Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Brinkman's term for the steady-state Navier-Stokes equations with prescribed flux rate or pressure drop in perforated pipes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a pipe full of tiny particles, every weak limit of steady Navier-Stokes solutions obeys a Brinkman-type equation with an added friction term, with no smallness condition on the data.

desk verdict Solid homogenization result with a real incompleteness: the flux-case theorem as stated uses an extra strip condition that is not listed in its hypotheses, and the pressure-drop theorem is stated without proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03672 v1 pith:YLPOOGHB submitted 2026-08-04 math.AP

Richard M. Höfer , Amina Mecherbet , Gianmarco Sperone This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 76M5076D0535B2735M3235Q31
keywords incompressiblefluidsmixedboundaryconditionshomogenizationperforateddomainBrinkmanequationNavier-StokesequationsprescribedfluxBernoullipressure
topics Navier-Stokes Regularity
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 proves that a viscous incompressible fluid flowing through a three-dimensional pipe riddled with many tiny particles behaves, in the macroscopic limit, like a fluid governed by a Brinkman-type equation. The particles have diameter of order $\varepsilon^3$ and mutual distance of order $\varepsilon$, the critical homogenization scale: small enough to be dilute, but numerous enough to exert a collective friction. The setting is the steady Navier-Stokes system with mixed boundary conditions, involving tangential velocity and Bernoulli pressure on the inlet and outlet, with either the total flux or the pressure drop prescribed. The authors show that every weak accumulation point of the $\varepsilon$-level solutions satisfies the homogenized system with an added drag term $Gu-J$, for arbitrarily large forces, flux rates, and pressure drops, with no smallness assumption. The main technical achievement is the corresponding $\varepsilon$-uniform bound, obtained for the flux problem through a contradiction argument based on Bernoulli's law for stationary Euler flows.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a family of Stokes correctors and a restriction operator $R_\varepsilon(\varphi)$ that modifies a test vector field in thin shells around each particle so that it becomes admissible in the perforated domain and divergence-free, without changing fields that already vanish on the particles. The key identity (3.40) shows that the limit of $\int_\Omega \nabla v^\varepsilon : \nabla R_\varepsilon(\varphi)$ contains the extra term $\int_\Omega (G v - J)\cdot\varphi$, which is exactly the Brinkman force. Supporting objects are the relative capacity potential (uniformly bounded in the critical regime), a uniform inverse divergence operator on perforated domains, a flux carrier built from Hagen-Poiseuille-type flows in the cylindrical outlets, and, for the prescribed-flux uniform bound, a contradiction argument that rescales a hypothetically unbounded solution and invokes Bernoulli's law for the limiting stationary Euler equation to show the scaled pressure must vanish on the walls.

What would settle it

Take the same pipe, same separations, and the same bound (2.11), and admit one particle whose $\varepsilon$-scale ball intersects the $\delta_3$-strip adjacent to $\Gamma_I$ while all other assumptions hold; then check whether $\|\nabla u^\varepsilon\|_{L^2}$ stays bounded and whether the limits still satisfy (2.15). A bounded limit satisfying (2.15) would show (4.3) is removable; a blow-up, or a limit in which the inlet Bernoulli-pressure condition fails, would show (4.3) is genuinely load-bearing. The paper's Remark 4.4 already identifies this exact case as open.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that in the critical regime (particle diameter $\varepsilon^3$, spacing $\varepsilon$), the steady Navier-Stokes equations with prescribed flux rate or prescribed pressure drop homogenize to the Brinkman-type system $$-\$\Delta$ u + (\nabla\times u)\times u + \nabla\Phi + G u - J = f,\qquad \operatorname{div} u=0,$$ in the original unperforated admissible pipe domain, with the same mixed boundary conditions on the inlet, outlet, and walls, and with the same flux or pressure-drop prescription (Theorems 2.4 and 2.5). Here $G\in L^2(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3})$ is the limiting density of Stokes resistance matrices of the particles and $J\in L^2(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^3)$ encodes their prescribed velocities; both arise as limits of $\varepsilon$-scaled sums over the particles, as in (2.12)-(2.14). The result holds without any smallness condition on the data, and the pressure-drop version needs only the kinetic-energy bound (2.11), while the flux version additionally assumes the inlet and outlet strips stay particle-free (condition (4.3)).

Load-bearing premise

For the prescribed-flux theorem, the load-bearing premise is assumption (4.3): a strip of fixed width $\delta_3$ next to the inlet and outlet must never contain any particle; without it the boundary values of the limiting Bernoulli pressure cannot be identified and the uniform-bound proof stops.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the critical regime the particles neither disappear nor clog the pipe: their collective response survives as the zero-order drag term $Gu-J$, for arbitrary sizes of the data.
  • The prescribed-pressure-drop limit needs no strip condition near the inlet or outlet; only the uniform kinetic-energy bound (2.11) on the particle velocities is required.
  • The limiting flux problem keeps the prescribed flux condition $\int_{\Gamma_O} u\cdot\nu = F$ and the same Bernoulli-pressure boundary conditions, with the unknown outlet constant $p^+$ emerging as part of the limit solution.
  • Uniform bounds produce at least one weak accumulation point in both problems, so the effective Brinkman systems (2.15)-(2.16) admit weak solutions in this setting without smallness of the data.
  • The same scheme covers distorted pipes with cylindrical outlets and non-zero constant particle velocities, and it extends to several inlets and outlets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If condition (4.3) turns out to be removable, the natural route suggested by the paper's structure is to extend the Bernoulli pressure inside the holes using the particle velocities rather than by zero; the pressure-drop proof already shows that boundary-adapted extensions can work.
  • For periodic or random stationary particle configurations the limit matrix $G$ should reduce to a multiple of the identity proportional to particle number density times mean resistance, recovering the classical scalar Brinkman permeability law; this is a testable specialization the paper does not spell out.
  • Because the uniform bounds hold without smallness, the same restriction operator is a plausible tool for an evolutionary Navier-Stokes version with prescribed flux, where the particle velocities would be coupled to their motion; the present paper treats only the stationary case.
  • The pressure-drop result suggests that prescribing the drop is the more robust formulation: it avoids the delicate boundary-layer condition (4.3), so applied settings should prefer the drop formulation when inlet and outlet obstructions cannot be excluded.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies homogenization of the steady-state Navier-Stokes equations in a three-dimensional pipe perforated by many small particles of diameter ε^3 at mutual distance ε, in the critical regime where a Brinkman term is expected. Two boundary-value problems are considered: one with prescribed transversal flux rate and one with prescribed pressure drop, both with mixed boundary conditions involving the tangential velocity and the Bernoulli pressure on the inlet and outlet. The main results, Theorems 2.4 and 2.5, assert that any weak accumulation point of the ε-level solutions satisfies a Brinkman-type system with new terms Gu and J, without smallness assumptions on the data. The uniform bounds for the flux problem are obtained by a contradiction argument using Bernoulli's law for stationary Euler solutions, while the pressure-drop problem is handled by a direct energy estimate. The paper also constructs a flux carrier, a divergence-free extension of particle velocities, Stokes correctors, and a restriction operator with sharp estimates, with a detailed appendix on exterior Stokes problems and capacity densities.

Significance. If the main theorems hold as stated, this is a significant extension of the subcritical homogenization result in [59] to the critical particle-size regime, with non-periodic polydisperse particle configurations, non-zero constant particle velocities, and no smallness condition on the data. The paper contains genuinely useful technical contributions: explicit estimates for Stokes correctors, a genuine restriction operator that does not modify test functions vanishing on the particles, and a self-contained treatment of the exterior Stokes resistance matrix. The proof of Theorem 2.4 is largely detailed and the auxiliary estimates are explicit. However, the flux-case result currently depends on an additional strip condition (4.3) that is not stated in Theorem 2.4, and the second central claim, Theorem 2.5, is asserted without proof. These issues are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the advertised conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 2.4 and Remark 4.4] Theorem 2.4 is stated under assumptions (2.11)-(2.13), but its proof relies on the uniform bounds of Theorem 4.3, which are proved only under the additional strip assumption (4.3). The trace identification of the limit Bernoulli pressure on Γ_I and Γ_O in the contradiction argument uses the W^{1,3/2} regularity estimates (4.33)-(4.34), and those estimates are valid only because assumption (4.3) keeps the strips Ω_I and Ω_O free of particles. Remark 4.4 explicitly leaves open the possibility of recovering Theorem 4.3 without (4.3), so this is not a cosmetic gap: either (4.3) must be added to the hypotheses of Theorem 2.4 and to the abstract's phrasing, or a new argument must identify the boundary traces without uniform strip regularity.
  2. [Section 4.2, Theorem 2.5] Theorem 2.5 is one of the two central homogenization results, but its proof is omitted with the sentence that it resembles the proof of Theorem 2.4 with minor modifications. Given that Theorem 2.5 involves a different functional space, a different uniform-bounds theorem (Theorem 4.5), and an additional pressure boundary term, the proof is not literally identical. Please provide a complete proof or a detailed outline that identifies the test space, the treatment of the pressure-boundary term, and the changes in the passage to the limit.
  3. [Section 4.1, Definitions 4.1-4.2] Definitions 4.1 and 4.2 are internally inconsistent as written. In Definition 4.1, the condition u ∈ V(Ωε) forces u = 0 on each ∂K_n^ε, while the condition u − Ψε ∈ U(Ωε) forces u − Ψε = 0 on ∂K_n^ε and hence u = Ψε = μ_n^ε on ∂K_n^ε. Unless all μ_n^ε vanish, no such u exists. The same inconsistency appears in Definition 4.2 with Aε. The intended weak formulation should be stated for the affine space containing the flux carrier, e.g. u ∈ Ψε + U(Ωε), or the space V(Ωε) should be defined without the condition u = 0 on ∂K_n^ε. Since the subsequent proofs use the strong form (2.8)-(2.9), the intended meaning is recoverable, but the formal definitions need to be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation (4.19)] The sign of the nonlinear term in (4.19) appears to be wrong: testing with uε − Aε gives −∫((∇×buε)×buε)·Aε, not +∫((∇×buε)×buε)·Aε. The term vanishes in the limit by (4.20), so the final conclusion is unaffected, but the displayed identity should be corrected.
  2. [Remark 3.5 and Proposition A.4] There are small typographical errors: in Remark 3.5, 'this han been proved' should be 'this has been proved', and in Proposition A.4 the name 'Cauchy-Schwartz' should be 'Cauchy-Schwarz'.
  3. [Section 2.3, notation p^∓_ε] The notation p^∓_ε in (2.5) is confusing because the normalization p^-_ε = 0 is introduced only later. Please define the constants p^-_ε and p^+_ε at the point of first use and state the normalization explicitly in the displayed system.
  4. [Section 4.1, around (4.35)] The sequence bvε = euε/Z^2_ε is introduced in (4.35) without a fresh notation paragraph, after buε has already been defined as euε/Zε. This makes the proof harder to follow; a short note that bvε is a further rescaling of the same extended velocity would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Brinkman term is derived from micro-scale Stokes data and convergence assumptions, not fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense: the homogenized Brinkman term Gu-J is not an input fitted to the target result. The quantities G and J are defined in (2.12) from the per-particle Stokes resistance matrices and particle velocities, and assumption (2.13) only postulates the convergence of the discrete capacity densities. In Theorem 3.6, identity (3.40) is proved by estimating the Stokes correctors and passing to the limit; the appearance of the term ∫(Gv-J)·φ is obtained from the explicit boundary-integral computation (3.62)-(3.68), not assumed. The uniform bounds in Theorems 4.3 and 4.5 are obtained by a contradiction argument based on Bernoulli's law for the stationary Euler equations, not by invoking the homogenized Brinkman system. The self-citations [59] and [60] supply the subcritical precursor and the ε-level existence and regularity theorems; these are independent published results and do not determine the homogenized limit. The only notable gap is that Theorem 2.4 is advertised under (2.11)-(2.13), while the uniform bounds that guarantee an accumulation point require the additional strip condition (4.3), as Remark 2.6 and Remark 4.4 explicitly state; this is a hypotheses/completeness issue, not circularity. Similarly, the omission of the proof of Theorem 2.5 affects completeness, not circularity. No equation of the target system is used as an assumption to derive itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on background theorems from the literature, mainly ε-level existence and regularity, the uniform inverse divergence operator, and the Bernoulli law, plus the critical-scaling geometry. No new particles or forces are postulated; the Brinkman coefficient G and source J are defined from exterior Stokes resistance matrices and assumed converged limits.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Existence, W^{2,2} regularity, and strong-form Bernoulli pressure for the ε-level prescribed flux problem, taken from [60, Theorems 3.2 and 3.3].
    Invoked at the start of the proof of Theorem 4.3 and used for the extension of uε and Φε into the particles; the paper does not reprove these background results.
  • domain assumption Existence and regularity of ε-level solutions to the prescribed pressure drop problem, from [44, Theorem 3.2] together with [60, Theorem 3.2].
    Used in the proof of Theorem 4.5; the paper relies on these cited theorems for the ε-level solvability and pressure regularity.
  • domain assumption Uniform inverse of the divergence operator on perforated domains under uniform John constants, taken from [19, Theorem 2.3].
    Used in Lemmas 3.3 and 3.4 and in Theorem 4.5 to obtain ε-uniform pressure estimates; essential for the whole homogenization argument.
  • standard math Bernoulli law for weak stationary Euler solutions with W^{1,3/2} pressure, cited from [41], [42], and [6].
    Used in the proof of Theorem 4.3 to conclude that the normalized limiting pressure is constant on ΓW, which drives the contradiction argument that yields bp=0.
  • domain assumption The geometric particle placement hypotheses (2.3): particles of diameter ε^3, mutual distance of order ε, uniform John constants, and particles strictly inside Ω.
    This critical scaling defines the regime under study and is assumed rather than derived; it enters all the capacity and Stokes-corrector estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Brinkman's term for the steady-state Navier-Stokes equations with prescribed flux rate or pressure drop in perforated pipes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YLPOOGHB

@misc{pith2026260803672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Brinkman's term for the steady-state Navier-Stokes equations with prescribed flux rate or pressure drop in perforated pipes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YLPOOGHB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03672}
}
abstract

The steady motion of a viscous incompressible fluid in a distorted pipe, containing several small particles of diameter $\eps^3$ and mutual distance $\eps$, is modeled through the Navier-Stokes equations with mixed boundary conditions. Apart from inhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on the particles, these involve the Bernoulli pressure and the tangential velocity on the inlet and outlet of the tube, while either the transversal flux rate or the pressure drop is prescribed along the pipe. Applying the energy method in homogenization theory, we study the asymptotic behavior of the solutions to these systems as $\eps \to 0$, without any restriction on the magnitude of the data, and show that the effective equations display an additional Brinkman term. An important feature of the present work concerns the required uniform bounds, which are achieved (in the case of the prescribed flux problem) by a contradiction argument based on Bernoulli's law for solutions of the stationary Euler equations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03672 by the authors.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Representation of an admissible domain Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. Representation of an admissible domain Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.3. Representation of the perforated domain Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [59]

    G. Sperone. Homogenization of the steady-state Navier-Stokes equations with prescribed flux rate or pressure drop in a perforated pipe.Journal of Differential Equations, 375:653–681, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Acosta and R

    G. Acosta and R. G. Dur´ an.Divergence Operator and Related Inequalities. Springer, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    G. Allaire. Homogenization of the Navier-Stokes equations in open sets perforated with tiny holes I. Abstract framework, a volume distribution of holes.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 113:209–259, 1991

    work page 1991

  4. [3]

    G. Allaire. Homogenization of the Navier-Stokes equations in open sets perforated with tiny holes II. Non-critical sizes of the holes for a volume distribution and a surface distribution of holes.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 113:261–298, 1991

    work page 1991

  5. [4]

    G. Allaire. Homogenization of the Navier-Stokes equations with a slip boundary condition.Com- munications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 44(6):605–641, 1991

    work page 1991

  6. [5]

    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

  7. [6]

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

    1984

  8. [7]

    Bear.Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media

    J. Bear.Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Courier Corporation, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    T. Boggio. Sul moto stazionario lento di una sfera in un liquido viscoso.Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-1940), 30(1):65–81, 1910

    1940

  2. [9]

    H. B. Bradley.Petroleum Engineering Handbook. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, 1987

    1987

  3. [10]

    Bravin, E

    M. Bravin, E. Feireisl, A. Roy, and A. Zarnescu. On the collective effect of a large system of heavy particles immersed in a Newtonian fluid.ArXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08595, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    H. C. Brinkman. A calculation of the viscous force exerted by a flowing fluid on a dense swarm of particles.Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 1(1):27–34, 1949

    1949

  5. [12]

    Carrapatoso and M

    K. Carrapatoso and M. Hillairet. On the derivation of a Stokes–Brinkman problem from Stokes equations around a random array of moving spheres.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 373(1):265–325, 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Cattabriga

    L. Cattabriga. Su un problema al contorno relativo al sistema di equazioni di Stokes.Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico della Universit` a di Padova, 31:308–340, 1961

    1961

  7. [14]

    Cioranescu and F

    D. Cioranescu and F. Murat. A strange term coming from nowhere. InTopics in the Mathematical Modelling of Composite Materials, chapter 4, pages 45–93. Springer, 1997

    1997

  8. [15]

    C. Conca. On the application of the homogenization theory to a class of problems arising in fluid mechanics.Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 64(1):31–75, 1985

    1985

  9. [16]

    Conca, F

    C. Conca, F. Murat, and O. Pironneau. The Stokes and Navier - Stokes equations with boundary conditions involving the pressure.Japanese Journal of Mathematics, 20(2):279–318, 1994

    1994

  10. [17]

    Darcy.Les Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon

    H. Darcy.Les Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon. Victor Dalmont, Paris, 1856

  11. [18]

    Desvillettes, F

    L. Desvillettes, F. Golse, and V. Ricci. The mean-field limit for solid particles in a Navier-Stokes flow.Journal of Statistical Physics, 131(5):941–967, 2008. 40

    2008

  12. [19]

    Diening, E

    L. Diening, E. Feireisl, and Y. Lu. The inverse of the divergence operator on perforated domains with applications to homogenization problems for the compressible Navier–Stokes system.ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 23(3):851–868, 2017

    2017

  13. [20]

    H. I. Ene and E. S´ anchez-Palencia. ´Equations et conditions aux limites pour un mod` ele de milieu poreux.Comptes Rendus de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences. S´ erie A. Sciences Math´ ematique, 277:A257– A259, 1973

    1973

  14. [21]

    Farwig and H

    R. Farwig and H. Sohr. Generalized resolvent estimates for the Stokes system in bounded and unbounded domains.Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan, 46(4):607–643, 1994

    1994

  15. [22]

    Feireisl, Y

    E. Feireisl, Y. Lu, and Y. Sun. Homogenization of a non-homogeneous heat conducting fluid. Asymptotic Analysis, 125(3-4):327–346, 2021

    2021

  16. [23]

    Feireisl, Y

    E. Feireisl, Y. Namlyeyeva, and ˇS. Neˇ casov´ a. Homogenization of the evolutionary Navier–Stokes system.Manuscripta Mathematica, 149:251–274, 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

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

    2011

  18. [25]

    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

  19. [26]

    G. P. Galdi and C. G. Simader. Existence, uniqueness andL q-estimates for the Stokes problem in an exterior domain.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 112(4):291–318, 1990

    1990

  20. [27]

    A. Giunti. Derivation of Darcy’s law in randomly perforated domains.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 60(5):1–30, 2021

    2021

  21. [28]

    Giunti and R

    A. Giunti and R. M. H¨ ofer. Homogenisation for the Stokes equations in randomly perforated domains under almost minimal assumptions on the size of the holes.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C. Analyse Non Lin´ eaire, 36(7):1829–1868, 2019

    2019

  22. [29]

    J. G. Heywood, R. Rannacher, and S. Turek. Artificial boundaries and flux and pressure conditions for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 22(5):325–352, 1996

    1996

  23. [30]

    Hillairet

    M. Hillairet. On the homogenization of the Stokes problem in a perforated domain.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 230(3):1179–1228, 2018

    2018

  24. [31]

    Hillairet and A

    M. Hillairet and A. Mecherbet.L p estimates for the homogenization of Stokes problem in a perfo- rated domain.Journal of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu, 19(1):231–258, 2020

    2020

  25. [32]

    Hillairet, A

    M. Hillairet, A. Moussa, and F. Sueur. On the effect of polydispersity and rotation on the Brinkman force induced by a cloud of particles on a viscous incompressible flow.Kinetic and Related Models, 12(4):681–701, 2019

    2019

  26. [33]

    R. M. H¨ ofer. Homogenization of the Navier–Stokes equations in perforated domains in the inviscid limit.Nonlinearity, 36(11):6020–6047, 2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    R. M. H¨ ofer and J. Jansen. Convergence rates and fluctuations for the Stokes–Brinkman equations as homogenization limit in perforated domains.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 248(3):50, 2024

    2024

  28. [35]

    R. M. H¨ ofer, A. Mecherbet, and R. Schubert. Derivation of the monokinetic vlasov-stokes equations. ArXiv preprint: 2511.14612, 2025. 41

    2025

  29. [36]

    R. M. H¨ ofer, ˇS. Necasov´ a, and F. Oschmann. Quantitative homogenization of the compressible Navier–Stokes equations towards Darcy’s law.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C. Analyse Non Lin´ eaire, 43(3):669–709, 2026

    2026

  30. [37]

    R. M. H¨ ofer and R. Schubert. Sedimentation of particles with very small inertia II: Deriva- tion, Cauchy problem and hydrodynamic limit of the Vlasov-Stokes equation.ArXiv preprint: 2311.01891, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [38]

    H¨ ormander.The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators I: Distribution Theory and Fourier Analysis, volume 256

    L. H¨ ormander.The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators I: Distribution Theory and Fourier Analysis, volume 256. Springer-Verlag, 2003

    2003

  32. [39]

    Hornung.Homogenization and Porous Media, volume 6 ofInterdisciplinary Applied Mathematics

    U. Hornung.Homogenization and Porous Media, volume 6 ofInterdisciplinary Applied Mathematics. Springer Science & Business Media, 1996

    1996

  33. [40]

    W. Jing, Y. Lu, and C. Prange. Unified quantitative analysis of the Stokes equations in dilute perforated domains via layer potentials.Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 23(3):1145–1182, 2025

    2025

  34. [41]

    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

  35. [42]

    M. V. Korobkov. Bernoulli law under minimal smoothness assumptions.Doklady Mathematics, 83(1):107–110, 2011

    2011

  36. [43]

    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

  37. [44]

    M. V. Korobkov, K. Pileckas, and R. Russo. Solvability in a finite pipe of steady-state Navier– Stokes equations with boundary conditions involving Bernoulli pressure.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 59(1):1–22, 2020

    2020

  38. [45]

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

    2024

  39. [46]

    O. A. Ladyzhenskaya.The Mathematical Theory of Viscous Incompressible Flow, volume 76. Gordon and Breach New York, 1969

    1969

  40. [47]

    Landau and E

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

    1987

  41. [48]

    V. A. Marchenko and E. Y. Khruslov.Boundary Value Problems in Domains with Fine-Grained Boundaries. Naukova Dumka, Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, Kiev, 1974

    1974

  42. [49]

    Maremonti, R

    P. Maremonti, R. Russo, and G. Starita. On the Stokes equations: the boundary value problem. In Advances in Fluid Dynamics, volume 4, pages 69–140. Aracne Editrice, 1999

    1999

  43. [50]

    Masmoudi

    N. Masmoudi. Homogenization of the compressible Navier–Stokes equations in a porous medium. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 8:885–906, 2002

    2002

  44. [51]

    Maz’ya.Sobolev Spaces: with Applications to Elliptic Partial Differential Equations, volume 342

    V. Maz’ya.Sobolev Spaces: with Applications to Elliptic Partial Differential Equations, volume 342. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  45. [52]

    Neˇ cas.Direct Methods in the Theory of Elliptic Equations

    J. Neˇ cas.Direct Methods in the Theory of Elliptic Equations. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  46. [53]

    Panasenko and K

    G. Panasenko and K. Pileckas.Multiscale Analysis of Viscous Flows in Thin Tube Structures. Springer, 2024. 42

    2024

  47. [54]

    Patriarca and G

    C. Patriarca and G. Sperone. Homogenization of Leray’s flux problem for the steady-state Navier– Stokes equations in a multiply-connected planar domain.Journal of Nonlinear Science, 35(6):111, 2025

    2025

  48. [55]

    Pileckas

    K. Pileckas. Spaces of solenoidal vectors.Trudy Matematicheskogo Instituta imeni V. A. Steklova, 159:137–149, 1983

    1983

  49. [56]

    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

  50. [57]

    S´ anchez-Palencia.Non-Homogeneous Media and Vibration Theory, volume 127 ofLecture Note in Physics

    E. S´ anchez-Palencia.Non-Homogeneous Media and Vibration Theory, volume 127 ofLecture Note in Physics. Springer-Verlag, 1980

    1980

  51. [58]

    Z. Shen. Sharp convergence rates for Darcy’s law.Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 47(6):1098–1123, 2022

    2022

  52. [60]

    G. Sperone. Steady-state Navier–Stokes flow in an obstructed pipe under mixed boundary condi- tions and with a prescribed transversal flux rate.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 62(9):236, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    G. G. Stokes. On the effect of the internal friction of fluids on the motion of pendulums.Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 9:8, 1851

  54. [62]

    L. Tartar. Homog´ en´ eisation en hydrodynamique. InSingular Perturbations and Boundary Layer Theory: Proceedings of the Conference held at the ´Ecole Centrale de Lyon, December 8–10, 1976, pages 474–481. Springer, 1976

    1976

  55. [63]

    Tartar.The General Theory of Homogenization: A Personalized Introduction, volume 7 ofLecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Italiana

    L. Tartar.The General Theory of Homogenization: A Personalized Introduction, volume 7 ofLecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Italiana. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    2009

  56. [64]

    von K´ arm´ an.Aerodynamics: Selected Topics in the Light of their Historical Development

    T. von K´ arm´ an.Aerodynamics: Selected Topics in the Light of their Historical Development. Courier Corporation, 2004. 43

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.