1)}$$

Multiplying these equations by f and g respectively and integrating by parts leads to and, adding the equalities,

$$- \, \lambda \mu = - \tau ( f, g ) - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \int f ^ { 2 } g \geq - \tau ( f, g ) = - m ( \mu ). \quad \ \ ( 4. 2 ) \intertext { t e that. in particular. } \lambda < 0. \text{ Setting}$$

$$\overset { \sim } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \underset { \circ } { \sim } \prod } { \circ } \\ \begin{cases} - a \int ( f ^ { \prime } ) ^ { 2 } + \int f ^ { 2 } g + \int f g & = & \lambda \int f ^ { 2 } \\ - c \int ( g ^ { \prime } ) ^ { 2 } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \int f ^ { 2 } g + \int f g & = & \lambda \int g ^ { 2 }, \\ \text{lding the equalities}, \\ - \lambda u = - \tau ( f. \, q ) - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \, \int f ^ { 2 } q > - \tau ( f. \, q ) = - m ( u ). \end{cases}$$

Note that, in particular, λ &lt; 0. Setting

$$\phi ( x ) = - \frac { 1 } { \lambda } f \left ( \frac { x } { \sqrt { - \lambda } } \right ) \quad \text{and} \ \psi ( x ) = - \frac { 1 } { \lambda } g \left ( \frac { x } { \sqrt { - \lambda } } \right ),$$

we obtain that is, ( φ, ψ ) is a solution to (2.1) with speed ω = λ

$$\begin{cases} \ a \phi ^ { \prime \prime } + \phi + \phi \psi - \frac { 1 } { \lambda } \psi & = & 0 \\ c \psi ^ { \prime \prime } + \psi + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \phi ^ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { \lambda } \phi & = & 0, \\ \psi ) \text{ is a solution to } ( 2. 1 ) \text{ with speed } \omega = \frac { 1 } { \lambda }. \\. & - \hat { \ }. & \hat { \ }. \hat { \ }. \hat { \ }. \hat { \ }. \hat { \ }. \hat { \ }. \hat { \ }. \hat { \ }. \hat { \ }. \end{cases}$$

To obtain the L 2 size of this solution, a simple computation shows that

$$\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \\ \| \phi \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + \| \psi \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } = \frac { \mu } { | \lambda | ^ { \frac { 3 } { 2 } } }. \\ \text{non-out} \, \infty \, 0 \, 1 \, 0. \, \succ \quad \text{m}$$

Also, from (4.2) and Proposition 2.2, | λ µ | ≥ -m µ ( ) ≥ √ C 3 | a | + | c | µ 5 3 , from where we conclude that

$$\| \phi \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + \| \psi \| _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } \leq C \sqrt { | a | + | c | }, \\ \text{other positive constant independent } o$$

$$| \omega | & = \frac { 1 } { | \lambda | } \leq \frac { 1 } { C _ { 1 } } \, \overset { 3 } { \sqrt { | a | + | c | } } \mu ^ { - \frac { 2 } { 3 } }. \\ ( \phi, \psi ) & \text{ can be obtained by a standard bo}$$

where C is yet another positive constant independent of a , c and µ . Also, note that

The regularity of ( φ, ψ ) can be obtained by a standard bootstrapping argument (see for instance [4], Proposition 3.2).

In order to prove the exponential decay of φ and ψ , following the ideas of Theorem 8.1.1 in [2], we consider, for /epsilon1, η &gt; 0, h x ( ) = e /epsilon1 | x | 1+ η x | | ∈ L ∞ ( R ). Multiplying equations in (2.1) by hφ and hψ respectively and integrating, we get

$$a \int h \phi \phi ^ { \prime \prime } + c \int h \psi \psi ^ { \prime \prime } + \int h ( \phi ^ { 2 } + \psi ^ { 2 } ) + \frac { 3 } { 2 } \int h \phi ^ { 2 } \psi - 2 \omega \int h \phi \psi = 0 \\ \text{Interstr} \text{ratine} \text{v} \text{ nv} \text{arts and using} \text{ the fact that } h ^ { \prime } < \epsilon h. \text{ we obtain}$$

$$& \int h ( \phi ^ { 2 } + \psi ^ { 2 } - 2 \omega \phi \psi ) \leq a \int h \phi ^ { \prime 2 } + c \int h \psi ^ { \prime 2 } + \epsilon \int h ( | \phi \phi ^ { \prime } | + | \psi \psi ^ { \prime } | ) + \frac { 3 } { 2 } \int h \phi ^ { 2 } | \psi |, \\ & \text{and}$$

Integrating by parts and using the fact that h ′ ≤ /epsilon1h , we obtain and

$$\int h \left ( \left ( 1 - \frac { \epsilon } { 2 } \right ) \phi ^ { 2 } + \left ( 1 - \frac { \epsilon } { 2 } \right ) \psi ^ { 2 } - 2 \omega \phi \psi \right ) \leq \\ \left ( a + \frac { \epsilon } { 2 } \right ) \int h \phi ^ { \prime 2 } + \left ( c + \frac { \epsilon } { 2 } \right ) \int h \psi ^ { \prime 2 } + \frac { 3 } { 2 } \int h \phi ^ { 2 } | \psi | \leq \frac { 3 } { 2 } \int h \phi ^ { 2 } | \psi | \\ \text{for $\epsilon$ small enough. Since $\psi \in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}$),} \lim_{|\tau|\to +\infty} \psi (x) = 0$. For $\epsilon^{\prime} > 0$ to be}$$

for /epsilon1 small enough. Since ψ ∈ H 1 ( R ), lim | x |→ + ∞ ψ x ( ) = 0. For /epsilon1 ′ &gt; 0 to be chosen later, we set r &gt; 0 such that | ψ x ( ) | ≤ /epsilon1 ′ for | x &gt; r | . We then get and

$$\int _ { \text{and} } h \left ( \left ( 1 - \frac { \epsilon } { 2 } - \frac { 3 \epsilon _ { 1 } } { 2 } \right ) \phi ^ { 2 } + \left ( 1 - \frac { \epsilon } { 2 } \right ) \psi ^ { 2 } - 2 \omega \phi \psi \right ) \leq \frac { 3 } { 2 } \int _ { | x | \leq r } h \phi ^ { 2 } | \psi |$$

$$\int h ( C _ { 1 } \phi ^ { 2 } + C _ { 2 } \psi ^ { 2 } ) \leq \frac { 3 } { 2 } \int _ { | x | \leq r } h \phi ^ { 2 } | \psi |$$

where C 1 = 1 -/epsilon1 2 -3 /epsilon1 1 2 -| ω | &gt; 0 and C 2 = 1 -/epsilon1 2 -| ω | &gt; 0 for /epsilon1, /epsilon1 ′ small enough (and for | ω | small). Finally, taking η → 0, by Fatou's Lemma and Lebesgue's Theorem, we obtain

In view of Theorem 8.1.7 of [2], this is enough to conclude that )

$$\mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \mu \cdot \\ \int e ^ { \epsilon | x | } \phi ^ { 2 } < + \infty \text{ and } \int e ^ { \epsilon | x | } \phi ^ { 2 } < + \infty. \\ \text{Theorem } 8. 1. 7 \text{ of } [ 2 ]. \text{ this is enough to conclude that}$$

for some 0 &lt; α ≤ /epsilon1 .

$$e ^ { \alpha | x | } \phi, e ^ { \alpha | x | } \psi \in L ^ { \infty } ( \mathbb { R } )$$

## References

- [1] J.L. Bona, M. Chen and J. C. Saut, Boussinesq Equations and Other Systems for Small-Amplitude Long Waves in Nonlinear Dispersive Media. I: Derivation and Linear Theory, J. Nonlinear Sci. 12 (2002), 283-318.
- [2] T. Cazenave, An introduction to nonlinear Schr¨dinger equations, Textos de o M´ etodos Matem´ticos 22, I.M.U.F.R.J., Rio de Janeiro, 1989. a
- [3] M. Chen, N.V. Nguyen and S.-M. Sun, Solitary-wave solutions to Boussinesq systems with large surface tension, Dis. Cont. Dyna. Sys. 26, Vol. 4 (2010), 1153-1184.
- [4] M. Chen, N.V. Nguyen and S.-M. Sun, Existence of traveling-wave solutions to Boussinesq systems 24, Vol. 9-10 (2011), 895-908.
- [5] P. Daripa and R. K. Dash, A class of model equations for bi-directional propagation of capillary-gravity waves, Int. Journal of Eng. Science 41 (2003), 201-218.
- [6] P.L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, Part 1, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ 1 (1984), 109-145. e
- [7] P.L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, Part 2, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ 1 (1984), 223-283. e
- [8] M. Ohta, Stability of stationary waves for the coupled Klein-Gordon-Schr¨dinger o equations, Nonlinear Anal. TMA 27 (1996), 455-461.

Filipe Oliveira

Department of Mathematics, FCT - U. Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal Centro de Matem´ atica e Aplica¸˜es Fundamentais, U. de Lisboa, Portugal co e-mail: fso@fct.unl.pt
Filipe Oliveira
A note on the existence of traveling-wave solutions to a Boussinesq system
We obtain a one-parameter family $$(u_{\mu}(x,t),\eta_{\mu}(x,t))_{\mu\geq
\mu_0}=(\phi_{\mu}(x-\omega_{\mu} t),\psi_{\mu}(x-\omega_{\mu} t))_{\mu\geq
\mu_0}$$ of traveling-wave solutions to the Boussinesq system
  $$u_t+\eta_x+uu_x+c\eta_{xxx}=0,\eta_t+u_x+(\eta u)_x+au_{xxx}=0$$ in the
case $a,c<0$, with non-null speeds $\omega_{\mu}$ arbitrarily close to $0$
($\omega_{\mu}\xrightarrow[\mu\to+\infty]{} 0$). We show that the $L^2$-size of
such traveling-waves satisfies the uniform (in $\mu$) estimate
$\|\phi_{\mu}\|_2^2+\|\psi_{\mu}\|_2^2\leq C\sqrt{|a|+|c|},$ where $C$ is a
positive constant. Furthermore, $\phi_{\mu}$ and $-\psi_{\mu}$ are smooth,
non-negative, radially decreasing functions which decay exponentially at
infinity.