On Admissible Locations of Transonic Shock Fronts for Steady Euler Flows in an Almost Flat Finite Nozzle with Prescribed Receiver Pressure

Beixiang Fang; Zhouping Xin

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 43 references

On Admissible Locations of Transonic Shock Fronts for Steady Euler Flows in an Almost Flat Finite Nozzle with Prescribed Receiver Pressure

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that in a nearly flat nozzle, an explicit solvability condition selects admissible transonic shock locations, and wavy walls can yield several shocks for one exit pressure.

desk verdict A genuinely new approach to shock-location selection in almost flat nozzles, with a real but plausibly fixable gap in the contraction proof of Lemma 5.3. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02463 v1 pith:KTJWHTYL submitted 2019-08-07 math.AP

Beixiang Fang , Zhouping Xin This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35A0135A0235B2035B3535B6535J5635L6535L67

keywords 2-DsteadyEulersystemtransonicshocksnozzleflowreceiverpressurefreeboundaryproblemshockfrontlocationnon-uniquenessalmostflat

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to fix the location of a transonic shock front in a two-dimensional steady compressible Euler flow through a nearly flat finite nozzle when the receiver pressure at the exit is prescribed. Because a flat nozzle allows the normal shock to sit anywhere, the authors replace the flat background by a linearized free boundary problem and show that its solvability condition reduces to the algebraic equation $R(\xi_*)=\dot P_*$, in which $R$ records the integrated effect of the wall-angle perturbation and $\dot P_*$ records the averaged exit-pressure perturbation. When the wall is strictly expanding or contracting, that equation has one root and the paper proves a transonic shock solution exists near it; when the wall has both expanding and contracting portions, several roots can occur, giving several different shock locations for the same exit pressure. This provides a concrete mechanism for non-uniqueness and for the instability of the unperturbed normal shock under generic small wall perturbations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linearized free boundary problem formed after the Lagrange transformation straightens the streamlines into a rectangle: the subsonic part of the linearized Euler system becomes a first-order elliptic system for the linearized pressure $\dot p$ and angle $\dot\theta$, with boundary data on the two walls, the exit pressure, and the linearized Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. For such a system on a rectangle, solvability forces an integral compatibility condition; here that condition collapses to $R(\xi_*)=\dot P_*$, where $R(\xi)=\int_0^L \Theta(\tau)\,d\tau - \dot K\int_0^\xi \Theta(\tau)\,d\tau$ and $\dot P_*$ is the averaged exit-pressure perturbation. This equation determines the initial approximating shock position $\xi_*$. The nonlinear argument then defines an iteration $\mathcal{J}_s$ on a small ball around the linearized solution and shows that the iteration stays in that ball (Lemma 5.2) and asserts contractiveness in Lemma 5.3, which yields the actual shock solution via a fixed point.

What would settle it

Evaluate the missing estimate behind (5.20): for two nearby states in $K_\sigma$, compute the right-hand side of (5.21) and check whether the output distance is at most half the input distance; a contraction factor larger than $1/2$, or a smallness condition on $\sigma$ stronger than the one allowed in Lemma 5.1, would invalidate the proof. As an independent check, solve the 2D steady Euler equations numerically for the wall angle $\Theta(\xi)=\sin^2(k\pi\xi/L)$ with receiver pressure in the admissible range: the theorem predicts a shock near each of the $2k$ algebraic roots, so failure to find a shock near any one of them would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.4: if $\xi_*$ solves (2.72) and $\Theta(\xi_*)\neq 0$, then for any sufficiently small wall deviation $\sigma$ there is a genuine transonic shock solution whose front lies within order $\sigma$ of the vertical line $\xi=\xi_*$, with the subsonic state and shock slope close to the linearized approximation. The discovery is that the shock position is selected by the solvability condition of the first-order elliptic system satisfied by the linearized pressure and flow angle behind the shock. In a strictly monotone nozzle this selection is unique, while in a nozzle with alternating expanding and contracting parts, for instance $\Theta(\xi)=\sin^2(k\pi \xi/L)$, the equation can have $2k$ roots, and each root with nonzero wall slope generates an admissible shock solution. Thus the same prescribed exit pressure can support multiple transonic shocks, and the flat nozzle's one-parameter family of normal shock locations breaks into finitely many admissible positions determined by the wall shape.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the nonlinear iteration mapping $\mathcal{J}_s$ is contractive on its small ball (Lemma 5.3); the text does not prove that contractiveness directly, saying only that it follows by analogous computations to Lemma 5.2, so the existence theorem stands or falls on that omitted estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a strictly expanding or contracting almost flat nozzle with receiver pressure in the admissible range, the theorem yields existence of a transonic shock solution and the leading-order shock location is unique.
For a non-monotone wall, the same receiver pressure can produce several transonic shock solutions, one near each algebraic root of (2.72) at which the wall slope is nonzero.
The flat nozzle's continuum of normal shock positions is not structurally stable: generic small wall perturbations reduce the possible shock locations to a discrete set selected by the integrated wall angle and exit pressure.
The shock front and subsonic flow are, up to order $\sigma$, exactly what the linearized free boundary problem predicts, with error of order $\sigma^{3/2}$ between the nonlinear solution and the linearized approximation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because $R$ depends on $\Theta$ only through its integrals, two nozzle shapes with the same cumulative wall-angle profile should have identical leading-order shock positions; this is a testable prediction the paper does not state.
The sign of $\Theta(\xi_*)$ makes $R$ locally monotone increasing or decreasing, which suggests that the selected shock locations might carry different dynamical stability properties in an unsteady setting, mirroring the quasi-one-dimensional picture; the paper does not address time dependence.
Varying the exit-pressure perturbation $\dot P_*$ across the range of $R$ should make admissible shock positions appear and disappear in pairs at extrema of $R$, so the algebraic condition supplies a one-dimensional bifurcation diagram for shock location versus receiver pressure.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper for one reason: it attacks the flat-nozzle degeneracy head-on. Instead of pinning the shock to a wall point as earlier work did, the authors design a linearized free-boundary problem whose solvability condition (2.72) selects the initial shock location from the wall geometry and exit pressure. That is a real idea, and it yields a clean prediction: monotone nozzles give one admissible location, non-monotone nozzles can give several. The explicit R(ξ) = P* equation and the sin^2 example are easy to grasp and honestly presented. The elliptic solvability in Section 3 and Appendix A is careful and appears sound; the derivation of (2.72) from the linearized Rankine-Hugoniot conditions is first-principles and not fitted.

Where I agree with your reader is the soft spot: Lemma 5.3, the contractiveness of the iteration map Js, is not proved. The text jumps from the estimate (5.22) on |δξ2*−δξ1*| to 'by analogous computations as in Lemma 5.2' for the key inequality (5.20). That is not a mere cosmetic omission. The right-hand side of (5.21) involves differences of nonlinear compositions with ψ, products of O(σ) quantities, and the implicitly defined δξ*, and the trace-norm Lipschitz estimates are delicate. Without (5.20), the existence theorem does not follow from the written argument. That said, I do not see a fundamental obstruction: the structure of the iteration is standard for this type of free-boundary problem, and the authors have done the hard work of establishing the linear theory and the derivative of the solvability condition. The gap looks fixable with a substantial but routine computation, not a new idea.

The paper deserves a serious referee. It is novel, the main mechanism is transparent, and the missing contraction estimate is exactly the sort of thing a referee can ask to be written out. I would not desk-reject it; I would send it out with a request to complete Lemma 5.3. For a reader working on transonic shock stability or nozzle flows, this is worth citing for the selection mechanism even before the gap is closed, though I would be careful to distinguish the conditional existence theorem from the unconditioned linear analysis.

Bring it to reading group if your group tolerates a long paper with a known gap; the first three sections stand on their own. My recommendation: engage with it, and push the authors to supply the missing contraction estimates.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies two-dimensional steady compressible Euler flows in a finite nozzle that is a small perturbation of a flat nozzle, with a prescribed receiver pressure at the exit. Because a flat nozzle admits normal shocks at arbitrary locations, the authors propose a linearized free boundary problem whose solvability condition determines an initial approximation ξ* of the shock location via equation (2.72), R(ξ*) = P*. They prove that for monotone nozzles this condition has a unique root, while for nozzles with both expanding and contracting portions multiple roots can occur. The main result, Theorem 2.4, asserts that for any root ξ* satisfying Θ(ξ*)≠0 and sufficiently small wall perturbation amplitude σ, there exists a transonic shock solution to the nonlinear free boundary problem JNSL K, with the shock front close to ξ* and satisfying the estimates (2.75)–(2.80). The proof is based on a nonlinear iteration scheme in which the linearized problem (4.11)–(4.19) is solved first, the shock-position correction δξ* is determined from the solvability condition (4.23), and the iteration mapping Js is shown to be well-defined and contractive on a small ball Kσ(˙U+;˙ψ′).

Significance. If Theorem 2.4 is correct, it provides a rigorous first-principles criterion for admissible transonic shock locations in almost flat nozzles under the physical Courant–Friedrichs exit-pressure condition, and it predicts genuine non-uniqueness of shock solutions for non-monotone nozzle walls. The linearized analysis is a genuine strength: the solvability condition (2.72) is derived from the elliptic system rather than imposed, the coefficients in Lemma 2.1 are computed explicitly, and the elliptic boundary-value theory in Appendix A is developed in a self-contained manner with explicit solvability conditions. The paper also clearly identifies the dependence of the smallness constant on 1/|Θ(ξ*)| and states the range condition for the receiver pressure. However, the central existence proof relies on a contraction estimate in Lemma 5.3 that is asserted rather than proved; until that estimate is supplied, the main theorem must be regarded as conditional.

major comments (1)

[Section 5, Lemma 5.3] The proof of the contraction estimate (5.20) is not completed. After establishing (5.22), the text states that 'by analogous computations as in Lemma 5.2, with the help of the estimate (5.22), we can show that the inequality (5.20) holds.' Inequality (5.20) is exactly the contraction bound needed for the fixed-point argument: it requires the difference of two iterates to be bounded by half the distance between the input states. This is the load-bearing step for Theorem 2.4, since without contractiveness the iteration scheme does not produce the existence of a solution to JNSL K. The passage from (5.22) to (5.20) involves estimating differences of the nonlinear source terms f_j, g_j, δP3, and δΘ4 in the norms appearing in Theorem 4.3; these include compositions such as δP3(η;δU) through Y(L,η;δU) and δΘ4(ξ;δξ*) through the map Πψ, as well as products of O(σ) quantities in the trace norms W^{1−1/β,β}. These estimates are not shown, and they are not immediate consequences of (5.22). The authors should write out the 'analogous computations' in full; as it stands, the manuscript does not prove the existence theorem it announces.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5, Lemma 5.2] In the proof of Lemma 5.2, the estimate for the term involving g4 is delegated by the sentence 'Analogous computations show also that' before (5.18). While this estimate is less central than the contraction estimate, providing the explicit bound for g4 would make the proof more complete and would illustrate the pattern that is later claimed in Lemma 5.3.
[Section 3.1] There is a typo in the first paragraph: 'constant eﬃcients' should read 'constant coefficients.'
[Remark 2.6] The phrase 'For a expanding nozzle' should be 'For an expanding nozzle.'
[Abstract and Remark 2.6] The abstract states that for strictly expanding or contracting nozzles 'there exists only one solution,' which could be misread as global uniqueness of the nonlinear shock problem. Remark 2.6 clarifies that only one solution is established by the present argument and that global uniqueness has not been proved; the abstract should be rephrased to match this qualification.
[Section 2.4 and Section 3.3] The function R(ξ) is defined twice, in (2.70) and in (3.21), with identical formulas. The duplication is harmless but could be streamlined by defining it once in Section 2 and referring back to it in Section 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: shock-location equation comes from a linearized solvability condition; the deferred contraction estimate in Lemma 5.3 is a proof gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and does not reduce any prediction to an input. The shock-location equation (2.72) is obtained in Lemma 3.3 by applying the solvability condition (A.47) of the linear elliptic system (2.58)-(2.59) to the data Theta and P; it is a genuine scalar equation R(xi*)=P*, not a fitted relation. The nonlinear iteration in Sections 4-5 is a standard contraction argument: delta_xi* is determined through the implicit-function-theorem nondegeneracy condition (5.15), namely dI/d(delta_xi*)(0;0,0;U-) = -sigma K Theta(xi*) + O(sigma^{3/2}), so the hypothesis Theta(xi*) != 0 enters as a nondegeneracy assumption rather than a pre-imposed conclusion. The estimates in Lemma 5.2 show that the iteration maps the ball K_sigma into itself with O(sigma^2) accuracy, and Lemma 5.3 would complete the fixed-point argument. However, Lemma 5.3's proof is not carried out: after deriving (5.22), the text states 'by analogous computations as in Lemma 5.2, with the help of the estimate (5.22), we can show that the inequality (5.20) holds'. Inequality (5.20) is exactly the contraction estimate; this is an omitted proof and a genuine completeness risk, but it is not a circular step because (5.20) is not assumed as an input and no equation in the paper reduces to an earlier input by definition. Finally, the self-citations [22,23,27] supply the Lagrange-transformation and iteration framework, but those are published theorems for different background configurations, and the elliptic well-posedness used here is proved in Appendix A via Grisvard [21]; hence the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. No circularity score above 0 is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and no fitted constants. Its machinery consists of the given background normal shock solution, the small perturbation σ, the wall shape Θ, the pressure data P, and the derived nondegeneracy condition Θ(ξ*)≠0. The condition (2.72) is a genuine solvability relation, not a fitted formula.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The flow is modeled by the steady 2D compressible Euler system with a polytropic gas law (2.5).
This is the standard physical model for inviscid compressible flow; the paper assumes it without derivation.
standard math Classical local existence theory for quasilinear hyperbolic systems (Li-Yu [28]) applies in the supersonic region.
Used in Theorem 4.1 to construct the supersonic flow ahead of the shock.
standard math Grisvard's elliptic regularity theory [21] provides W^2_q estimates for the Poisson and mixed boundary-value problems in a rectangle.
Invoked in Appendix A to prove Lemma A.1 and Lemma A.2, which are used for the linearized elliptic subsystem.
standard math The subsonic Euler system decomposes into a first-order elliptic system for (p,θ) plus transport equations for (q,S).
This known structural property (Serre [35], Chen [8], Li-Xin-Yin [22,23,27]) is the basis for the whole analysis.
domain assumption The nozzle wall and exit pressure are small, compatible perturbations of the flat nozzle and uniform exit pressure, satisfying (2.14)-(2.16).
Defines the 'almost flat' regime; compatibility at corners is needed for regularity.
ad hoc to paper The range condition (2.73) holds and the selected root ξ* of (2.72) satisfies Θ(ξ*)≠0.
Needed for existence of a root and for the implicit function theorem in Lemma 5.1 to determine δξ*; it is a nondegeneracy condition on the linearized problem.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Admissible Locations of Transonic Shock Fronts for Steady Euler Flows in an Almost Flat Finite Nozzle with Prescribed Receiver Pressure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTJWHTYL

@misc{pith2026190802463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Admissible Locations of Transonic Shock Fronts for Steady Euler Flows in an Almost Flat Finite Nozzle with Prescribed Receiver Pressure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTJWHTYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02463}
}

read the original abstract

This paper concerns the existence of transonic shock solutions to the 2-D steady compressible Euler system in an almost flat finite nozzle ( in the sense that it is a generic small perturbation of a flat one ), under physical boundary conditions proposed by Courant-Friedrichs in \cite{CourantFriedrichs1948}, in which the receiver pressure is prescribed at the exit of the nozzle. In the resulting free boundary problem, the location of the shock-front is one of the most desirable information one would like to determine. However, the location of the normal shock-front in a flat nozzle can be anywhere in the nozzle so that it provides little information on the possible location of the shock-front when the nozzle's boundary is perturbed. So one of the key difficulties in looking for transonic shock solutions is to determine the shock-front. To this end, a free boundary problem for the linearized Euler system will be proposed, whose solution will be taken as an initial approximation for the transonic shock solution. In this paper, a sufficient condition in terms of the geometry of the nozzle and the given exit pressure is derived which yields the existence of the solutions to the proposed free boundary problem. Once an initial approximation is obtained, a further nonlinear iteration could be constructed and proved to lead to a transonic shock solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02463 by the authors.

**Figure 1.1.** The steady Euler flows with a single shock-front in an almost flat nozzle. the flow fields both ahead of and behind it satisfying the above-mentioned boundary conditions for an almost flat nozzle in the sense that it is a generic perturbation of a flat one. One of the key difficulties in solving this problem is to determine the location of the transonic shock by the geometry of the nozzle and the exit boundary condi… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.2.** Infinite admissible normal shock-fronts in a flat nozzle. cone, under the assumption that the flow parameters only depend on the radius, Courant-Friedrichs established in [14] the unique existence of the transonic shock solutions if the value of the receiver pressure lies in a certain interval. Moreover, Courant-Friedrichs’ transonic shock solutions have been shown to be structurally stable for generic small perturb… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.3.** Existence of the shock solutions in a strictly expanding/contracting nozzle. the phenomenon observed here for 2-D steady Euler system is similar to the one observed by Liu in [32, 33] and by Embid-Goodman-Majda in [17] for the gas flows in a nozzle of variable areas governed by a quasi-one-dimensional model. The transonic shock problem formulated here is a free boundary value problem for mixed type equations. One o… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 1.4.** Figure 1.4: Existence of multiple transonic shock solutions in a nozzle with both expanding and contracting portions for the same given receiver pressure. artifically that the shock front goes through a fixed point on the wall of the nozzle as in [3, 8, 38, 39, 41]. However, th…

**Figure 2.1.** Figure 2.1: The domain under the Lagrange transformation. Thus, the free boundary problem JNSK can be reformulated as below. The Free Boundary Problem JNSLK. Let P ∈ C2+α (R+) and Θ ∈ C2+α [0, L] be given as in the free boundary problem JNSK, satisfying (2.14) and (2.15). One lo…

**Figure 2.2.** Figure 2.2: The domain for the problem on the initial approximating location of the shock-front. (i). U˙ − satisfies the linearized equations (2.54)-(2.57) in Ω˙ − and the bounary conditions: U˙ − (0, η) = 0, on Γ˙ 1, (2.62) ˙θ− = 0, on Γ˙ − 2 , (2.63) ˙θ− = Θ˙ − N (ξ), on Γ˙ − …

**Figure 3.1.** Figure 3.1: The initial approximating location of the shock-front for a expanding finite nozzle. which means that ϕw is a strictly monotone function in (0, L), and the nozzle is either expanding or contracting. Then there exists a unique solution ξ∗ ∈ (0, L) to the equation (3.1…

**Figure 3.2.** Figure 3.2: The initial approximating location of the shock-front for a contracting finite nozzle. Then, with ξ∗ being so determined, by employing Corollary A.2, one can detemine U˙ + in Ω˙ + immediately. Lemma 3.6. Assume that (3.23) and (3.26) hold. Then there exists a unique …

**Figure 3.3.** Figure 3.3: Multiple initial approximating locations of the shockfronts for a general finite nozzle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_3_3.png]

**Figure 4.1.** Figure 4.1: The shock-front and its initial approximating location. First, introduce a transformation: Πψ :    ˜ξ = L + L − ξ∗ L − ψ(η) (ξ − L), η˜ = η, with its inverse Π −1 ψ :    ξ = L + L − ψ(˜η) L − ξ∗ ( ˜ξ − L), η = ˜η, under which the region Ω+, Γs , and Γj (j =…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

M. Bae, M. Feldman; Transonic shocks in multidimensional divergent nozzles.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.201 (2011), no. 3, 777–840

work page 2011
[2]

G.-Q. Chen, J. Chen, M. Feldman; Transonic shocks and free boundary problems for the full Euler equations in inﬁnite nozzles.J. Math. Pures Appl.(9) 88 (2007), no. 2, 191–218

work page 2007
[3]

G.-Q. Chen, J. Chen, K. Song; Transonic nozzle ﬂows and free boundary problems for the full Euler equations.J. Diﬀerential Equations229 (2006), no. 1, 92–120

work page 2006
[4]

G.-Q. Chen, M. Feldman; Multidimensional transonic shocks and free boundary problems for nonlinear equations of mixed type.J. Amer. Math. Soc.16 (2003), no. 3, 461–494

work page 2003
[5]

G.-Q. Chen, M. Feldman; Steady transonic shocks and free boundary problems for the Euler equations in inﬁnite cylinders.Comm. Pure Appl. Math.57 (2004), no. 3, 310–356

work page 2004
[6]

G.-Q. Chen, M. Feldman; Existence and stability of multidimensional transonic ﬂows through an inﬁnite nozzle of arbitrary cross-sections.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.184 (2007), no. 2, 185–242

work page 2007
[7]

Pure Appl

G.-Q.Chen, H.Yuan; Localuniquenessofsteadysphericaltransonicshock-frontsforthethree- dimensional full Euler equations.Commun. Pure Appl. Anal.12 (2013), no. 6, 2515–2542

work page 2013
[8]

Chen; Stability of transonic shock fronts in two-dimensional Euler systems.Trans

S. Chen; Stability of transonic shock fronts in two-dimensional Euler systems.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.357 (2005), no. 1, 287–308

work page 2005

Show all 43 references

[9]

Chen; Transonic shocks in 3-D compressible ﬂow passing a duct with a general section for Euler systems.Trans

S. Chen; Transonic shocks in 3-D compressible ﬂow passing a duct with a general section for Euler systems.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.360 (2008), no. 10, 5265–5289

2008
[10]

Chen; Compressible ﬂow and transonic shock in a diverging nozzle.Comm

S. Chen; Compressible ﬂow and transonic shock in a diverging nozzle.Comm. Math. Phys. 289 (2009), no. 1, 75–106

2009
[11]

S. Chen, J. Geng, Y. Zhang; Isentropic approximation of quasi-one-dimensional unsteady nozzle ﬂow.SIAM J. Math. Anal.41 (2009), no. 4, 1693–1712

2009
[12]

S. Chen, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang; The setting of boundary conditions for boundary value problems of hyperbolic-elliptic coupled systems. Acta Math. Appl. Sin. Engl. Ser. 24 (2008), no. 3, 375–390

2008
[13]

S. Chen, H. Yuan; Transonic shocks in compressible ﬂow passing a duct for three-dimensional Euler systems.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.187 (2008), no. 3, 523–556

2008
[14]

Courant, K.O

R. Courant, K.O. Friedrichs;Supersonic ﬂow and shock waves, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1948. 52 BEIXIANG F ANG AND ZHOUPING XIN

1948
[15]

D. Cui, H. Yin; The uniqueness of a transonic shock in a nozzle for the 2-D complete Euler system with the variable end pressure. J. Partial Diﬀerential Equations21 (2008), no. 3, 263–288

2008
[16]

B. Duan, S. Weng; Transonic shock in ﬁnitely long nozzle with porous medium boundary condition. J. Diﬀerential Equations251 (2011), no. 4-5, 1128–1156

2011
[17]

Embid, J

P. Embid, J. Goodman, A. Majda; Multiple steady states for 1-D transonic ﬂow.SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput.5 (1984), no. 1, 21–41

1984
[18]

B. Fang, L. Liu, H. Yuan; Global uniqueness of transonic shocks in two-dimensional steady compressible Euler ﬂows.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.207 (2013), no. 1, 317–345

2013
[19]

Gilbarg, N.S

D. Gilbarg, N.S. Trudinger;Elliptic Partial Diﬀerential Equations of Second Order,2nd ed., Grundlehren Math. Wiss. 224, Springer, Berlin, New York, 1983

1983
[20]

H. M. Glaz, T.-P. Liu; The asymptotic analysis of wave interactions and numerical calculations of transonic nozzle ﬂow.Adv. in Appl. Math.5 (1984), no. 2, 111–146

1984
[21]

Grisvard,Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains, Monographs and Studies in Mathe- matics, 24, Pitman: Boston, 1985

P. Grisvard,Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains, Monographs and Studies in Mathe- matics, 24, Pitman: Boston, 1985

1985
[22]

J. Li, Z. Xin, H. Yin; On transonic shocks in a nozzle with variable end pressures.Comm. Math. Phys.291 (2009), no. 1, 111–150

2009
[23]

J. Li, Z. Xin, H. Yin; A free boundary value problem for the full Euler system and 2-D transonic shock in a large variable nozzle.Math. Res. Lett.16 (2009), no. 5, 777–796

2009
[24]

J. Li, Z. Xin, H. Yin; On transonic shocks in a conic divergent nozzle with axi-symmetric exit pressures. J. Diﬀerential Equations248 (2010), no. 3, 423–469

2010
[25]

J. Li, Z. Xin, H. Yin; The existence and monotonicity of a three-dimensional transonic shock in a ﬁnite nozzle with axisymmetric exit pressure.Paciﬁc J. Math.247 (2010), no. 1, 109–161

2010
[26]

J. Li, Z. Xin, H. Yin; Monotonicity and uniqueness of a 3D transonic shock solution in a conic nozzle with variable end pressure.Paciﬁc J. Math.254 (2011), no. 1, 129–171

2011
[27]

J. Li, Z. Xin, H. Yin; Transonic shocks for the full compressible Euler system in a general two-dimensional de Laval nozzle.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.207 (2013), no. 2, 533–581

2013
[28]

Li, W.-C

T.-T. Li, W.-C. Yu;Boundary value problems for quasilinear hyperbolic systems.Duke Univer- sity Mathematics Series 5. Duke University, Mathematics Department, Durham, N.C., (1985)

1985
[29]

L. Liu, H. Yuan; Stability of cylindrical transonic shocks for the two-dimensional steady compressible Euler system.J. Hyperbolic Diﬀer. Equ.5 (2008), no. 2, 347–379

2008
[30]

L.Liu, H.Yuan; Globaluniquenessoftransonicshocksindivergentnozzlesforsteadypotential ﬂows.SIAM J. Math. Anal.41 (2009), no. 5, 1816–1824

2009
[31]

L. Liu, G. Xu, H. Yuan; Stability of spherically symmetric subsonic ﬂows and transonic shocks under multidimensional perturbations.Adv. Math.291 (2016), 696–757

2016
[32]

Liu; Transonic gas ﬂow in a duct of varying area.Arch

T.-P. Liu; Transonic gas ﬂow in a duct of varying area.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.80 (1982), no. 1, 1–18

1982
[33]

Liu; Nonlinear stability and instability of transonic ﬂows through a nozzle.Comm

T.-P. Liu; Nonlinear stability and instability of transonic ﬂows through a nozzle.Comm. Math. Phys. 83 (1982), no. 2, 243–260

1982
[34]

Rauch, C

J. Rauch, C. Xie, Z. Xin; Global stability of steady transonic Euler shocks in quasi-one- dimensional nozzles.J. Math. Pures Appl.(9) 99 (2013), no. 4, 395–408

2013
[35]

Serre; Écoulements de ﬂuides parfaits en deux variables indépendantes de type espace

D. Serre; Écoulements de ﬂuides parfaits en deux variables indépendantes de type espace. Réﬂexion d’un choc plan par un dièdre compressif. (French) [Perfect ﬂuid ﬂow in two inde- pendent space variables. Reﬂection of a planar shock by a compressive wedge]Arch. Rational Mech. A...

1995
[36]

Smith; Non-uniqueness and multi-shock solutions for transonic nozzle ﬂows.IMA J

D.H. Smith; Non-uniqueness and multi-shock solutions for transonic nozzle ﬂows.IMA J. Appl. Math.71 (2006), no. 1, 120–132

2006
[37]

F. Xie, C. Wang; Transonic shock wave in an inﬁnite nozzle asymptotically converging to a cylinder. J. Diﬀerential Equations242 (2007), no. 1, 86–120

2007
[38]

Z. Xin, W. Yan, H. Yin; Transonic shock problem for the Euler system in a nozzle.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.194 (2009), no. 1, 1–47

2009
[39]

Z. Xin, H. Yin; Transonic shock in a nozzle. I. Two-dimensional case.Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 58 (2005), no. 8, 999–1050

2005
[40]

Z. Xin, H. Yin; The transonic shock in a nozzle, 2-D and 3-D complete Euler systems.J. Diﬀerential Equations245 (2008), no. 4, 1014–1085

2008
[41]

Z. Xin, H. Yin; Three-dimensional transonic shocks in a nozzle.Paciﬁc J. Math.236 (2008), no. 1, 139–193

2008
[42]

Yuan; A remark on determination of transonic shocks in divergent nozzles for steady compressible Euler ﬂows.Nonlinear Anal

H. Yuan; A remark on determination of transonic shocks in divergent nozzles for steady compressible Euler ﬂows.Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl.9 (2008), no. 2, 316–325

2008
[43]

Yuan; Persistence of shocks in ducts.Nonlinear Anal.75 (2012), no

H. Yuan; Persistence of shocks in ducts.Nonlinear Anal.75 (2012), no. 9, 3874–3894. B.X. F ang: School of Mathematical Sciences, and MOE-LSC, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China E-mail address: bxfang@sjtu.edu.cn Z.P. Xin: The Institute of Mathematical Scienc...

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M. Bae, M. Feldman; Transonic shocks in multidimensional divergent nozzles.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.201 (2011), no. 3, 777–840

work page 2011

[2] [2]

G.-Q. Chen, J. Chen, M. Feldman; Transonic shocks and free boundary problems for the full Euler equations in inﬁnite nozzles.J. Math. Pures Appl.(9) 88 (2007), no. 2, 191–218

work page 2007

[3] [3]

G.-Q. Chen, J. Chen, K. Song; Transonic nozzle ﬂows and free boundary problems for the full Euler equations.J. Diﬀerential Equations229 (2006), no. 1, 92–120

work page 2006

[4] [4]

G.-Q. Chen, M. Feldman; Multidimensional transonic shocks and free boundary problems for nonlinear equations of mixed type.J. Amer. Math. Soc.16 (2003), no. 3, 461–494

work page 2003

[5] [5]

G.-Q. Chen, M. Feldman; Steady transonic shocks and free boundary problems for the Euler equations in inﬁnite cylinders.Comm. Pure Appl. Math.57 (2004), no. 3, 310–356

work page 2004

[6] [6]

G.-Q. Chen, M. Feldman; Existence and stability of multidimensional transonic ﬂows through an inﬁnite nozzle of arbitrary cross-sections.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.184 (2007), no. 2, 185–242

work page 2007

[7] [7]

Pure Appl

G.-Q.Chen, H.Yuan; Localuniquenessofsteadysphericaltransonicshock-frontsforthethree- dimensional full Euler equations.Commun. Pure Appl. Anal.12 (2013), no. 6, 2515–2542

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Chen; Stability of transonic shock fronts in two-dimensional Euler systems.Trans

S. Chen; Stability of transonic shock fronts in two-dimensional Euler systems.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.357 (2005), no. 1, 287–308

work page 2005