Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The steady Navier-Stokes equations in a system of unbounded channels with sources and sinks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any flux, steady Navier-Stokes flow exists in branched unbounded channels, with no smallness assumption on the data.

desk verdict The paper likely proves a major generalization of Ladyzhenskaya–Solonnikov — arbitrary fluxes, inhomogeneous data, multiply connected channels — but the proof's most load-bearing step rests on an unverified citation, so I would condition acceptance on closing that gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14642 v1 pith:HYTP2Q2Y submitted 2025-05-20 math.AP

Filippo Gazzola , Mikhail V. Korobkov , Xiao Ren , Gianmarco Sperone This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3076D0535Q3176D03
keywords steadyNavier-StokesequationsunboundedchannelsinhomogeneousDirichletboundaryconditionsnon-simplyconnecteddomainarbitraryfluxesLeray-HopfinequalityCouette-Poiseuilleflowinvadingdomains
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

This paper aims to prove that steady viscous flow exists in a junction of unbounded channels even when the domain is not simply connected, the boundary carries sources and sinks, and the fluxes are arbitrarily large. The only global condition is the natural one: what enters through the boundary must equal what leaves through the channel ends. The result is a strong solution with uniformly bounded energy on every compact set, generalizing the classical zero-boundary theory to general boundary data. For small data the paper also obtains uniqueness and convergence to explicit Couette-Poiseuille flows at infinity. The interest is that no smallness or topological restriction is needed for existence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the flux carrier $U$, a divergence-free extension of the boundary velocity that carries the prescribed fluxes and satisfies a uniform Leray-Hopf inequality with small constant in every channel segment. Around it the proof decomposes $u=U+w$, solves truncated problems on invading domains, and normalizes the corrections $w_k$ by their energy $J_k$. The normalized sequence converges to a weak solution of the stationary Euler equations; the crucial Theorem 3.2 says this Euler limit is identically zero, proved using the Bernoulli pressure $\Phi=q+\tfrac12|v|^2$, its level sets, and the identity $\operatorname{div}(qz+(v\cdot z)v)=2\Phi$. That triviality turns the failure of the usual Hopf cutoff into the needed energy estimates.

What would settle it

Produce a nonzero smooth solution of the stationary Euler equations in an admissible unbounded junction, vanishing on the boundary, with finite Dirichlet integral and Bernoulli pressure whose essential supremum is zero and is attained at infinity; Lemma B.7 in the paper asserts that no such solution exists, so any explicit or numerical example of this kind would refute Theorem 3.2 and with it the proof of Theorem 2.2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 2.2: in any admissible planar junction of unbounded channels, possibly with obstacles and with sources or sinks on the compact part of the boundary, the steady Navier-Stokes system with prescribed fluxes admits a strong solution for arbitrary boundary data and arbitrarily large fluxes, provided only the total outflow balances. The solution lies in $W^{2,2}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)\times W^{1,2}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and satisfies a uniform local bound (2.9) on every unit ball. The proof proceeds by invading domains; the main obstacle is that the usual Leray-Hopf energy inequality fails for general boundary data, so the authors prove an analogous inequality by a contradiction argument: they assume the normalized energy blows up, pass to a normalized limiting Euler solution, show that limit is zero using subtle real-analysis tools, and derive the desired estimates. For small data the same framework yields uniqueness and convergence to explicit Couette-Poiseuille profiles at infinity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole existence argument leans on the imported result that the pressure of the limiting Euler solution, after normalization, is integrable over the whole plane; if that integrability fails in this unbounded multiply connected geometry, the proof that the Euler limit vanishes, and with it the key energy inequality, collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Steady solutions exist for any admissible junction and any boundary data and fluxes satisfying the outflow condition (2.6), with no smallness assumption.
  • Every such solution obeys the uniform local regularity bound (2.9): the $W^{2,2}$ norm of the velocity and the $L^2$ norm of the pressure gradient are controlled on every unit ball by a constant independent of position.
  • Under the smallness condition (2.13), every solution satisfying (2.9) converges uniformly to the Couette-Poiseuille flow in each outlet, with finite $W^{2,2}$ distance.
  • Under the stronger smallness condition (2.16), the solution is unique in the class of strong solutions with locally uniform bounds.
  • The physical models in Section 6, wind flow around a bridge deck and an irrigation fountain feeding channels, acquire existence of steady configurations with locally bounded energy and well-defined far-field profiles when fluxes are small.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the argument's dependence on imported pressure integrability, specifically $q\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^2)$ after normalization, is the natural stress test: if that property fails for some admissible multiply connected junction, the contradiction proving the Euler limit is trivial would break.
  • Because the triviality mechanism is two-dimensional (level sets, Bernoulli law, Morse-Sard-type tools), extending the existence theorem to three-dimensional junctions would require a different route, not just a technical adaptation.
  • The flux-carrier construction decouples the Euler-limit triviality from the geometry of the compact part; one could try to use the same carrier in domains with outlets of varying widths to derive explicit flux-dependent constants in the uniform bound (2.9).
  • For the Leray-Ladyzhenskaya problem of arbitrary-flux asymptotics, this paper suggests the bottleneck is not the Leray-Hopf inequality but the rigidity of Euler limits at infinity; making that rigidity quantitative would be a concrete next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the steady Navier-Stokes system in a planar unbounded channel junction with J outlets and I obstacles, with inhomogeneous Dirichlet data and prescribed nonzero fluxes, subject only to the global compatibility condition (2.6). Theorem 2.2 asserts existence of a strong solution (u,p) in W^{2,2}_loc(Omega) x W^{1,2}_loc(Omega) satisfying the uniform local bound (2.9). The proof combines a Stokes flux carrier (Theorem 3.1, Appendix A), Leray's method of invading domains, and a contradiction argument whose key ingredient is the triviality of the normalized Euler limit (Theorem 3.2, Appendix B). Theorems 2.4 and 2.5 provide, under smallness conditions, convergence to Couette-Poiseuille flows at infinity and uniqueness in the class of solutions satisfying (2.9).

Significance. If the proof is completed, the paper is a substantial advance: it removes the small-flux restriction and the simple-connectedness assumption from the Ladyzhenskaya-Solonnikov framework and treats boundary data with sources and sinks. The proof architecture is original in using the triviality of the Euler limit to replace the classical Hopf cutoff, and Appendix A is largely self-contained. The paper is also honest about its dependence on deep regularity results from [7,24,25,26,27,32]; no fitting parameters or circular target assumptions are present. However, the Euler-limit triviality is the hinge of Theorem 2.2, and at present that hinge rests on an unverified import and on compressed reductions; the significance is therefore conditional on closing those gaps.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Proposition B.2 and Theorem 3.2] The proof of the triviality of the Euler limit v is not self-contained at exactly the point that carries the most weight. Proposition B.2 is quoted as [26, Theorem 4.6], but the hypotheses of that theorem are not stated, and the paper does not check that the extended pair (v,q) from (B.3)-(B.7) satisfies them for an admissible domain with several outlets and obstacles. Since [26] concerns exterior domains, this is not automatic. In particular, the conclusions nabla^2 q in L^1(R^2), nabla q in L^2(R^2), and the finite limit of q at infinity are used to normalize q=0 on every Gamma_j and to obtain q in L^1(R^2) in (B.8); Lemma B.7 then uses q in L^1 and |q|+v^2 in L^1 in the final contradiction. If this theorem does not apply, Theorem 3.2 is not established, and with it the Leray-Hopf inequalities (3.26)-(3.27), the global linear growth (3.21), and ultimately Theorem 2.2 lose their foundation. The same applies to case (a) of Appendix B, which is reduced 'word by word' to [27, Section 5.5]; the separation of infinity by a regular cycle in an unbounded multiply connected channel is a nontrivial topological step and should be proved rather than asserted.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (4.2)] The existence of t0 satisfying the first inequality in (4.2) is asserted without proof. This inequality is the analogue of Theorem 3.3 for the final solution w, but Theorem 3.3 was established only for the invading-domain sequence (w_k) using the Euler-limit argument of Section 3.5. For Theorem 2.4 the same contradiction argument must be repeated for the single solution w normalized on Omega^{t0-1}; the proof is omitted. Since the dichotomy leading to the conclusion integral_Omega |nabla w|^2 < infinity depends on this step, the proof of Theorem 2.4 is incomplete as written.
  3. [Sections 3.5 and 5, estimates (3.43) and (5.11)] Both boundary trace estimates are cited to [32, proof of Theorem 2.2] without derivation. These estimates control the pressure terms appearing after testing on Omega^t and Omega^{t-1,t}, and the constant c_* independent of t and k is essential for the comparison lemma (Lemma 3.4) and for Proposition 5.2. Because p_k is only known to lie in W^{1,2}(B_k) with no uniform normalization, the claimed estimate is not a trivial restatement. The zero-flux condition is mentioned, but the argument that makes the constant independent of the outlet length should be included, or a precise theorem with all hypotheses and a verification of those hypotheses should be quoted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Before Theorem 2.5] The word 'veryfing' should be 'verifying' in the sentence introducing the class of solutions for Theorem 2.5.
  2. [Equation (B.6)] The assertion nabla q in L^1(R^2) is stated as a consequence of v in L^2 and nabla v in L^2; this follows from the Euler equation nabla q = -(v . nabla) v, but the identity should be stated for clarity.
  3. [Definition 2.1 and Figure 2.2] The definition requires a boundary of class C^2 while the decomposition features rectangular outlets with apparent corners at the interfaces sigma_j^0; the authors should clarify that sigma_j^0 is an artificial interface rather than part of the physical boundary, or explain how the C^2 regularity is achieved at the junctions.
  4. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3.23)] The term I_3 is defined with an explicit minus sign and later used as I_3 = - int_{Omega^2} (w_k . nabla) U . w_k; this is consistent, but a sign comment would help the reader follow the rearrangement leading to (3.24).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the existence proof is a genuine reductio argument; the only author-overlapping citation supplies an external regularity theorem and is a verification risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation of Theorem 2.2 is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity test. The flux carrier U of Theorem 3.1 is constructed explicitly in Appendix A; the Leray-Hopf inequality (3.6)-(3.7) is proved by Hopf cut-off plus Hardy/Poincare estimates, with no use of the target solution (u,p). The invading-domain solutions (3.9) come from bounded-domain existence theorems [25,27]; the limit v of normalized solutions is not assumed trivial: Theorem 3.2 is proved in Appendix B, and Lemma B.7 contains a genuine contradiction argument based on the identity div(qz+(v·z)v)=2Phi. The inequalities (3.21), (3.26), and (3.27) are obtained by assuming the opposite and deriving a numerical contradiction with v=0, as in (3.24) versus (3.19); the Leray-Hopf inequality is then used to bound energies, not to define the solution. The only author-overlapping citation that is genuinely load-bearing is Proposition B.2, quoted as [26, Theorem 4.6], which gives the pressure regularity and integrability used in Lemma B.7. This is a citation of a published external theorem rather than an equation-by-construction identification; the paper does not verify that the hypotheses of [26, Theorem 4.6] cover admissible channel domains, which is a real correctness risk, but it is not a circular step in the sense of this review: no target conclusion is an input to that theorem, and no parameter is fitted so that the conclusion becomes a prediction of itself. For these reasons no circular step is identified; the score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters and no invented physical entities. The central claim rests on standard function-space analysis plus several imported deep theorems about bounded-domain Navier-Stokes existence and fine properties of Euler solutions; the main burden is the triviality of the limiting Euler solution in Appendix B.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math The truncated bounded-domain existence theorem of Korobkov-Pileckas-Russo holds for B_k with arbitrary fluxes and inhomogeneous Dirichlet data.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to produce solutions (u_k,p_k) to (3.9); this is a deep prior result, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Stokes regularity in Ω² gives V∈W^{2,2}(Ω²) via [23] even though Ω² may be non-convex.
    Used in Appendix A after (A.1) to justify W^{2,2} regularity of the flux carrier; the cited theorem concerns convex polygons and its applicability to a non-convex junction is assumed.
  • domain assumption The boundary data satisfy (2.4)-(2.5), f satisfies (2.3), and the global flux compatibility (2.6) holds.
    These are the hypotheses of Theorems 2.2, 2.4, and 2.5, used throughout; without them the problem has no solution or the flux carrier construction fails.
  • standard math The pressure regularity results of Proposition B.2, imported from [26], apply to the extended Euler solution in R², yielding q continuous with a limit at infinity and q∈L¹.
    This is the foundation of Lemma B.7 and of the triviality of the Euler limit in Appendix B.
  • standard math Morse-Sard theorem, Bernoulli-law level-set tools, and convergence of Bernoulli pressures from [7,24,27] apply to the weak Euler solution with conditions (E) and (E-NS).
    Propositions B.4-B.6 in Appendix B are external results used to handle the case ess sup Φ>0.
  • standard math Poincaré inequality holds globally in Ω for W^{1,2}_0 functions and in truncated outlet slabs with constants independent of t.
    Used in Section 3.3-I and Lemma 3.5, for example (3.38), to control L² norms by Dirichlet integrals in long channels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The steady Navier-Stokes equations in a system of unbounded channels with sources and sinks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYTP2Q2Y

@misc{pith2026250514642,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The steady Navier-Stokes equations in a system of unbounded channels with sources and sinks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYTP2Q2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14642}
}
read the original abstract

The steady motion of a viscous incompressible fluid in a junction of unbounded channels with sources and sinks is modeled through the Navier-Stokes equations under inhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions. In contrast to many previous works, the domain is not assumed to be simply-connected and the fluxes are not assumed to be small. In this very general setting, we prove the existence of a solution with a uniformly bounded Dirichlet integral in every compact subset. This is a generalization of the classical Ladyzhenskaya-Solonnikov result obtained under the additional assumption of zero boundary conditions. For small data of the problem we also prove the unique solvability and attainability of Couette-Poiseuille flows at infinity. The main novelty of our approach is the proof of the corresponding Leray-Hopf-type inequality by Leray's reductio ad absurdum argument (since the standard Hopf cutoff extension procedure does not work for general boundary data). For this contradiction approach, we use some fine properties of weak solutions to the Euler system based on Morse-Sard-type theorems in Sobolev spaces obtained by Bourgain, Korobkov & Kristensen.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14642 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. A smooth, unbounded and distorted channel. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2. Junction of unbounded channels considered by Ladyzhenskaya & Solonnikov, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. An admissible domain Ω with I = 3 and J = 4. Therefore, for every j ∈ {1, . . . , J}, the boundary of Ωj consists of three components, that is, ∂Ωj = σ 0 j ∪ Γ 0 j ∪ Γ 1 j , (2.2) where, in local coordinates, σ 0 j .= {z ∈ R 2 | xj (z) = 0 , 0 < yj (z) < hj } , Γ 0 j .= {z ∈ R 2 | xj (z) ≥ 0 , yj (z) = 0 } , Γ 1 j .= {z ∈ R 2 | xj (z) ≥ 0 , yj (z) = hj } , 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: Decomposition of the boundary of an outlet Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2_2.png]
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: The truncated domain Ω2 , defined in (3.2), with I = 3, J = 4 and Γ5 = Γ1. In this section we state the existence of a solenoidal vector field in Ω which, all together, satisfies the inhomogeneous boundary conditions (2.7)2 on ∂Ω, the flux constraints (2.7)3 and a un…
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2: The invading domains procedure. By Theorem 3.1, for any k ∈ N we have U ∈ W2,2 (Bk). From (3.3) and the Divergence Theorem we deduce ˆ Sj,k U · n = Fj ∀j ∈ {1, . . . , J} , thereby implying that ˆ ∂Bk U · n = X I i=1 ˆ ∂Σi a · n + X J j=1 ˆ ∂Ω0∩Γj a · n + X J j=1 Fj …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: , left: the Bosphorus Bridge in Istanbul). Some bridges, such as the Humber Bridge in England [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: The Bosphorus suspension bridge (left) and the cross-section of the Humber Bridge (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6_1.png]
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2: Flows in the Politecnico WT (left) and sketch of suspension bridge in a WT (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6_2.png]
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.3. Figure 6.3: Irrigation fountain (left) and 9 outflow channels (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On the stationary Navier-Stokes equations in distorted pipes under energy-stable outflow boundary conditions

    math.AP 2025-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    For distorted pipes with straight inlet and outlet, the stationary Navier-Stokes equations with directional do-nothing outlet admit a weak solution for any data in the Lions-Magenes class with positive influx.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [27]

    M. V. Korobkov, K. Pileckas, and R. Russo.The Steady Navier-Stokes System: Basics of the Theory and the Leray Problem. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [26]

    M. V. Korobkov, K. Pileckas, and R. Russo. On the steady Navier–Stokes equations in 2D exterior domains.Journal of Differential Equations, 269(3):1796–1828, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [32]

    O. A. Ladyzhenskaya and V. A. Solonnikov. Determination of the solutions of boundary-value problems for stationary Stokes and Navier-Stokes equations having an unbounded Dirichlet integral. Journal of Soviet Mathematics, 21(5):728–761, 1983

    work page 1983

  4. [1]

    C. J. Amick. Steady solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations in unbounded channels and pipes. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa - Classe di Scienze, 4(3):473–513, 1977

    1977

  5. [2]

    C. J. Amick. Properties of steady Navier–Stokes solutions for certain unbounded channels and pipes.Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 2(6):689–720, 1978

    work page 1978

  6. [3]

    C. J. Amick. Existence of solutions to the nonhomogeneous steady Navier-Stokes equations.Indiana University Mathematics Journal, 33(6):817–830, 1984

    1984

  7. [4]

    Berchio, D

    E. Berchio, D. Bonheure, G. P. Galdi, F. Gazzola, and S. Perotto. Equilibrium configurations of a symmetric body immersed in a stationary Navier–Stokes flow in a planar channel.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 56(3):3759–3801, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [5]

    Bocchi and F

    E. Bocchi and F. Gazzola. Asymmetric equilibrium configurations of a body immersed in a 2D laminar flow.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Angewandte Mathematik und Physik, 74(5):180, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [6]

    Bocchi and F

    E. Bocchi and F. Gazzola. A measure for the stability of structures immersed in a 2D laminar flow. Bollettino dell’Unione Matematica Italiana, pages 1–15, 2024

    2024

  2. [7]

    Bourgain, J

    J. Bourgain, J. Kristensen, and M. V. Korobkov. On the Morse–Sard property and level sets of Sobolev and BV functions.Revista Matem´ atica Iberoamericana, 29(1):1–23, 2013

    2013

  3. [8]

    Chipot, K

    M. Chipot, K. Kaulakyt˙ e, K. Pileckas, and W. Xue. On nonhomogeneous boundary value prob- lems for the stationary Navier–Stokes equations in two-dimensional symmetric semi-infinite outlets. Analysis and Applications, 15(04):543–569, 2017

    2017

  4. [9]

    R. Finn. Stationary solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. InApplications of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations in Mathematical Physics - Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics (New York, April 20-23, 1964), volume 17, pages 121–153. American Mathematical Soci...

    1964

  5. [10]

    L. E. Fraenkel. On a theory of laminar flow in channels of a certain class.Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 73(2):361–390, 1973

    1973

  6. [11]

    L. E. Fraenkel and P. M. Eagles. On a theory of laminar flow in channels of a certain class. II. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 77(1):199–224, 1975

    1975

  7. [12]

    G. P. Galdi. On the existence of steady motions of a viscous flow with non-homogeneous boundary conditions.Le Matematiche, 46(1):503–524, 1991

    1991

  8. [13]

    G. P. Galdi.An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier-Stokes Equations: Steady- State Problems. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011. 33

    2011

  9. [14]

    G. P. Galdi, A. M. Robertson, R. Rannacher, and S. Turek.Hemodynamical Flows: Modeling, Analysis and Simulation (Oberwolfach Seminars). Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    2008

  10. [15]

    Gazzola and G

    F. Gazzola and G. Sperone. Steady Navier-Stokes equations in planar domains with obstacle and explicit bounds for unique solvability.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 238(3):1283– 1347, 2020

    2020

  11. [16]

    Gazzola, G

    F. Gazzola, G. Sperone, and T. Weth. A connection between symmetry breaking for Sobolev minimizers and stationary Navier–Stokes flows past a circular obstacle.Applied Mathematics & Optimization, 85(1):1–23, 2022

    2022

  12. [17]

    J. G. Heywood. Auxiliary flux and pressure conditions for Navier-Stokes problems. InApproxima- tion Methods for Navier-Stokes Problems: Proceedings of the Symposium Held by the International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (IUTAM) at the University of Paderborn, Ger...

    1979

  13. [18]

    J. G. Heywood. On the impossibility, in some cases, of the Leray–Hopf condition for energy esti- mates.Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 13:449–457, 2011

    2011

  14. [19]

    C. O. Horgan and L. Wheeler. Spatial decay estimates for the Navier–Stokes equations with appli- cation to the problem of entry flow.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 35(1):97–116, 1978

    1978

  15. [20]

    L. V. Kapitanskii and K. Pileckas. Spaces of solenoidal vector fields in boundary value problems for the Navier-Stokes equations in regions with noncompact boundaries.Matematicheskii Institut imeni Steklova Trudy, 159:5–36, 1983

    1983

  16. [21]

    Kaulakyt˙ e and K

    K. Kaulakyt˙ e and K. Pileckas. On the nonhomogeneous boundary value problem for the Navier– Stokes system in a class of unbounded domains.Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 14:693– 716, 2012

    2012

  17. [22]

    Kawada.History of the Modern Suspension Bridge

    T. Kawada.History of the Modern Suspension Bridge. Solving the Dilemma between Economy and Stiffness. ASCE Press, 2010

    2010

  18. [23]

    Kellogg and J

    R. Kellogg and J. Osborn. A regularity result for the Stokes problem in a convex polygon.Journal of Functional Analysis, 21(4):397–431, 1976

    1976

  19. [24]

    M. V. Korobkov, K. Pileckas, and R. Russo. On the flux problem in the theory of steady Navier– Stokes equations with nonhomogeneous boundary conditions.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 207(1):185–213, 2013

    2013

  20. [25]

    M. V. Korobkov, K. Pileckas, and R. Russo. Solution of Leray’s problem for stationary Navier-Stokes equations in plane and axially symmetric spatial domains.Annals of Mathematics, 181(2):769–807, 2015

    2015

  21. [28]

    Kraˇ cmar and J

    S. Kraˇ cmar and J. Neustupa. A weak solvability of a steady variational inequality of the Navier– Stokes type with mixed boundary conditions.Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 47(6):4169–4180, 2001

    2001

  22. [29]

    O. A. Ladyzhenskaya. Stationary motion of viscous incompressible fluids in pipes.Soviet Physics Doklady, 124(4):68–70, 1959. 34

    1959

  23. [30]

    O. A. Ladyzhenskaya and V. A. Solonnikov. Determination of the solutions of Navier-Stokes sta- tionary boundary-value problems with infinite dissipation in unbounded regions.Doklady Akademii Nauk USSR, 249(4):828–831, 1979

    1979

  24. [31]

    O. A. Ladyzhenskaya and V. A. Solonnikov. On finding of solutions of the stationary Stokes and Navier–Stokes equations which have an unbounded Dirichlet integral (in Russian).Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov POMI, 96:117–160, 1980

    1980

  25. [33]

    Landau and E

    L. Landau and E. Lifshitz.Theoretical Physics: Fluid Mechanics, volume 6. Pergamon Press, 1987

    1987

  26. [34]

    J. Leray. ´Etude de diverses ´ equations int´ egrales non lin´ eaires et de quelques probl` emes que pose l’hydrodynamique.Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 12:1–82, 1933

    1933

  27. [35]

    de Miranda, M

    M. de Miranda, M. Petrequin. Storebaelt East Bridge: aspetti del montaggio e della realizzazione, Costruzioni Metalliche6:27–42, 1998

    1998

  28. [36]

    Neustupa

    J. Neustupa. On the steady Navier–Stokes boundary value problem in an unbounded 2D domain with arbitrary fluxes through the components of the boundary.Annali dell’Universit` a di Ferrara, 55(2):353–365, 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    Neustupa

    J. Neustupa. A new approach to the existence of weak solutions of the steady Navier–Stokes system with inhomogeneous boundary data in domains with noncompact boundaries.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 198:331–348, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    M. P. Pa ¨ ıdoussis, S. J. Price, and E. De Langre.Fluid-Structure Interactions: Cross-Flow-Induced Instabilities. Cambridge University Press, 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    Pileckas

    K. Pileckas. Navier–Stokes system in domains with cylindrical outlets to infinity. Leray’s problem. InHandbook of Mathematical Fluid Dynamics, volume 4, pages 445–647. Elsevier Amsterdam, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    Takeshita

    A. Takeshita. A remark on Leray’s inequality.Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 157(1):151–158, 1993

    1993

  33. [41]

    Wang and C

    Y. Wang and C. Xie. Existence and asymptotic behavior of large axisymmetric solutions for steady Navier–Stokes system in a pipe.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 243(3):1325–1360, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Wang and C

    Y. Wang and C. Xie. Uniform structural stability of Hagen–Poiseuille flows in a pipe.Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics, 393(3):1347–1410, 2022. Filippo Gazzola Dipartimento di Matematica Politecnico di Milano Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32 20133 Milan - Italy E-mail: filip...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.