Nonlinearity

PAPER Related content

- Continuous data assimilation for the three-
On the well-posedness of the dimensional Brinkman–Forchheimer-
extended Darcy model
Darcy–Brinkman–Forchheimer equations for Peter A Markowich, Edriss S Titi and
Saber Trabelsi

coupled porous media-clear fluid flow - The existence and regularity of time-
periodic solutions to the three-dimensional
Navier–Stokes equations in the whole
To cite this article: C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris 2017 Nonlinearity 30 1449 space
Mads Kyed

- Existence result for the motion of several

rigid bodies in an incompressible non-
Newtonian fluid with growth conditions in
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Orlicz spaces
Aneta Wróblewska-Kamiska

This content was downloaded from IP address 134.153.184.170 on 21/10/2017 at 22:09

 London Mathematical Society Nonlinearity

Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449–1464 doi:10.1088/1361-6544/aa5ecf

On the well-posedness of the Darcy–

Brinkman–Forchheimer equations for
coupled porous media-clear fluid flow
C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris
Institute of Mechanics, Materials and Civil Engineering, Université catholique de
Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

E-mail: christos.varsakelis@sabic.com

Received 23 September 2015, revised 26 October 2016

Accepted for publication 7 February 2017
Published 24 February 2017

Recommended by Professor John Lowengrub

Abstract
In this paper, we present an existence and uniqueness theory for the Darcy–
Brinkman–Forchheimer equations that govern the stationary flow of a porous
medium and a clear fluid occupying both bounded and unbounded domains.
By extending Ladyzhenskaya’s functional method to the equations at hand, we
establish the existence of at least one weak solution. For the case of bounded
domains, we additionally show that this solution is unique provided that a
suitable smallness assumption, involving the Reynolds number, the porosity
of the porous medium and the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian, is satisfied.

Keywords: weak solutions, porous media, Darcy–Brinkman–Forchheimer

equations
Mathematics Subject Classification numbers: 35D30, 35Q35, 76S05

1.  Introduction and statement of the problem

Let Ω ⊂ Rn, n  =  2, 3 be a domain with a C2 boundary S. In this paper, we are concerned with
the well-posedness of the following Darcy–Brinkman–Forchheimer equations:
∇ ⋅ (φ u) = 0,
(1)

2
∇ ⋅ (φ u ⊗ u) + ∇(φP ) =
∇ ⋅ (φ E(u)) − α(φ )u − β (φ )| u|p u + P∇φ + φf ,
Re
(2)
with p  =  1, 2.

1361-6544/17/041449+16$33.00  © 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd & London Mathematical Society  Printed in the UK 1449
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

The above equations  govern the behavior of stationary flows in superposed clear fluid–
porous layers in the domain Ω. In particular, equation  (1) describes the balance of mass
whereas (2) the balance of linear momentum. The porous layer is assumed to occupy a
bounded domain Ωp ⊂ Ω and its presence is accounted for by the prescribed porosity φ, which
is a non-negative L∞–function such that,
φ(x) = 1, if x ∈ Ω \ Ωp ,
(3)

φ(x) < 1, if x ∈ Ωp ,

(4)

0 < φmin ⩽ φ(x) ⩽ 1, ∀ x ∈ Ω.

(5)
The quantities u and P denote, respectively, the velocity and pressure fields of the fluid and
constitute the unknown variables that need to be determined. Also, E(u) stands for the deviator
of the fluid’s viscous stress tensor,
1
E(u) = L − ( ∇ ⋅ u)I,
(6)
3

∇u + ∇uT
L(u) =
(7) ,
2
where I is the identity tensor.
The coefficients α(φ ) and β (φ ) are the Darcy and Forchheimer terms, respectively, so that
the combined term −α u − β| u|p u models the interphasial drag exerted by fluid on the porous
skeleton. In most applications, the exponent p assumes the value of unity, p  =  1. However,
there are cases where a quadratic dependance on |u|, i.e. p  =  2 is required; see, for instance,
Coulaud et al [1], Mei and Auriault [2], Rasoloarijaona and Auriault [3], Rojas and Koplik [4],
Skjetne and Auriault [5] and the more recent review of Yazdchi and Luding [6]. For this reason,
and for the sake of generality, herein we consider both cases so that p ∈ [1, 2]. Physical consid-
erations, elaborated among others in Straughan [7], dictate that these terms are non-negative
and L∞–functions of the porosity φ. Importantly, when φ = 1, both α(φ ) and β (φ ) become
identically zero. Henceforth, and since there is no risk of confusion, the explicit dependance
of α and β will be dropped. Finally, f represents external forcing terms and Re is the Reynolds
number; for dimensional arguments concerning the Reynolds number in the flows of interest
the interested reader is referred to Papalexandris and Antoniadis [8].
The nozzling term P∇φ constitutes one of the two components that account for the momen-
tum exchange between the fluid and the porous medium, the other being the interphasial drag.
As shown by Bdzil et al [9], this term models the acceleration or deceleration of the fluid
flow due to variations in the porosity that in the continuum scale act as a nozzle. Moreover, its
presence its dictated by thermodynamic considerations since opting for its exclusion results
in mathematical models that do not conform with the second thermodynamic axiom; see, for
instance, Papalexandris and Antoniadis [8]. Henceforth, in order to simplify the analysis we
will formally merge ∇φP with P∇φ and thus focus on the following system of equations,
∇ ⋅ (φ u) = 0,
(8)

2
∇ ⋅ (φ u ⊗ u) + φ∇P =
(9) ∇ ⋅ (φ E(u)) − α(φ )u − β (φ )| u|p u + φf ,
Re

1450
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

for p  =  1,2. By so doing, we are actually able to consider weak solutions with discontinuous
φ; indeed, as will be evidenced in due course, this merging allows for the pressure term P to be
dropped out from the analysis due to orthogonality. Alternatively, one needs to assume a much
higher regularity for φ so as the product rule for weak derivatives to apply.
The Darcy–Brinkman–Forchheimer (DBF) equations  collectively refer to a family of
mathematical models that describe the flow of simple fluids around and through porous media
where the inertia of the fluid cannot be ignored and departure from the standard Darcy’s
law is required; for more information on the validity of Darcy’s law and the Brinkman
and Forchheimer extensions the interested reader is referred to Nield and Bejan [10] and
Straughan [11]. Such flows necessarily require that the porosity of the porous layer is high;
otherwise inertia effects are ignored and the classical Darcy equations  are recovered. The
various incarnations that exist primarily differ in the position of the porosity as a multiplicand
of the various terms. For example, some models, typically derived by homogenization, place
φ outside ∇ ⋅ E whilst others, like (1)–(2) typically derived via continuum theories, place it
inside. Clearly, the presence of such discrepancies implies that the functional framework and
the tools required for tackling existence and regularity questions can vary among the different
versions. For theoretical arguments and numerical and experimental evidence that corrobo-
rate the validity of the DBF equations the reader is referred to Whitaker [12], Antoniadis and
Papalexandris [13] and Kladias and Prasad [14], respectively.
Literature on theoretical analysis of the DBF equations is quite extensive; however, most
relevant studies have focused on unsteady incarnations of equations (8) and (9). For example,
Uǧurlu [15] studied the existence of weak solutions to an unsteady version of (8) and (9) and
further established the existence of an asymptotic attractor. The results of the latter where sub-
sequently improved by Wang and Lin [16] and Ouyang and Yang [17]. A quite general theory
concerning the asymptotic behavior of solutions was developed by Kalantarov and Zelik [18].
More recently, Djoko and Razafimandimby [19], established the existence and uniqueness
of weak solutions but in the more general case of slip boundary conditions whereas a more
involved system was studied by Magiera et  al [20]. Alongside these studies, emphasis has
also been placed on the investigation of continuous dependance of solutions to the Darcy and
Forchheimer terms. To this end, we mention the works of Payne and Straughan [21], Franchi
and Straughan [22] and Çelebi et al [23, 24]. Nevertheless, all these studies ignore the nonlin-
ear inertial term of the fluid and, furthermore, they place the porosity φ outside ∇ ⋅ E.
By contrast, only few efforts have been devoted to equations (8) and (9) or any other sta-
tionary version of the DBF equations. In fact, we are only acquainted with the theoretical anal-
ysis developed by Kaloni and Guo [25] for steady nonlinear, double-diffusive convection in a
porous medium. In that paper, the authors investigate the existence, uniqueness and regularity
of weak solutions to a steady DBF equation, coupled with steady energy equation through a
Boussinesq approximation. However, it is important to note that the DBF equation of [25] and
(8) and (9) exhibit important differences, even in the isothermal case. Therefore, the results of
Kaloni and Guo [25] cannot be extrapolated to the equations at hand, at least in a straightfor-
ward manner. Furthermore, even though the asymptotic analysis of the unsteady models can
provide valuable information concerning the steady–state limits, it is also important to study
the well-posedness of these limits explicitly.
This is precisely what the present study is concerned with. More specifically, we investi-
gate the well-posedness of equations (8) and (9) subject to homogeneous Dirichlet or decay
conditions for the velocity,
u| = 0,
(10)

1451
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

u → 0 as | x| → ∞.
(11)
In particular, by employing a suitable extension of the functional method of Ladyzhenskaya
[26], we develop an existence and uniqueness theory for the problem at hand in the case that
Ω is either bounded or unbounded.
Before proceeding to the main body of the paper, a comment on the assumptions that have
been imposed is relevant.
(i) Even though the porosity φ can be a discontinuous function, no assumptions are imposed
on the regularity of the boundary of Ωp, unless of course ∂ Ωp ∩ S is not empty and the
C2-regularity assumption is inherited. Remarkably, Ladyzhenskaya’s functional method
is general enough to appropriately take care of the discontinuity. However, the derivation
of regularity estimates, which goes beyond the scopes of the present study, is certain to
require additional assumptions on ∂ Ωp, as asserted by available results on second-order
elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients; see, for example, Ladyzhenskaya et al
[27] and the more recent works of Li and Vogelius [28] and Huang and Zou [29].
(ii) In the clear–fluid region, i.e. in Ω \ Ωp where φ = 1 and α = β = 0, the governing
equations  formally reduce to the stationary Navier–Stokes equations. This observation
additionally suggests that existence and regularity results for the equations at hand cannot
be ‘better’ than those that hold for the stationary Navier–Stokes equations.
(iii) The L∞-regularity assumption for α and β (which, we may reiterate, is of physical origin)
can be relaxed. In fact, for bounded Ωp, the proofs easily carry over for α, β ∈ L p(Ω), p ⩾ 0.
Nevertheless, herein, we opt for the physically meaningful case.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we fix the notation and introduce functional
spaces and other definitions that will be employed in the proofs. Section 3 contains the proof
of the existence and the uniqueness of solutions for the case of bounded domains. Finally,
section 4 is concerned with the case of unbounded domains.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we fix the notation that will be used throughout this paper and introduce the
functional setting that will employed for the exploitation of the solvability of (8) and (9). For
a domain Ω ⊂ Rn, with boundary S ∈ C2, n designates the outward normal vector. Further, C
will denote a generic constant whose precise value is irrelevant to the scopes of the present
study.
For a Hilbert space X with norm ∥ ∥X , let G : X → R denote a continuous linear functional
|G ( x ) |
on X. Then |G| denotes its norm, i.e. |G| = sup∥ x ∥≠ 0 ∥ x ∥ .
X

We now advert to the explication of the function spaces. Due to the presence of the porosity
φ in the governing equations, the development of an existence theory requires the introduc-
tion of φ-weighted Sobolev spaces. Such spaces are routinely employed in the mathematical
analysis of the so-called ‘lake equations’; see, for example, Bresch and Métivier [30], Jiu and
Niu [31] and references therein. For this reason, herein we only briefly present their defini-
tion and some key properties. Let φ satisfying (3)–(5). Then, for m ∈ N, the bilinear form
⟨., .⟩W m,2, φ : W m,2(Ω) × W m,2(Ω) → R, defined as follows,
m
(12) ∫
⟨v, w⟩W m,2, φ =
Ω
φ ∑ D avD aw dx, ∀ v, w, ∈ W m,2(Ω),
0 <| a | ⩽ m

1452
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

is an inner product in W m,2(Ω). Since φ is uniformly bounded and bounded away from zero, the
norm induced by (12), henceforth denoted by ∥ ∥W φm,2(Ω), is equivalent to the norm of W m,2(Ω),
∥v∥W m,2(Ω) = ∫ ∑1m<| a | ⩽ m D avD aw dx. In fact, the following inequality holds,
Ω
1
∥(13)
v∥W m,2(Ω) ⩽ ∥v∥W φm,2(Ω) .
φmin
As usual, C∞
c (Ω) denotes the space of infinitely-differentiable vector fields that are com-
∥∥
∞ W φ (Ω)
pactly supported in Ω. We define W 1,20, φ(Ω) = C c
1,2
, i.e. as the closure of the smooth func-
tions with respect to the ∥ ∥W1,2
φ (Ω)
norm. Note that inequality (13) extends to the dyad (W 1,2
0 (Ω),
1,2
W φ (Ω)) as well.
Additionally, we define the following spaces,

Dφ(Ω) = {v ∈ C∞
(14) c (Ω) : ∇ ⋅ (φ v) = 0, ∫S
v ⋅ n dS = 0},

∥∥
Hφ(Ω) = Dφ(Ω) Wφ (Ω).
1,2
(15)
The norm of Hφ(Ω) will be explicitly denoted by ∥ ∥Hφ(Ω) in order to specify the space that
the corresponding quantity lives. Furthermore, we will make use of the norm induced by the
deviator of the stress tensor E(u) which is defined as follows,
1
∥(16)
v∥E =
Ω
∫
φ L(v)2 − φ∇ ⋅ v2dx.
3
It is a matter of straightfoward algebra to show that ∥ ∥Hφ(Ω) is equivalent to ∥ ∥E and that the
following series of inequalities holds asserts that,
E∥v∥E ⩽ ∥v ∥Hφ(Ω) ⩽ CE∥v∥E ,
(17)
where CE depends only on the dimension of the problem.

3.  Existence and uniqueness of solutions: bounded domains

Throughout this section we assume that Ω is a bounded domain of Rn, n  =  2,3. In order to
obtain the weak formulation of (9) we first multiply (9) by a test-function v ∈ Hφ(Ω) and sub-
sequently integrating over Ω and by parts. Taking into consideration the fact that the double
contraction product of a symmetric tensor with an antisymmetric one is identically zero and
upon rearrangement, we get,
1
Re˜
∫Ω φ L(u) : L(v) dx − 13 φ∇ ⋅ u∇ ⋅ v dx − ∫Ω φ u ⊗ u : ∇v dx + ∫Ω (α + β|u|p )u ⋅ v dx
+ ∫Ω φf ⋅ v dx, (18)

where Re˜ = Re
.
2
We note that due to orthogonality of the elements of Hφ(Ω) to quantities of the form φ∇q,
the term containing the pressure field P becomes identically zero. Accordingly, once u has
been determined, P can be recovered in exactly the same manner as in the stationary Navier–
Stokes equations. For this reason, our analysis will adhere to the establishment of the exist-
ence of the velocity u.
1453
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

We can now formulate the main theorem of this section.

Theorem 3.1.  Let f be such that, ∫ φf ⋅ vdx is a linear functional for v ∈ Hφ(Ω). Then,
Ω
there exists a function u ∈ Hφ(Ω) that satisfies the following integral identities,

∫S
φ u ⋅ n dS = 0,
(19)

1
Re˜
∫Ω φ L(u) : L(v) − 13 φ∇ ⋅ u∇ ⋅ v dx − ∫Ω φ u ⊗ u : ∇v dx + ∫Ω (α + β|u|p )u ⋅ v dx
= ∫Ω φf ⋅ v dx, (20)

for all v ∈ Hφ(Ω) Moreover, if p  =  1 and if
⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 2 Re
˜ 2CE| F| ˜ 2CE|Ω|1 / 4 ∥β∥L∞(Ω) |F| ⎛ 4 ⎞9 / 4
Re
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ < 2,
1
+
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ11 / 8φmin ⎝ ⎠
(21) 3/8 3/2
µ1 φmin 3 3 CE

or p  =  2 and
⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 2 Re
˜ 2CE|F| ˜ 3CE∥β∥L∞(Ω) |F|2 ⎛ 4 ⎞3
4Re
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ < 2,
1
+
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ11 / 8φmin ⎝3 3 ⎠
(22)
µ11 / 2φmin
2
CE

with µ1 being the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian in Ω, then the function u ∈ Hφ(Ω) is unique.
As mentioned above, the proof of theorem 3.1 is based on a generalization of the func-
tional method devised by Ladyzenskaya [26] for the stationary Navier–Stokes equations. This
method, which to a certain extent is antedated by that of Leray [32], has subsequently been
employed in numerous studies; we may refer to the monographs of Galdi [33] and Lions
[34] that provide a wealth of additional references. Interestingly, a similar approach has been
employed by Kaloni and Guo [25].
According to Ladyzhenskaya’s functional method, equation (20) is viewed as an equivalent
operator equation  u = Gu in a suitable Hilbert space with G being a compact operator. The
critical step is to establish the uniform boundedness of all solutions of the weighted equa-
tion u = λGu, ∀ λ ∈ [0, 1]. Once this is done, the application of the Leray–Schauder theorem
asserts the existence of at least one fixed point and thus a weak solution to the problem at hand.
The remainder of this section is devoted to the proof of theorem 3.1. For the sake of clarity
of presentation, the proof of theorem 3.1 is split into two sections, devoted to the existence and
the uniqueness parts, respectively. We also note that the proof is presented for the case n  =  3.
All arguments carry over to the case n  =  2 as well and we comment on the differences at the
end of this section

3.1.  Proof of theorem 3.1: existence of solutions

We commence by proving the following lemma.

Lemma 3.1.  Under the assumptions of theorem 3.1, equation  (20) is equivalent to the
operator equation,
1
u − Au + Bu + F = 0,
(23)
˜
Re
1454
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

in the Hilbert space Hφ(Ω) where A and B are compact operators and F a well-defined element
of Hφ(Ω).
Proof.  First, for a fixed u ∈ Hφ(Ω), each of the integrals appearing in (20) defines a continu-
ous, linear functional for v ∈ Hφ(Ω). Linearity is obvious for all terms while the integral in the
right-hand of (20) is continuous by assumption.
Due to the non-degeneracy of φ, the continuity of the first, second and third integrals of the
left-hand side of (20) can be shown by replicating the proof of theorem 1 (chapter 5, p 116)
of Ladyzhenskaya [26]. The continuity of the fourth term follows from the multiple applica-
tion of the Hölder inequality for triple products and the Sobolev embedding W 1,2 0 (Ω) ↪ L (Ω)
q

which, as is well known, in three dimensions is valid for q ⩽ 6; see, for instance, the classical
reference of Adams and Fournier [35].
On the basis of the above, and the equivalence of norms ∥ ∥Hφ(Ω) and ∥ ∥E, the Riesz theorem
asserts the existence of an element F ∈ Hφ(Ω) and of (possibly nonlinear) operators A and B
such that (20) is equivalent to,
1
⟨ u − Au + Bu + F, v⟩E = 0, ∀ v ∈ Hφ(Ω),
(24)
˜
Re

and, since v is arbitrary, it is readily deduced that,

1
u − Au + Bu + F = 0.
(25)
˜
Re

It remains to show that A and B are compact operators. For this, assume that {un} is a sequence
such that {un} converges weakly to a function u ∈ Hφ(Ω). Next, fix n ∈ N and v ∈ Hφ(Ω) and
consider the expressions,
⟨−(Aun − Au) , v⟩Hφ(Ω) ,
(26)

⟨(Bun − Bu) , v⟩Hφ(Ω) ,

(27)

We treat (26) and (27) separately. For the term given by (26), the application of the Cauchy–
Schwarz and the Hölder inequalities, combined with the fact that φ ∈ L∞(Ω), give,

⟨−(Aun − Au), v⟩Hφ(Ω) = − ∫Ω φ(un ⊗ un − u ⊗ u) : ∇v dx

⩽ C∥φ∥L∞(Ω) ∥un − u∥L4(Ω) (∥un∥L4(Ω) +∥u∥L4(Ω) )∥v∥Hφ(Ω) . (28)

Fix now v = Aun − Au. Then, in view of Rellich’s theorem, {un} converges to u strongly in L4
and the right-hand side of (28) goes to zero since the norm ∥v∥Hφ(Ω) is simplifies whereas the
remaining two terms are bounded by assumption.
For the term given by (27) we have the identity,

〈(Bun − Bu), v〉Hφ(Ω) = ∫Ω ((α + β|un|p )un − (α + β|u|p )u) ⋅ v dx

= ∫ (α + β| un|p )(un − u) ⋅ v dx + ∫ β (| un|p −| u|p )u ⋅ v dx. (29)
Ω Ω


1455
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

For the first and the second terms of the right-hand side of the above equality the Hölder
inequality for triple products yields, respectively,

∫Ω(α + β|un|p )(un − u) ⋅ v dx ⩽ ∥α + β| un|p ∥L2(Ω) ∥un − u∥L4(Ω) ∥v∥L4(Ω) , (30)



∫Ω
β ( | un|p −| u|p )u ⋅ v dx ⩽ ∥β| un|p −| u|p ∥L2(Ω) ∥u∥L4(Ω) ∥v∥L4(Ω) .
(31)

Combining (30) and (31), and utilizing the Sobolev embedding W 1,2
0 (Ω) ↪ L (Ω) results in,
4

〈(Bun − Bu) , v〉Hφ(Ω)

 ⩽ (∥α + β| un|p ∥L2(Ω) ∥un − u∥L4(Ω)
+∥β| un|p −| u|p ∥L2(Ω) ∥u∥L4(Ω) )∥v∥Hφ(Ω) . (32)

Fix now v = Bun − Bu. Since α, β ∈ L∞(Ω), Rellich’s theorem and the Minkowski inequality
assert that the right-hand side of the above inequality goes to zero as n → ∞ and the required
compactness of B is obtained upon simplifying the norm ∥v∥Hφ(Ω). □
For the application of the Leray–Schauder theorem, we need control over the norms of the
1
solutions to the perturbed equation  Re˜ u − λ(Au + Bu + F) = 0 for λ ∈ [0, 1]. This is estab-
lished in the following lemma.
Lemma 3.2.  For all λ ∈ [0, 1], the Hφ(Ω)-norms of the solutions uλ to the perturbed
equation,
1
u − λ(Au + Bu + F) = 0,
(33)
˜
Re

are uniformly bounded with respect to λ and, in particular, the following estimate holds,
∥(34) ˜ E| F | ,
uλ∥Hφ(Ω) ⩽ ReC

where |F| denotes the norm of the linear functional ∫ φ f ⋅ uλdx.

Ω
Proof.  Fix λ ∈ [0, 1] and let uλ ∈ Hφ(Ω) be one weak solution of (33). We consider the weak
formulation of (33) and take uλ as a test-function. This, upon rearrangement, yields,
1
∥uλ∥2E −λ ∫Ω φ uλ ⊗ uλ : ∇uλdx = −λ ∫Ω (α + β|uλ|p )uλ dx + λ ∫Ω φ f ⋅ uλ dx.
2
˜
Re
(35)
It is straightforward to show that, in view of (19), the second-term of the left-hand side of (35)
is identically zero; to see this it suffices to perform integration by parts and use the fact that
∇ ⋅ (φ uλ) = 0. Further, since α and β are non-negative functions and in view of (17) the right-
hand side of (35) can be majorized as follows,

− λ
(36)∫Ω
(α + β| uλ |p )uλ2 dx + λ ∫Ω
φ f ⋅ uλ dx ⩽ λCE| F| ∥uλ∥E ,

where we have also used the continuity of the functional induced by f . Thus, by combining
(36) with (35), and by taking into account (17)
1456
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

∥(37) ˜ |F|,
uλ∥Hφ(Ω) ⩽ ∥uλ∥E ⩽ λCERe

and, since λ ∈ [0, 1] the proof is completed. □

In view of lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, the prerequisites of the Leray–Schauder theorem are ful-
filled. Consequently, the existence of at least one fixed point to equation  (23) and hence a
weak solution to the integral identity (20) is established. This concludes the existence part of
theorem 3.1.

3.2.  Proof of theorem 3.1: uniqueness of solutions

For the proof of the uniqueness of solutions, we proceed as follows. Let u1, u2 be two solu-
tions to the integral identity (20). We take the two corresponding weak formulations (20) (with
respect to u1 and u2) and fix U = u1 − u2 ∈ Hφ(Ω) as a test-function in both cases; note that,
since Ω is bounded, U constitutes an eligible choice for a test-function. Subtracting these two
formulations by parts results, upon rearrangement, in the following integral identity,
1
˜
Re
∥U∥2E = ∫Ω φ(u1 ⊗ u1 − u2 ⊗ u2) : ∇U dx − ∫Ω αU2 dx
− ∫ β (| u1|p u1−| u2|p u2) ⋅ U dx
Ω

⩽ ∫ φ(u1 ⊗ u1 − u2 ⊗ u2) : ∇U dx
Ω

− ∫ β (| u1|p u1−| u2|p u2) ⋅ U dx. (38)

Ω

where in the last inequality we have also taken into account the fact that α ⩾ 0.
We treat each term of the right–hand side of (38) separately. For the first term, by taking
into account the fact that ∇ ⋅ (φ u1) = ∇ ⋅ (φ u2) = ∇ ⋅ (φ U) = 0, upon integration by parts,
we get,

∫Ω
φ(u1 ⊗ u1 − u1 ⊗ u1) : ∇U dx =
(39) ∫Ω
φ u1(U∇U) dx.

Next, application of the Hölder inequality for triple products yields,

∫Ω
φ u1(U∇U) dx ⩽ ∥φ u1∥L4(Ω) ∥U∥L4(Ω) ∥U∥W 1,2
(40) 0 (Ω)
,

and, subsequently, by employing Ladyzhenskaya’s inequality we arrive at,

∥φ u1∥L4(Ω) ∥U∥L4(Ω) ∥U∥W1,2
0 (Ω)

 ⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 2
⩽ ⎜ ⎟ ∥u1∥1L/24(Ω) ∥u1∥W
3/4 ∥U∥1L/24(Ω) ∥U∥W
7/4 . (41)
⎝3 3 ⎠
1,2 1,2
0 (Ω) 0 (Ω)

By virtue of the Poincaré inequality and (13), we obtain,

⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 2
⎜ ⎟ ∥u1∥1L/24(Ω) ∥u1∥W
3/4 ∥U∥1L/24(Ω) ∥U∥W
7/4
⎝3 3 ⎠
1,2 1,2
0 (Ω) 0 (Ω)

⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 2

⩽ ⎜ ⎟
1
∥u1∥Hφ(Ω) ∥U∥2Hφ(Ω) ,
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ1 φmin
1 / 8
(42)

1457
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

where, as mentioned above, µ1 stands for the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian in Ω. Since (34)
holds for any weak solution and for any λ, we may set λ = 1 and thus arrive at the final esti-
mate for the first term of the right-hand side of (38). This estimate reads,

∫Ω φ(u1 ⊗ u1 − u2 ⊗ u2) : ∇U dx
 ⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 2 ReC ˜ E
⩽ ⎜ ⎟ | F| ∥U∥2Hφ(Ω) . (43)
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ1 φmin
1 / 8

For the second term, we first add and subtract |u1|p u2 which, upon factorization, yields,

− ∫Ω β (|u1|p u1−|u2|p u2) ⋅ U dx = − ∫Ω β|u1|p U2dx

 + ∫ β u2(| u1|p −| u2|p ) ⋅ U dx
Ω

⩽ ∥β∥L (Ω) ∫ u2| U|p ⋅U dx.

∞ (44)
Ω

For the derivation of the above inequality we have employed (i) the non-negativity of β for the
cancelation of the first term and (ii) the Minkowski inequality and the L∞–boundedness of β
for the second term. Subsequently, the application of the Hölder inequality for triple products
and Ladyzhenskaya’s inequality yield, successively,

∥β∥L∞(Ω) ∫Ω u2|U|p ⋅U dx
⩽ ∥β∥L∞(Ω) ∥u2∥L4(Ω) ∥U∥Lp4p(Ω) ∥U∥L2(Ω)

⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 4
⩽ ∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟ ∥u2∥1L/24(Ω) ∥u2∥W
3/4 ∥U∥Lp2p(Ω) ∥U∥L4(Ω) .
⎝3 3 ⎠
1,2
0 (Ω)
(45)

We recall that p  =  1, 2 and we treat each case separately.

Case 1: p  =  1.
For p  =  1, the embedding L4(Ω) ↪ L2(Ω) and the application of Ladyzhenskaya’s
inequality yield,
⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 4
∥ β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟ ∥u2∥1L/24(Ω) ∥u2∥W
3/4 ∥U∥L2(Ω) ∥U∥L4(Ω)
⎝3 3 ⎠
1,2
0 (Ω)

⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 4
 ⩽ |Ω|1 / 2 − 1 / 4 ∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟ ∥u2∥W
3/4 ∥U∥2L4(Ω)
⎝3 3 ⎠
1,2
0 ( Ω)

⎛ 4 ⎞9 / 4
⩽|Ω|1 / 4 ∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟ ∥u2∥1L/24(Ω) ∥u2∥W
3/4 ∥U∥1L/22(Ω) ∥U∥W
3/2 , (46)
⎝3 3 ⎠
1,2 1,2
0 (Ω) 0 (Ω)

The double application of the Poincaré inequality combined with (13) give,
⎛ 4 ⎞9 / 4
|Ω |1 / 4 ∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟ ∥u2∥1L/24(Ω) ∥u2∥W 3/4 ∥U∥1L/22(Ω) ∥U∥W
3/2
⎝3 3 ⎠
1,2 1,2
0 (Ω) 0 (Ω)

⎛ 4 ⎞9 / 4

⩽|Ω|1 / 4 ∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟
1
∥u2∥Hφ(Ω) ∥U∥2Hφ(Ω) ,
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ1 1 / 8 + 1 / 4 1/2+1
φmin
(47)

1458
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

and by employing (34) we finally arrive at,

⎛ 4 ⎞9 / 4
|Ω|1 / 4 ∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟
1
∥u2∥Hφ(Ω) ∥U∥2Hφ(Ω)
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ13 / 8φmin
3/2

⎛ ⎞9 / 4
˜ E|Ω|1 / 4 ∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ 4 ⎟
⩽ ReC
1
| F| ∥U∥2Hφ(Ω) .
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ13 / 8φmin
3/2 (48)

Thus, the second term of the right-hand side of (38) is estimated as follows,

− ∫Ω β (|u1|p u1−|u2|p u2) ⋅ U dx

 ⎛ ⎞9 / 4
˜ E|Ω|1 / 4 ∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ 4 ⎟
⩽ ReC
1
|F| ∥U∥2Hφ(Ω) .
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ13 / 8φmin
3/2
(49)

Therefore, by introducing (43) and (49) to (38) and by employing (17), we get upon
rearrangement,

⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 2 Re˜ 2CE|F|
∥U∥,2E ⩽ (
C 2E ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ11 / 8φmin

Re˜ CE|Ω|1 / 4 ∥β∥L∞(Ω) |F| ⎛ 4 ⎞
)
2 9/4
+ ⎜ ⎟ ∥U∥2E . (50)
µ13 / 8φmin
3/2 ⎝3 3 ⎠

Consequently, if
⎛ 4 ⎞ Re 3/2
˜ CE| F| ˜ CE|Ω|1 / 4 ∥β∥L∞(Ω) |F| ⎛ 4 ⎞
Re 2 2 9/4
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ < 2,
1
+
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ1 φmin ⎝3 3 ⎠
(51) 1 / 8 3 / 8 3 / 2
µ1 φmin CE
U ≡ 0 and thus the uniqueness has been shown.
Case 2: p  =  2.
Our starting point is again (45). Here, the application of Ladyzhenskaya’s inequality
yields,
⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 4
∥β ∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟ ∥u2∥1L/24(Ω) ∥u2∥W 3/4 ∥U∥3L4(Ω)
⎝3 3 ⎠
1,2
0 (Ω)


⎛ 4 ⎞3
⩽∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟ ∥u2∥1L/24(Ω) ∥u2∥W 3/4 ∥U∥3L/24(Ω) ∥U∥W
9/4 . (52)
⎝3 3 ⎠
1,2 1,2
0 (Ω) 0 (Ω)

Applying Poincaré inequality twice and combining with (13) asserts that,
⎛ 4 ⎞3
∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟ ∥u2∥1L/24(Ω) ∥u2∥W
3/4 ∥U∥3L/24(Ω) ∥U∥W
9/4
⎝3 3 ⎠
1,2 1,2
0 (Ω) 0 (Ω)

⎛ 4 ⎞3
⩽∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟
1
∥u2∥Hφ(Ω) ∥U∥3Hφ(Ω)
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ11 / 8 + 3 / 8φmin
1/2+3/2 (53)

Now, equation (34) provides a crude, albeit sufficient, upper bound for ∥U∥Hφ(Ω) as well,
˜ E| F|. In view of this, (53) can be majorized as follows,
namely: ∥U∥Hφ(Ω) ⩽ 2ReC

1459
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

⎛ 4 ⎞3
∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ ⎟
1
∥u2∥Hφ(Ω) ∥U∥3Hφ(Ω)
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ11 / 8 + 3 / 8φmin
1/2+3/2

⎛ ⎞3
⩽ 4Re ˜ 2C 2E∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ 4 ⎟ 1
| F|2 ∥U∥2Hφ(Ω) . (54)
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ11 / 2φmin
2

Therefore, for the case p  =  2, the second term of the right-hand side of (38) is estimated as
follows:

− ∫Ω β (|u1|p u1 − |u2|p u2) ⋅ U dx

 ⎛ ⎞3
˜ 2C 2E∥β∥L∞(Ω) ⎜ 4 ⎟
⩽ 4Re
1
| F|2 ∥U∥2Hφ(Ω) .
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ1 φmin
1 / 2 2 (55)

Upon introduction of (43) and (55) to (38) and by employing, once more, (17) we get,
upon rearrangement,

⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 2 Re˜ 2CE| F|
∥U∥2E ⩽ C 2E( ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ11 / 8φmin

4 Re˜ CE∥β∥L∞(Ω) | F|2 ⎛ 4 ⎞3
)
3
+ ⎜ ⎟ ∥U∥2E . (56)
µ11 / 2φmin
2 ⎝3 3 ⎠

Consequently, if,

⎛ 4 ⎞3 / 2 Re
˜ 2CE|F| ˜ 3CE∥β∥L∞(Ω) |F|2 ⎛ 4 ⎞3
4Re
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ < 2,
1
+
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ µ11 / 8φmin ⎝ ⎠
(57) 1/2 2
µ1 φmin 3 3 CE
then U ≡ 0 and uniqueness is established.
Additional remarks
(i) The proof for n  =  2 follows the steps of the proof for n  =  3 but it is somewhat simpler for
two reasons. First, the two–dimensional version of Ladzyzheskaya’s inequality applies
with a different constant and exponents. Moreover, as is well known, the Sobolev embed-
ding W 1,2
0 (Ω) ↪ L (Ω) is valid for 2 < q < ∞. Therefore, the treatment of the Forchheimer
q

term is rendered less technical.

(ii) As mentioned above, by setting φ = 1 in (1)–(2) we recover (at least formally) the sta-
tionary Navier–Stokes equations. This is also reflected in inequalities (51) and (57) that
describe the uniqueness conditions. Indeed, by setting φ = 1, and hence φmin = 1, and
α = β = 0, we recover the well-known inequality that governs the uniqueness of solu-
tions for the stationary Navier–Stokes equations; see, for example, Ladyzhenskaya [26]
and Galdi [33].
(iii) The regularity of the boundary S is not relevant only to as a prerequisite of Korn’s ine-
quality, where a Lipschitz condition would suffice. This postulate pertains particularly if
one is interested to establish the connection between weak and classical solutions to equa-
tions (1)–(2), in which case φ has to be sufficiently smooth. Indeed, as shown by Heywood
[36] and subsequently by Ladyzhenskaya and Solonnikov [37], this connection requires the
equivalence of the functional spaces Jφ = {v ∈ W 1,2
0 (Ω) : ∇ ⋅ (φ v) = 0, ∫ φ v ⋅ n dS = 0}
∂Ω

1460
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

and Hφ. The nondegeneracy of φ and the C2-regularity of ∂ Ω constitute a sufficient condi-
tion for this equivalence.

4.  Existence of solutions for unbounded domains

In this section, we extend the proof of theorem 3.1 to the case where Ω is an unbounded
domain of Rn whilst the area occupied by the porous medium Ωp is presumed to have a finite
Lebesgue measure. The objective of this section is to prove the following theorem.

Theorem 4.1.  Let Ω be an unbounded domain. Assume further that ∫ φ f ⋅ vdx defines a
Ω
linear functional in the space Dφ(Ω). Then there exists at least one u ∈ Hφ(Ω) such that the
following integral inequalities are satisfied,

∫S
φ u ⋅ n dS = 0,
(58)

1 1
Re˜ ∫Ω φ L(u) : L(v) − 3 φ∇ ⋅ u∇ ⋅ v dx − ∫Ω φ u ⊗ u : ∇v dx + ∫Ω (α + β|u|p )u ⋅ v dx
= ∫Ω φ f ⋅ v dx, (59)

for all v ∈ Dφ(Ω).
Similarly to the bounded case, the proof is given for n  =  3 but all arguments extend to
n  =  2 as well with the necessary, albeit straightforward modifications.
Proof.  Let {Ωn}∞ n = 1 denote a monotonically increasing sequence of bounded domains such
that: (i) Ωn ⊂ Ωn + 1 ∀ n ∈ N, (ii) Ωp ⊂ Ω1 and (iii) lim n → ∞ = Ω.
For each set Ωn, theorem 3.1 asserts the existence of a unique solution un ∈ Hφ(Ωn) such that
the integral identity (20) is satisfied. Next, we claim that {un} converges weakly in Hφ(Ω) to a
function u ∈ Hφ(Ω). To see this, first observe that extending each un by setting its value equal
to zero outside Ωn implies that ∥un∥Hφ(Ωn) =∥un∥Hφ(Ω). Additionally, this asserts that f defines
a linear functional in every Ωn. Therefore, inequality (34) is still valid and for λ = 1 yields,
∥(60) ˜ E| F| , ∀ n ∈ N.
un∥Hφ(Ω) ⩽ ReC

Thus, passing, if necessary, to a subsequence still denoted by {un}, {un} converges weakly in
Hφ(Ω) to a function u ∈ Hφ(Ω).
It remains to establish that the limit function u satisfies the integral identity (59). For this
we treat each term separately. In view of our assumptions and (60) we readily have,
1
lim
n→∞ Re˜
∫Ω φL(un) : L(v) − 13 φ∇ ⋅ un∇ ⋅ vdx = Re1 ∫Ω φL(u) : L(v) − 13 φ∇ ⋅ u∇ ⋅ vdx,
∀ v ∈ Dφ(Ω). (61)

Note that the test-function v cannot be a member of Hφ(Ω) and (61) be valid for all n ∈ N.
For the second term of the left-hand side of (59), fix v ∈ Dφ(Ω). As before, since v is com-
pactly supported we can keep it fixed for all n and consider the limit,

1461
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

lim
(62)
n→∞ ∫Ω
φ unun : ∇vdx.

Next, Rellich’s theorem asserts that un converges strongly to u in L4(supp(v)) and, thus,

lim
(63)
n→∞ ∫Ω
φ unun : ∇vdx = ∫Ω
φ uu : ∇vdx.

Since v is an arbitrary element of Dφ(Ω), the proof for the second term is established.
The third term of the left-hand side of (59) is more involved. For this, we treat the Darcy
and the Forchheimer terms separately. First, fix v ∈ Dφ(Ω) and n ∈ N. Then,

∫Ω
(α + β| un|p )un ⋅ v dx =
(64) ∫Ω
α un ⋅ v dx + ∫Ω
β| un|p un ⋅ v dx,

and the Poincaré inequality, in conjunction with the L∞-boundedness of α, yield

∫Ω αun ⋅ v dx → ∫Ω α u ⋅ v dx as n → ∞ and ∀ v ∈ Dφ(Ω). For the second integral, since p  =  1, 2
and β ∈ L∞, the Rellich–Kondrashov compactness theorem asserts un converges strongly to u
both in L2(supp(v)) and in L4(supp(v)). In turn, this implies that,

lim
(65)
n→∞ ∫Ω
β| un|p un ⋅ v dx = ∫Ω
β| u|p u ⋅ v dx,

and since v is arbitrary, the proof for the third term is also completed. Upon combination of
(61), (63) and (65) we conclude that the limit-function u satisfies the integral inequality (59)
and thus the theorem has been proved. □
Additional remarks
(i) The case n  =  2 rests exactly upon the same arguments as the three-dimensional one. As
mentioned above, some care has to be exercised in the employment of Ladyzhenskaya’s
inequality and the Sobolev embedding theorem since discrepancies exist between n  =  2
and 3.
(ii) The assumption that Ωp has finite Lebesgue measure can be relaxed. For Ωp ⊂ Ω and
|Ω| = ∞ the arguments employed for the establishment of the existence of solutions carry
over, without imposing additional integrability conditions to either α or β.
(iii) For the case of bounded Ω, as asserted by (51) and (57), the uniqueness of solutions
depends on a smallness condition that involves, among others, the volume of Ω and the
first eigenvalue of the Laplacian µ1. Now, it is well known that µ1 can be estimated by the
inverse of the diameter of Ω which diverges for unbounded sets. Therefore, the arguments
employed in the uniqueness part of the proof of theorem 3.1 do not carry over to the
unbounded case.

5.  The case of strong solutions

Theorems 3.1 and 4.1 establish the existence and uniqueness of weak solutions, in the sense
of distributions, to the governing equations (8) and (9). Consequently, it is interesting to com-
ment on the extension of the results acquired thus far to the case of strong solutions. Since the
porosity φ has been assumed to be an L∞(Ω) function, two cases will be differentiated: i) φ
has a discontinuity implying that the porous medium-pure fluid interface is a sharp one and ii)

1462
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

φ ∈ C1(Ω) so that the porous medium-pure fluid interface is actually a smooth transition layer
(diffuse interface).
If φ supports a discontinuity then it is straightforward to verify that equations (8) and (9)
do not admit strong solutions of the C2-class. Thus, although it is possible that the (local)
regularity of the solutions established by theorems 3.1 and 4.1 may be improved, a global
C2-regularity is not possible to be achieved.
If by contrast φ ∈ C1(Ω), then the problem of determining strong solutions falls practically
in the domain of non-homogeneous Stokes equations and may be tackled with the methodolo-
gies developed therein. Such an analysis goes beyond the scopes of the present study but the
interested reader is referred to the works of Cho and Kim [38, 39], Huang and Wang [40] and
the references therein.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees whose remarks and suggestions have
improved the quality of this manuscript. Additionally, the first author gratefully acknowledges
the financial support of the National Research Fund of Belgium (FNRS) in the form of the
grant ‘Projet De Recherche GRANMIX’.

References

[1] Coulaud O, Morel P and Caltagirone J 1988 J. Fluid. Mech. 190 393–407

[2] Mei C and Auriault J 1991 J. Fluid Mech. 222 696–7
[3] Rasoloarijaona M and Auriault J 1994 Eur. J. Mech. B: Fluids 13 177–95
[4] Rojas S and Koplik J 1998 Phys. Rev. E 58 4776–82
[5] Skjetne E and Auriault J 1999 Eur. J. Mech. B: Fluids 18 131–45
[6] Yazdchi K and Luding S 2012 Chem. Eng. J. 207–8 35–48
[7] Straughan B 2010 Int. J. Eng. Sci. 48 1610–21
[8] Papalexandris M V and Antoniadis P 2015 Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 88 42–54
[9] Bdzil J B, Menikoff R, Son S F, Kapila A K and Stewart D S 1999 Phys. Fluids 11 378–492
[10] Nield D A and Bejan A 1992 Convection in Porous Media (Berlin: Springer)
[11] Straughan B 2005 Stability and Wave Motion in Porous Media (Berlin: Springer)
[12] Whitaker S 1996 Transp. Porous Med. 25 27–62
[13] Antoniadis P and Papalexandris M V 2015 Phys. Fluids 27 014104
[14] Kladias N and Prasad V 1991 J. Thermophys. 5 560–76
[15] Uğurlu D 2008 Nonlinear Anal. Theor. 68 1986–92
[16] Wang B and Lin S 2008 Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 31 1479–95
[17] Ouyang Y and Yang L-E 2009 Nonlinear Anal. Theor. 70 2054–9
[18] Kalantarov V K and Zelik S 2012 Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 11 2037–54
[19] Djoko J K and Razafimandimby P A 2014 Appl. Anal. 93 1477–94
[20] Magiera J, Rohde C and Rybak I 2016 Transp. Porous Media 114 425–55
[21] Payne L E and Straughan B 1999 Stud. Appl. Math. 102 419–39
[22] Franchi F and Straughan B 2003 Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 459 3195–202
[23] Çelebi A O, Kalantarov V K and Uǧurlu D 2005 Appl. Anal. 84 877–88
[24] Çelebi A O, Kalantarov V K and Uǧurlu D 2006 Appl. Math. Lett. 19 801–7
[25] Kaloni P and Guo J 1996 J. Math. Anal. Appl. 204 138–55
[26] Ladyzhenskaya O A 1969 Mathematical Theory of Viscous, Incompressible Flow (London: Gordon
and Breach)
[27] Ladyzhenskaya O, Rivkind J and Uralćeva N 1966 Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov 92 116–46
[28] Li Y Y and Vogelius M 2000 Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 153 91–151
[29] Huang J and Zou J 2002 J. Differ. Equ. 184 570–86
[30] Bresch D and Métivier G 2006 Nonlinearity 19 591

1463
Nonlinearity 30 (2017) 1449 C Varsakelis and M V Papalexandris

[31] Jiu Q and Niu D 2008 J. Math. Anal. Appl. 338 1070–80

[32] Leray J 1933 J. Math. Pures Appl. 12 1–82
[33] Galdi G 1994 An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier–Stokes Equations. Vol. I.
Linearized Steady Problems (Berlin: Springer)
[34] Lions  P  L 1996 Mathematical Topics in Fluid Mechanics, Volume 1: Incompressible Models
(Oxford: Oxford University Press)
[35] Adams R A and Fournier J J F 1975 Sobolev Spaces (London: Academic)
[36] Heywood J G 1976 Acta Math. 136 61–102
[37] Ladyzhenskaya O A and Solonnikov V A 1978 J. Sov. Math. 10 257–86
[38] Cho Y and Kim H 2003 Commun. PDE 28 1183–201
[39] Cho Y and Kim H 2004 Nonlinear Anal. 59 465–89
[40] Huang X and Wang Y 2015 J. Differ. Equ. 259 1606–27

1464