Abstract
Having in view a model proposed by Nield and Kuznetsov (Transp Porous Media 59:325–339, 2005; Transp Porous Media 96:495–499, 2013), we consider a more general system of coupled Navier–Stokes type equations in the incompressible case subject to the homogeneous Dirichlet condition in a bounded domain. We provide a deep theoretical analysis for large classes of equations and coupled systems of Navier–Stokes type with various nonhomogeneous terms of reaction type. Existence results are obtained by using a variational approach making use of several fixed point principles and matrix theory.
Authors
Mirela Kohr
Department of Mathematics BabesBolyai University, ClujNapoca, Romania
Radu Precup
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science and Institute of Advanced Studies in Science and Technology, Babeş–Bolyai University
Tiberiu Popoviciu Institute of Numerical Analysis, Romanian Academy
Keywords
Navier–Stokes equations; Bidisperse porous media; Fixed point technique.
Paper coordinates
M. Kohr, R. Precup, Analysis of NavierStokes models for flows in bidisperse porous media, J. Math. Fluid Mechanics, 25 (2023) art. no. 38, https://doi.org/10.1007/s0002102300784w
About this paper
Journal
Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics
Publisher Name
Springer
Print ISSN
Online ISSN
14226952
google scholar link
Paper (preprint) in HTML form
Analysis of NavierStokes models for flows in bidisperse porous media
Abstract.
Having in view a model proposed by Nield and Kuznetsov (2005, 2013), we consider a more general system of coupled NavierStokes type equations in the incompressible case subject to the homogeneous Dirichlet condition in a bounded domain. We provide a deep theoretical analysis for large classes of equations and coupled systems of NavierStokes type with various nonhomogeneous terms of reaction type. Existence results are obtained by using a variational approach making use of several fixed point principles and matrix theory.
Key words and phrases:
NavierStokes equations; bidisperse porous media; fixed point technique1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
35Q30, 76D05In memory of Professor Gabriela Kohr, with deep respect
1. Introduction
The Stokes and NavierStokes systems play a main role in various areas of fluid mechanics, engineering, biology, chemistry, and there is a huge list of references concerning the mathematical analysis of related boundary value problems and of their applications. Among of them, we mention the books [4], [5], [9], [13], [24], [25], [29], [41], [42], [45], [46].
Let $N\ge 2$ and $\mathrm{\Omega}$ be an open set in ${\mathbb{R}}^{N}$. Let $\eta ,\kappa \ge 0$ and $\mu >0$ be given constants. Let $\mathbf{u}$ and $p$ be unknown vector and scalar fields. Let us assume that $\mathbf{f}$ is a given vector field defined on $\mathrm{\Omega}$. Then the equations
(1.1)  $$\begin{array}{ccc}\mu \mathrm{\Delta}\mathbf{u}+\eta \mathbf{u}+\kappa \left(\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \right)\mathbf{u}+\nabla p=\mathbf{f},\mathrm{div}\mathbf{u}=0\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill & & \end{array}$$ 
determine a NavierStokes type system in the incompressible framework. If $\eta =0$ and $\kappa >0$ we then obtain the wellknown NavierStokes system in the incompressible case, while for $\eta =\kappa =0$, (1.1) becomes the Stokes system, which is an AgmonDouglisNirenberg elliptic and linear system (see, e.g., [13], [16], [29], [45] for further details).
Extensions to a more general case of anisotropic Stokes and NavierStokes systems with ${L}^{\mathrm{\infty}}$variable coefficients, and the analysis of various boundary value problems involving them can be consulted in [18], [19], [20], [21] and the references therein.
Fabes, Kenig and Verchota [12] used a layer potential approach in the analysis of the Dirichlet problem for the Stokes system on Lipschitz domains in the Euclidean setting (see also [10] for applications of the layer potential approach for strongly elliptic differential operators). Dindos̆ and Mitrea [11] proved the wellposedness in Sobolev and Besov spaces for the Dirichlet problem for the Stokes and NavierStokes systems with smooth coefficients in Lipschitz domains on compact Riemannian manifolds. Mitrea and Wright [27] obtained wellposedness results in Sobolev and Besov spaces for Dirichlet problems for the Stokes system with constant coefficients in Lipschitz domains in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ for Dirichlet problems for the Stokes, Oseen and NavierStokes systems with constant coefficients in a nonsolenoidal framework (see also the references therein).
Korobkov, Pileckas and Russo [22] studied the flux problem in the theory of steady NavierStokes equations with constant coefficients and nonhomogeneous boundary conditions. Amrouche and RodríguezBellido [1] proved the existence of a very weak solution for the nonhomogeneous Dirichlet problem for the compressible NavierStokes system in a bounded domain of the class ${C}^{1,1}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$.
Bulí$\stackrel{\u02c7}{c}$ek, Málek and $\stackrel{\u02c7}{Z}$abenský [6] studied a boundary value problem with homogeneous Dirichlet condition associated with a system of nonlinear partial differential equations that generalize the classical fluid flow models of Stokes, Darcy, Forchheimer and Brinkman, by assuming that the viscosity and the drag coefficient depend on the shear rate and the pressure. The authors proved the existence of weak solutions to the problem under a minimal number of conditions, and analyzed relevant examples of viscosities and drag coefficients modeling real physical situations.
The authors in [18] analyzed in ${L}^{2}$based Sobolev spaces, the nonhomogeneous boundary value problems of Dirichlettransmission type for the anisotropic Stokes and NavierStokes systems in a compressible framework in a bounded Lipschitz domain with a transversal Lipschitz interface in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, $n\ge 2$ ($n=2,3$ for the nonlinear problems). They proved the existence of a weak solution to the Dirichlet problem and the Dirichlettransmission problem for the nonlinear anisotropic NavierStokes system by using the LeraySchauder fixed point theorem and various results and estimates from the linear case, as well as the LerayHopf inequality and some other norm inequalities. Explicit conditions for uniqueness of solutions to the nonlinear problems have been also provided. Mixed problems and mixedtransmission problems for the anisotropic Stokes and NavierStokes systems in bounded Lipschitz domains with transversal Lipschitz interfaces have been considered in [19] and analyzed from the variational point of view. The authors in [17] used a layer potential approach and the LeraySchauder fixed point theorem and proved existence results for a nonlinear Neumanntransmission problem for the Stokes and Brinkman systems in ${L}^{p}$, Sobolev, and Besov spaces. Mazzucato and Nistor [26] obtained wellposedness and regularity results in Sobolev spaces for the linear elasticity equations in the anisotropic case with mixed boundary conditions on polyhedral domains.
1.1. Bidisperse porous media and some related models
A bidisperse porous medium (BDPM) may be described as a standard porous medium in which the solid phase is replaced by another porous medium. Thus, a BDPM can be viewed as a medium composed of clusters of large particles that are agglomerations of small particles (cf. [8], see also [32], [33]). The voids between the clusters are macropores and the voids within the clusters, which are much smaller in size, are micropores. We can then define the $f$phase (the macropores) and the $p$phase (the remainder of the structure). Bidisperse adsorbent or bidisperse capillary wicks in a heat pipe are practical applications related to bidisperse porous media. There are also various biological structures, such as bone regeneration scaffolds, that can be described in terms of bidisperse porous media (see also [33]).
Extending the Brinkman model for a monodisperse porous medium, Nield and Kuznetsov [30] considered a model to describe the steadystate momentum transfer in a BDPM by the following pair of coupled equations for ${v}_{f}^{\ast}$ and ${v}_{p}^{\ast}$,
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{G}=\frac{\mu}{{K}_{f}}{\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}+\zeta ({\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast}){\stackrel{~}{\mu}}_{f}{\mathrm{\Delta}}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}\hfill \\ \mathbf{G}=\frac{\mu}{{K}_{p}}{\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast}+\zeta ({\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}){\stackrel{~}{\mu}}_{p}{\mathrm{\Delta}}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast},\hfill \end{array}$$ 
where the asterisks denote dimensional variables, $\mathbf{G}$ is the negative of the applied pressure gradient, $\mu $ is the fluid viscosity, ${K}_{p}$ and ${K}_{f}$ are the permeabilities of the two phases, $\zeta $ is the coefficient for momentum transfer between the two phases, and ${\stackrel{~}{\mu}}_{f}$ and ${\stackrel{~}{\mu}}_{p}$ are the effective viscosities of the two phases (cf. also [32]). In the model proposed by Nield and Kuznetsov [30], the quadratic or Forchheimer terms ${\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast}$ and ${\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}$ have been neglected. This model and various extensions have been considered in many studies related to forced, natural and mixed convection. Among them, we mention [7], [23], [28], [31], [33], [40], [39], [43] (see also the references therein). The thermal convection in an anisotropic bidisperse porous medium has been investigated in [44].
Nield and Kuznetsov [33] extended their linear model proposed in [30] by adding some semilinear terms, called the Forchheimer drag terms, as follows
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{G}=\frac{\mu}{{K}_{f}}{\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}+\zeta ({\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast}){\stackrel{~}{\mu}}_{f}{\mathrm{\Delta}}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}+\frac{{c}_{f}\rho}{{K}_{f}^{1/2}}{\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}\hfill \\ \mathbf{G}=\frac{\mu}{{K}_{p}}{\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast}+\zeta ({\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{f}^{\ast}){\stackrel{~}{\mu}}_{p}{\mathrm{\Delta}}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast}+\frac{{c}_{p}\rho}{{K}_{p}^{1/2}}{\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast}{\mathbf{v}}_{p}^{\ast},\hfill \end{array}$$ 
where $\rho $ is the density of the fluid, and ${c}_{f}$ and ${c}_{p}$ are the Forchheimer coefficients.
The NieldKuznetsov models described above are based on the same pressure gradient $\mathbf{G}$ in both phases. Other models consider possible different pressures in the macro and micro phases. For instance, Straughan [44] having analyzed a model of thermal convection in an anisotropic bidispersive porous medium with permeability tensors in the macro and micro phases, considers different velocities ${\mathbf{U}}^{f}$ and ${\mathbf{U}}^{p}$ and different pressures ${p}^{f}$ and ${p}^{p}$ in the macro and micropores (see also [7] and the references therein for similar models of bidisperse porous media with different velocities and different pressures in macro and micro phases).
Having in view the model of Nield and Kuznetsov [33], where the steadystate momentum transfer is described by the previous semilinear system, and also the model of Straughan [44], we consider a more general nonlinear coupled type NavierStokes system arising in the analysis of fluid flows in bidisperse porous media. Thus, our paper is build around the following system
$$\{\begin{array}{c}{\mu}_{1}\mathrm{\Delta}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}+{\eta}_{1}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}+{\kappa}_{1}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{1}\cdot \nabla \right){\mathbf{u}}_{1}+\nabla {p}_{1}={\mathbf{h}}_{1}{\alpha}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}^{p1}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\gamma}_{1}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right)\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ {\mu}_{2}\mathrm{\Delta}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}+{\eta}_{2}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}+{\kappa}_{2}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{2}\cdot \nabla \right){\mathbf{u}}_{2}+\nabla {p}_{2}={\mathbf{h}}_{2}{\alpha}_{2}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}^{p1}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}{\gamma}_{2}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{2}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right)\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ \mathrm{div}\text{}{\mathbf{u}}_{i}=0\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ {\mathbf{u}}_{i}=0\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{on}\partial \mathrm{\Omega}\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(i=1,2\right),\hfill \end{array}$$ 
where $\mathrm{\Omega}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{N}$ is a bounded domain ($N\le 3$), $p\ge 1$, ${\eta}_{i},{\kappa}_{i},{\alpha}_{i}\ge 0$ and ${\mu}_{i},{\gamma}_{i}>0$, $i=1,2$, are given constants whose meaning depends on the physical properties of fluid flow and porous medium, while ${\mathbf{h}}_{i}$, $i=1,2$, are given data in some Sobolev spaces.
In order to analyze this system, we provide a deep analysis of a homogeneous Dirichlet problem of more general coupled NavierStokes systems with various nonhomogeneous terms of reaction type, and obtain existence results by using a variational approach combined with fixed point theorems, a technique already used for other classes of equations (see [34, Ch. 6], [35], [37, Chs. 912], [38]).
The paper is structured as follows. First, we mention some wellknown but useful results regarding the stationary NaviesStokes equations in the incompressible case. The next section is devoted to the analysis of the homogeneous Dirichlet problem for the NavierStokes equations with reaction terms. We obtain existence results based on the Schauder fixed point theorem and the LeraySchauder fixed point theorem. Uniqueness result can be also obtained by using the Banach contraction principle, by imposing additional conditions to the reaction terms. The third section is devoted to the analysis of a coupled system of NavierStokes equations. The last section is devoted to a coupled system that could describe a fluid flow in a bidisperse porous medium. We obtain related existence and uniqueness results that follow as consequences of the results obtained in the previous sections.
1.2. Stationary NavierStokes type equations
Let $N\le 3$ and $\mathrm{\Omega}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{N}$ be an bounded domain.
Next we recall some wellknown results about the system
(1.2)  $$\{\begin{array}{c}\mu \mathrm{\Delta}\mathbf{u}+\eta \mathbf{u}+\kappa \left(\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \right)\mathbf{u}+\nabla p=\mathbf{f}\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ \mathrm{div}\mathbf{u}=0\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ \mathbf{u}=0\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{on}\partial \mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \end{array}$$ 
where $\mu >0,\kappa ,\eta \ge 0$ are given constants and $\mathbf{f}\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ is a given distribution.
The variational form of system (1.2) with the unknown pair $(\mathbf{u},p)\in V\times {L}^{2}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)$ is
(1.3)  $\mu {(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{{H}_{0}^{1}}+\eta {(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{{L}^{2}}+\kappa b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}){(p,\mathrm{div}\mathbf{v})}_{{L}^{2}}$  $=$  $(\mathbf{f},\mathbf{v}),\mathbf{v}\in {H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N},$ 
where
${(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{{L}^{2}}$  $=$  $\sum _{i=1}^{N}}{\displaystyle {\int}_{\mathrm{\Omega}}}{u}_{i}{v}_{i},{(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{{H}_{0}^{1}}={\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{N}}{\displaystyle {\int}_{\mathrm{\Omega}}}\nabla {u}_{i}\cdot \nabla {v}_{i$  
$b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w})$  $=$  $\sum _{i,j=1}^{N}}{\displaystyle {\int}_{\mathrm{\Omega}}}{u}_{j}{\displaystyle \frac{\partial {v}_{i}}{\partial {x}_{j}}}{w}_{i},(\mathbf{f},\mathbf{v})={\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{N}}({f}_{i},{v}_{i}),$  
$V$  $=$  $\{\mathbf{v}=({v}_{1},\mathrm{\dots},{v}_{N})\in {H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}:\mathrm{div}\mathbf{v}=0\}.$ 
For $\mathbf{u}\in V,$ equation (1.3) gives
(1.4)  $$\mu {(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{{H}_{0}^{1}}+\eta {(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{{L}^{2}}+\kappa b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})=(\mathbf{f},\mathbf{v}),\mathbf{v}\in V.$$ 
Once a solution $\mathbf{u}\in V$ to (1.4) is found, the pressure $p\in {L}^{2}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)$ is guaranteed by De Rham’s Theorem (cf., e.g., [45, Proposition 1.1, Chapter 1], [15, Theorem 2.3, Chapter 1], see also [2], [3, Theorem 2.1]).
On ${H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ consider the inner product and norm
$${(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{0}:={\int}_{\mathrm{\Omega}}\left(\mu \nabla \mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \mathbf{v}+\eta \mathbf{u}\cdot \mathbf{v}\right),{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{0}^{2}:={\int}_{\mathrm{\Omega}}\left(\mu {\left\nabla \mathbf{u}\right}^{2}+\eta {\left\mathbf{u}\right}^{2}\right),$$ 
which when applied to the subspace $V$ will be denoted by ${(\cdot ,\cdot )}_{V}$ and $\cdot {}_{V}$ , respectively. Then the embedding constants and the corresponding inequalities for the inclusions $V\subset {L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\subset {V}^{\prime}$ are
(1.5)  $${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{{L}^{2}}\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu {\lambda}_{1}+\eta}}{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(\mathbf{u}\in V\right),{\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu {\lambda}_{1}+\eta}}{\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{L}^{2}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\left(\mathbf{h}\in {L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\right),$$ 
where ${\lambda}_{1}$ is the first eigenvalue of $\mathrm{\Delta}$ with respect to the homogeneous Dirichlet problem. Indeed, knowing that
$${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{{L}^{2}}\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\lambda}_{1}}}{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{{H}_{0}^{1}}\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(\mathbf{u}\in {H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\right),{\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\lambda}_{1}}}{\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{L}^{2}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\left(\mathbf{h}\in {L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\right),$$ 
we have
(1.6)  $${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}^{2}=\mu {\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{{H}_{0}^{1}}^{2}+\eta {\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{{L}^{2}}^{2}\ge \left(\mu {\lambda}_{1}+\eta \right){\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{{L}^{2}}^{2},$$ 
whence the first inequality in (1.5). Based on (1.6), the second inequality is obtained as follows:
$${\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}=\underset{\mathbf{v}\in V}{sup}\frac{\left(\mathbf{h},\mathbf{v})\right}{{\left\mathbf{v}\right}_{V}}\le {\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{L}^{2}}\underset{\mathbf{v}\in V}{sup}\frac{{\left\mathbf{v}\right}_{{L}^{2}}}{{\left\mathbf{v}\right}_{V}}\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu {\lambda}_{1}+\eta}}{\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{L}^{2}}.$$ 
Also $V\subset {H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\subset {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\subset {V}^{\prime}$ and
(1.7)  $${\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}=\underset{\mathbf{v}\in V}{sup}\frac{\left(\mathbf{h},\mathbf{v})\right}{{\left\mathbf{v}\right}_{V}}\le \underset{\mathbf{v}\in {H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}}{sup}\frac{\left(\mathbf{h},\mathbf{v})\right}{{\left\mathbf{v}\right}_{V}}={\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\left(\mathbf{h}\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\right).$$ 
Recall that the trilinear functional $b:V\times V\times V\to \mathbb{R}$ satisfies
$b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w})+b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w},\mathbf{v})$  $=$  $0\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\left(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}\in V\right),$  
$\leftb(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w})\right$  $\le $  $M{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}{\left\mathbf{v}\right}_{V}{\left\mathbf{w}\right}_{V},$ 
where $M>0$ is a constant depending on $\mu $ and $\eta .$ Also, using the Galerkin method, one can prove that for every $\mathbf{f}\in {V}^{\prime}$, equation $(\text{1.4})$ has at least one solution $\mathbf{u}\in V$ (see, e.g., [13], [45]).
Uniqueness: For every $\mathbf{f}\in {V}^{\prime},$ with $$ equation (1.4) has at most one solution $\mathbf{u}\in V.$ Indeed, if ${\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\in V$ are solutions and we let $\mathbf{u}={\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\mathbf{u}}_{2},$ then using (1.4) one has
$0$  $=$  ${(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{V}+\kappa b({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{1},\mathbf{v})\kappa b({\mathbf{u}}_{2},{\mathbf{u}}_{2},\mathbf{v})$  
$=$  ${(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{V}+\kappa \left(b({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{1},\mathbf{v})b({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{2},\mathbf{v})+b({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{2},\mathbf{v})b({\mathbf{u}}_{2},{\mathbf{u}}_{2},\mathbf{v})\right)$  
$=$  ${(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{V}+\kappa \left(b({\mathbf{u}}_{1},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})+b(\mathbf{u},{\mathbf{u}}_{2},\mathbf{v})\right),$ 
which for $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{u},$ since $b({\mathbf{u}}_{1},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u})=0,$ gives
$${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}^{2}=\kappa b(\mathbf{u},{\mathbf{u}}_{2},\mathbf{u})\le \kappa M{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}^{2}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{V}.$$ 
On the other hand for ${\mathbf{u}}_{2},$ taking in (1.4) $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{u}={\mathbf{u}}_{2},$ one has
$${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{V}^{2}=(\mathbf{f},{\mathbf{u}}_{2})\le {\left\mathbf{f}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{V}.$$ 
Then
$${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}^{2}\left(1\kappa M{\left\mathbf{f}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}\right)\le 0,$$ 
which for $$ yields ${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}=0,$ that is ${\mathbf{u}}_{1}={\mathbf{u}}_{2}.$ Denote the unique solution by ${\mathbf{u}}_{\mathbf{f}}.$
Thus we may define the solution operator
$$S:{D}_{0}\to V,\mathbf{f}\u27fc{\mathbf{u}}_{\mathbf{f}}.$$ 
Here $$ In addition, since the trilinear functional $b$ satisfies
$$b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w})+b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w},\mathbf{v})=0,$$ 
one has $b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u})=0,$ whence taking in (1.4) $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{u}=S\left(\mathbf{f}\right)$ we see that
(1.8)  $${\leftS\left(\mathbf{f}\right)\right}_{V}\le {\left\mathbf{f}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}.$$ 
Also using the linearity of $b$ in each of its variables gives
$b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w})b(\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w})$  
$=$  $b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w})b(\mathbf{v},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w})+b(\mathbf{v},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w})b(\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w})$  
$=$  $b(\mathbf{u}\mathbf{v},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{w})+b(\mathbf{v},\mathbf{u}\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}).$ 
Then
${\leftS\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right)\right}_{V}^{2}$  $=$  $(\mathbf{f}\mathbf{g},S\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right))$  
$+\kappa b(S\left(\mathbf{g}\right),S\left(\mathbf{g}\right),S\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right))\kappa b(S\left(\mathbf{f}\right),S\left(\mathbf{f}\right),S\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right))$  
$=$  $(\mathbf{f}\mathbf{g},S\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right))+\kappa b(S\left(\mathbf{g}\right)S\left(\mathbf{f}\right),S\left(\mathbf{g}\right),S\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right))$  
$+\kappa b(S\left(\mathbf{f}\right),S\left(\mathbf{g}\right)S\left(\mathbf{f}\right),S\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right)).$ 
Hence
${\leftS\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right)\right}_{V}^{2}$  $\le $  ${\left\mathbf{f}\mathbf{g}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}{\leftS\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right)\right}_{V}+\kappa M{\leftS\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right)\right}_{V}^{2}\left({\leftS\left(\mathbf{g}\right)\right}_{V}+{\leftS\left(\mathbf{f}\right)\right}_{V}\right)$  
$\le $  ${\left\mathbf{f}\mathbf{g}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}{\leftS\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(g\right)\right}_{V}+\kappa M\left({\left\mathbf{f}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}+{\left\mathbf{g}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}\right){\leftS\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right)\right}_{V}^{2}.$ 
As a result, if ${\left\mathbf{f}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}},{\left\mathbf{g}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}\le \rho ,$ then
(1.9)  $$\left(12\kappa M\rho \right){\leftS\left(\mathbf{f}\right)S\left(\mathbf{g}\right)\right}_{V}\le {\left\mathbf{f}\mathbf{g}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}.$$ 
Therefore, if $12\kappa M\rho >0,$ i.e., $$ then the operator $S$ is Lipschitz continuous on the ball of ${V}^{\prime}$ centered at the origin and of radius $\rho $. Note that in the case $\kappa =0$, inequality (1.9) shows that the solution operator $S$ is Lipschitz continuous on the entire space ${V}^{\prime}$. Let us introduce a notation for the Lipschitz constant, namely
$$L\left(\rho \right):={\left(12\kappa M\rho \right)}^{1}.$$ 
Note that, in the case of the Stokes system, one has $\kappa =\eta =0$ and thus $S$ is welldefined and Lipschitz continuous on the whole space ${V}^{\prime}$.
1.3. Notions of vector analysis in fixed point theory
In this paper we assume that the reader is familiar with Banach contraction principle and Schauder and LeraySchauder fixed point theorems. However, we consider it useful to present some less known elements of vector analysis in fixed point theory. For more details we refer the reader to [36].
A square matrix $\mathcal{A}$ with nonnegative entries is said to be convergent to zero if its power ${\mathcal{A}}^{k}$ tends to the zero matrix as $k$ tends to infinity. This property is equivalent to the fact that the spectral radius of $\mathcal{A}$ is less than one, and also to the property that $\mathcal{J}\mathcal{A}$ is invertible and its inverse also has nonnegative entries (here $\mathcal{J}$ is the unit matrix).
A matrix $\mathcal{A}={\left[{a}_{ij}\right]}_{i,j=1,2}$ of size two is convergent to zero if and only if
(1.10)  $$ 
The property of being convergent to zero of a matrix $\mathcal{A}$ is useful to pass from a matrix inequality of the form $\left(\mathcal{J}\mathcal{A}\right)\mathbf{u}\le \mathbf{v},$ where $\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}$ are column vectors and the inequality is understood on components, to the inequality $\mathbf{u}\le {\left(\mathcal{J}\mathcal{A}\right)}^{1}\mathbf{v},$ without change of inequality. The notion is even more important since it extends to matrices the situation on real numbers $$ asked on the Lipschitz constant in Banach contraction theorem. More exactly we have the following result, a special case of the more general Perov’s fixed point theorem:
Let $k\ge 1$ be a given integer, $(X,.{}_{X})$ be a Banach space, and ${X}^{k}:=\underset{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{times}}{\underset{\u23df}{X\times \mathrm{\cdots}\times X}}$. If $D\subset {X}^{k}$ is closed, and $T:D\to D,$ $T=({T}_{1},\mathrm{\cdots},{T}_{k})$ is a mapping satisfying the matrix condition
$$\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{T}_{1}\left(\mathbf{u}\right){T}_{1}\left(\mathbf{v}\right)\right}_{X}\\ \mathrm{\vdots}\\ {\left{T}_{k}\left(\mathbf{u}\right){T}_{k}\left(\mathbf{v}\right)\right}_{X}\end{array}\right]\le \mathcal{A}\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{u}_{1}{v}_{1}\right}_{X}\\ \mathrm{\vdots}\\ {\left{u}_{k}{v}_{k}\right}_{X}\end{array}\right]$$ 
for all $\mathbf{u}=({u}_{1},\mathrm{\cdots},{u}_{k}),\mathbf{v}=({v}_{1},\mathrm{\cdots},{v}_{k})\in D$ and some matrix $\mathcal{A}$, which is convergent to zero, then $T$ has a unique fixed point $\mathbf{u}\in D,$ i.e., ${T}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)={u}_{i}$ for $i=1,\mathrm{\dots},k.$
2. NavierStokes type equations with reaction terms
Consider now the problem
(2.1)  $$\{\begin{array}{c}\mu \mathrm{\Delta}\mathbf{u}+\eta \mathbf{u}+\kappa \left(\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \right)\mathbf{u}+\nabla p=\mathbf{h}+F\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ \mathrm{div}\mathbf{u}=0\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ \mathbf{u}=0\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{on}\partial \mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \end{array}$$ 
where $\mathbf{h}\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ and $F:{H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\to {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}.$ The problem can be reduced to the fixed point equation in $V,$
(2.2)  $$\mathbf{u}=S\left(\mathbf{h}+F\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right)$$ 
having in mind that the solution operator $S$ is defined and Lipschitz continuous on the open ball of ${H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ centered at the origin and of radius $1/\left(2\kappa M\right).$
Theorem 2.1.
Assume that $F:{H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\to {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N},$ $F\left(0\right)=0$ and
(2.3)  $$ 
for some constant $$ Then for each $\mathbf{h}\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ with
(2.4)  $$ 
equation (2.2) has a unique solution $\mathbf{u}\in V$ such that
(2.5)  $$ 
Proof.
First, we consider the case $\kappa >0$. Let $\epsilon $ be arbitrarily closed to $1/a$ with $$ such that
$${\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le \left(1a\right)\frac{\epsilon 1}{2\kappa M\epsilon}.$$ 
Denote $R=R(\epsilon ):={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon 1}{2\kappa M\epsilon}}.$ Thus ${\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le \left(1a\right)R.$ Clearly $$ hence inequality (2.3) holds for all $\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}$ in the closed ball ${B}_{R}$ of $(V,.{}_{V})$ centered at the origin and of radius $R.$ In addition, for $\mathbf{u}\in {B}_{R},$ one has
${\left\mathbf{h}+F\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}$  $\le $  ${\left\mathbf{h}+F\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le {\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+a{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}$  
$\le $  $$ 
Consequently the operator
$$T\left(\mathbf{u}\right):=S\left(\mathbf{h}+F\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right)$$ 
is well defined in ${B}_{R}$ and for ${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V},{\left\mathbf{v}\right}_{V}\le R,$ using (1.9) one has
${\leftT\left(\mathbf{u}\right)T\left(\mathbf{v}\right)\right}_{V}$  $\le $  $L\left(R\right){\leftF\left(\mathbf{u}\right)F\left(\mathbf{v}\right)\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}\le L\left(R\right){\leftF\left(\mathbf{u}\right)F\left(\mathbf{v}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}$  
$\le $  $aL\left(R\right){\left\mathbf{u}\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}.$ 
Since $$ (which can be checked easily), we have that $T$ is a contraction on ${B}_{R}.$ In addition from (1.8) and (2) we have
(2.7)  $${\leftT\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{V}\le {\left\mathbf{h}+F\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le R,$$ 
which proves that $T\left({B}_{R}\right)\subset {B}_{R}.$ Thus the Banach contraction principle applies and gives the existence and uniqueness of solution $\mathbf{u}$ in ${B}_{R}$, where $R=R(\epsilon )={\displaystyle \frac{1{\epsilon}^{1}}{2\kappa M}}$. Since $R(\epsilon )\to \frac{1a}{2\kappa M}$ as $\epsilon \to \frac{1}{a}$, we obtain the existence and uniqueness of solution $\mathbf{u}$ satisfying (2.5). This closes the proof in the case $\kappa >0$.
In the case $\kappa =0$, the operator $T$ is a contraction on the entire space $V$ and hence the solution exists and is unique in $V$. ∎
For the next result, instead of the Lipschitz continuity, we only assume a linear growth of $F.$
Theorem 2.2.
Assume that $F:{H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\to {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ is completely continuous, satisfies the growth condition
(2.8)  $$ 
with some constant $a>0$ and $\mathbf{h}$ is as in (2.4). Then equation (2.2) has at least one solution $\mathbf{u}\in V$ satisfying (2.5).
Proof.
As above, $T$ maps the ball ${B}_{R}$ of $(V,\cdot {}_{V})$ into itself. In addition, the operator $T$ is completely continuous. The result follows from Schauder’s fixed point theorem. ∎
A better result can be derived from the LeraySchauder fixed point theorem, without the linear growth condition on $F$.
Theorem 2.3.
Assume that the operator $F:{H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\to {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ is completely continuous and there exists $$ such that
(2.9)  $$(F\left(\mathbf{u}\right),\mathbf{u})\le c{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{0}^{2}\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(\mathbf{u}\in {H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\right).$$ 
Then for each $R>0$ satisfying
$$ 
where $\sigma ={sup}_{\mathbf{u}\in {B}_{R}}{\leftF\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}$ and ${B}_{R}=\{\mathbf{u}\in V:{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}\le R\},$ equation (2.2) has at least one solution $\mathbf{u}\in {B}_{R}$ for every $\mathbf{h}\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ with
(2.10)  $${\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le \left(1c\right)R.$$ 
Moreover, any solution $\mathbf{u}$ satisfies
(2.11)  $${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}\le \frac{1}{1c}{\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{H}^{1}}.$$ 
Proof.
For $\mathbf{u}\in {B}_{R},$ one has
$$ 
Hence $T$ is welldefined and continuous on the closed ball ${B}_{R}$ of $V.$ Moreover, the Lipschitz continuity of the solution operator $S$ implies that $S$ is a bounded operator (it maps bounded sets into bounded sets) which together with the complete continuity of $F$ implies that the operator $T$ is also completely continuous on ${B}_{R}.$ (Recall that $T\left(\mathbf{u}\right):=S\left(\mathbf{h}+F\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right)$.)
Next we show that the LeraySchauder condition holds, namely
$${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}=R\Rightarrow T\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\ne \lambda \mathbf{u}\text{for all}\lambda 1.$$ 
Assume the contrary, i.e. $T\left(\mathbf{u}\right)=\lambda \mathbf{u}$ for some $\mathbf{u}$ with ${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}=R$ and $\lambda >1.$ Then as in (1.4) we obtain the variational equation
$$\lambda \mu {(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{{H}_{0}^{1}}+\lambda \eta {(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})}_{{L}^{2}}+{\lambda}^{2}\kappa b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})=(\mathbf{h}+F\left(\mathbf{u}\right),\mathbf{v}),\mathbf{v}\in V.$$ 
Choosing $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{u}$ in the above equation and using inequalities (1.7) and (2.9) one obtains
$$  $=(\mathbf{h}+F\left(\mathbf{u}\right),\mathbf{u})$  
$\le {\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{V}^{\prime}}{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}+c{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}^{2}\le {\left\mathbf{h}\right}_{{H}^{1}}{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}+c{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}^{2}.$ 
Since ${\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{V}=R,$ it follows that
$$ 
a contradiction. Thus, the LeraySchauder fixed point theorem guarantees the existence of a solution.
Remark 2.1.
 (a):

If $F:{L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\to {L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ and there exists a constant ${a}_{0}>0$ such that
$${\leftF\left(\mathbf{u}\right)F\left(\mathbf{v}\right)\right}_{{L}^{2}}\le {a}_{0}{\left\mathbf{u}\mathbf{v}\right}_{{L}^{2}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\left(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\in {L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\right),$$ then using twice Poincaré’s inequality gives
${\leftF\left(\mathbf{u}\right)F\left(\mathbf{v}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}$ $\le $ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\lambda}_{1}}}}{\leftF\left(\mathbf{u}\right)F\left(\mathbf{V}\right)\right}_{{L}^{2}}\le {\displaystyle \frac{{a}_{0}}{\sqrt{{\lambda}_{1}}}}{\left\mathbf{u}\mathbf{v}\right}_{{L}^{2}$ $\le $ $\frac{{a}_{0}}{\sqrt{{\lambda}_{1}\left(\mu {\lambda}_{1}+\eta \right)}}}{\left\mathbf{u}\mathbf{v}\right}_{V$ for all $\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\in V$ and so condition (2.3) holds with $a={a}_{0}/\sqrt{{\lambda}_{1}\left(\mu {\lambda}_{1}+\eta \right)}.$
 (b):

Analogously, if $F:{L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\to {L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ and
$${\leftF\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{L}^{2}}\le {a}_{0}{\left\mathbf{u}\right}_{{L}^{2}}\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\left(\mathbf{u}\in {L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\right),$$ then condition (2.8) holds with $a={a}_{0}/\sqrt{{\lambda}_{1}\left(\mu {\lambda}_{1}+\eta \right)}.$
 (c):

If $F:{L}^{p}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\to {L}^{q}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ is continuous and either $$ $q\ge {\left({2}^{\ast}\right)}^{\prime},$ or $p\le {2}^{\ast},q>{\left({2}^{\ast}\right)}^{\prime},$ then $F$ is completely continuous from ${H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ to ${H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}.$ This follows from the continuous (compact) embeddings ${H}_{0}^{1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)\subset {L}^{p}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)$ for $$ and ${L}^{q}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)\subset {H}^{1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)$ for $q\ge {\left({2}^{\ast}\right)}^{\prime}$ $\left(q>{\left({2}^{\ast}\right)}^{\prime}\right).$ In particular, if $F:{L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\to {L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ is continuous, then it is completely continuous from ${H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ to ${H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}.$
Recall that for $N>2$, ${2}^{*}=\frac{2N}{N2}$, while for $N=2$, ${2}^{*}=+\mathrm{\infty}$. In addition, $\frac{1}{{2}^{*}}+\frac{1}{{\left({2}^{*}\right)}^{\prime}}=1$.
3. A coupled system of two NavierStokes type equations
Consider now the system
(3.1)  $$\{\begin{array}{c}{\mu}_{i}\mathrm{\Delta}{\mathbf{u}}_{i}+{\eta}_{i}{\mathbf{u}}_{i}+{\kappa}_{i}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{i}\cdot \nabla \right){\mathbf{u}}_{i}+\nabla {p}_{i}={\mathbf{h}}_{i}+{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ \mathrm{div}{\mathbf{u}}_{i}=0\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ {\mathbf{u}}_{i}=0\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{on}\partial \mathrm{\Omega}\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(i=1,2\right)\hfill \end{array}$$ 
where $\mathbf{u}$ stands for the pair $({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{2}),{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ and ${F}_{i}:{H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}\to {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}\left(i=1,2\right).$ The problem can be reduced to the fixed point equation in ${V}^{2}$
(3.2)  $${\mathbf{u}}_{i}={S}_{i}\left({\mathbf{h}}_{i}+{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right),i=1,2,$$ 
where $\mathbf{u}=({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{2})\in {V}^{2}$, and ${S}_{i}$ stands for the solution operator corresponding to ${\mathbf{u}}_{i}\in V$. (Here ${S}_{i}$ is the solution operator corresponding to system (3.1) with fixed $i$, compare also with (2.1).)
Denote by ${(\cdot ,\cdot )}_{i}$ and $\cdot {}_{i}$ the inner product ${(\cdot ,\cdot )}_{0}$ and norm $\cdot {}_{0}$ corresponding to ${\mu}_{i}$ and ${\eta}_{i}.$ Also denote by ${M}_{i}$ the constant $M$ with respect to the norm $\cdot {}_{i}$ of $V.$
Assume that the following conditions hold:
 (H1):

for $i=1,2,$ one has ${F}_{i}:{H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}\to {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N},$ ${F}_{i}\left(0\right)=0$ and
$$ where ${a}_{i1},{a}_{i2}$ are nonnegative constants such that $$, and ${\theta}_{j}:=1/\left(2{\kappa}_{j}{M}_{j}\right)$.
 (H2):

there exist ${\epsilon}_{i}>1$, $i=1,2,$ such that
(3.3) $$  (H3):

${\mathbf{h}}_{i}\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ and
$${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le \left(1{a}_{i1}{a}_{i2}\right)R\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(i=1,2\right),$$ where
(3.4) $$R:=\mathrm{min}\{{R}_{1},{R}_{2}\},{R}_{i}:=\frac{{\epsilon}_{i}1}{2{\kappa}_{i}{\epsilon}_{i}{M}_{i}}.$$
Theorem 3.1.
Under assumptions (H1)(H3), system (3.2) has a unique solution $\mathbf{u}=({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{2})$ $\in {V}^{2}$ such that
$${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{i}\right}_{i}\le R\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(i=1,2\right).$$ 
Proof.
First note that the operator ${T}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right):={S}_{i}\left({\mathbf{h}}_{i}+{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right)$ is welldefined on
(3.5)  $${D}_{R}:=\{\mathbf{u}=({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{2})\in {V}^{2}:{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{i}\right}_{i}\le R,i=1,2\}.$$ 
Indeed, using (H1) one has
${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}+{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}$  $\le $  ${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+{\left{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}$  
$\le $  ${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+{a}_{i1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}+{a}_{i2}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}$  
$\le $  $\left(1{a}_{i1}{a}_{i2}\right)R+{a}_{i1}R+{a}_{i2}R$  
$=$  $$ 
Also if $T=({T}_{1},{T}_{2}),$ then $T\left({D}_{R}\right)\subset {D}_{R}.$ Indeed, if $\mathbf{u}\in {D}_{R},$ then according to (1.8) and the last estimate,
$${\left{T}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{i}={\left{S}_{i}\left({\mathbf{h}}_{i}+{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right)\right}_{i}\le {\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}+{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le R,$$ 
that is $T\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\in {D}_{R}.$ Next, again from (H1), we have
$${\left{T}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right){T}_{i}\left(\mathbf{v}\right)\right}_{i}\le {L}_{i}\left({R}_{i}\right)\left({a}_{i1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\mathbf{v}}_{1}\right}_{1}+{a}_{i2}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}{\mathbf{v}}_{2}\right}_{2}\right),i=1,2,$$ 
where
$${L}_{i}({R}_{i})=\frac{1}{12{\kappa}_{i}{M}_{i}{R}_{i}},i=1,2.$$ 
These inequalities can be put under the vector form
$$\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{T}_{1}\left(\mathbf{u}\right){T}_{1}\left(\mathbf{v}\right)\right}_{1}\\ {\left{T}_{2}\left(\mathbf{u}\right){T}_{2}\left(\mathbf{v}\right)\right}_{2}\end{array}\right]\le \mathcal{M}\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\mathbf{v}}_{1}\right}_{1}\\ {\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}{\mathbf{v}}_{2}\right}_{2}\end{array}\right]$$ 
in terms of the matrix
$$\mathcal{M}={\left[{L}_{i}\left({R}_{i}\right){a}_{ij}\right]}_{i,j=1,2}.$$ 
Here, a direct computation based on the expression of ${R}_{i}$ given by (3.4) shows that
$${L}_{i}\left({R}_{i}\right)={\epsilon}_{i},$$ 
and hence $\mathcal{M}={\left[{\epsilon}_{i}{a}_{ij}\right]}_{i,j=1,2}.$ Moreover, inequality (3.3), in view of (1.10), implies that $\mathcal{M}$ is a matrix that converges to zero, equivalently, whose spectral radius is less than one. Therefore Perov’s fixed point theorem applies to $T$ and guarantees that $T$ has in ${D}_{R}$ a unique fixed point.
Again we recall that if ${\kappa}_{i}=0$ for some $i\in \{1,2\}$, one has that ${R}_{i}=+\mathrm{\infty}$. Moreover, if ${\kappa}_{1}={\kappa}_{2}=0$, then ${D}_{R}={V}^{2}$. ∎
Remark 3.1.
$(a)$ A sufficient condition for (H2) to hold is that the matrix $\mathcal{A}:={\left[{a}_{ij}\right]}_{i,j=1,2}$ is convergent to zero, i.e.
(3.6)  $$ 
Indeed, the strict inequality in (3.6) remains true if we insert, as condition (3.3) requires, the coefficients ${\epsilon}_{1},{\epsilon}_{2}>1$ sufficiently closed to $1$.
$(b)$ A sufficient condition for (3.6) to hold is that $$ for $i=1,2.$ Indeed, summing up the two inequalities gives $$ whence one has even more $$ In addition, the inequality $$ also holds in view of its equivalent form $$ and of the assumptions $$ and $$.
Remark 3.2.
In the case of the Stokes type equations, when ${\kappa}_{1}={\kappa}_{2}=0$, under condition (H1) with $$for $i=1,2,$ problem (3.1) has a unique solution for every $({\mathbf{h}}_{1},{\mathbf{h}}_{2})\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}.$
If instead of the Lipschitz condition (H1) and of condition (H3) we consider the more relaxed hypotheses:
 (H1^{∗}):

for $i=1,2,$ ${F}_{i}:{H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}\to {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ is completely continuous and
$$  (H3^{∗}):

$1>{a}_{i1}+{a}_{i2},$ ${\mathbf{h}}_{i}\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ and
(3.7) $$ where
$$\theta :=\mathrm{min}\{{\theta}_{1},{\theta}_{2}\},$$
then we can prove the existence of at least one solution.
Theorem 3.2.
Under assumptions (H1^{∗}) and (H3^{∗}), system (3.2) has at least one solution $u=({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{2})$ $\in {V}^{2}$ such that
$$ 
Proof.
In view of the strict inequalities (3.7), we may chose a number $R$ with $$ such that
$${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le \left(1{a}_{i1}{a}_{i2}\right)R\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(i=1,2\right).$$ 
Then, as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, the operators ${T}_{i}$ are welldefined and for $T=({T}_{1},{T}_{2})$ and ${D}_{R}$ given by (3.5) with $R$ as above, one has $T\left({D}_{R}\right)\subset {D}_{R}.$ Here in addition $T$ is completely continuous, hence Schauder’s fixed point theorem applies and gives the conclusion. ∎
The next result is the version for systems of Theorem 2.3.
Theorem 3.3.
Assume that the operators ${F}_{i}:{H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}\to {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ $\left(i=1,2\right)$ are completely continuous and there exist ${c}_{i},{d}_{i}\ge 0$ with $$ such that that for each $i,$
(3.8)  $$({F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right),{\mathbf{u}}_{i})\le {c}_{i}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{i}\right}_{i}^{2}+{d}_{i}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(\mathbf{u}\in {H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}\right).$$ 
Then for each $R>0$ satisfying
(3.9)  $$ 
where ${\sigma}_{i}\left(R\right):={sup}_{\mathbf{u}\in {D}_{R}}{\left{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}},$ system (3.2) has at least one solution $\mathbf{u}\in {D}_{R}$ for every $({\mathbf{h}}_{1},{\mathbf{h}}_{2})\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}$ with
(3.10)  $${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le \left(1{c}_{i}{d}_{i}\right)R.$$ 
Moreover, for any solution $\mathbf{u}=({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{2})$ one has the matrix estimate
(3.11)  $$\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}\\ {\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\end{array}\right]\le {\left(\mathcal{I}\mathcal{A}\right)}^{1}\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{\mathbf{h}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\\ {\left{\mathbf{h}}_{2}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\end{array}\right],$$ 
where
$$\mathcal{A}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}{c}_{1}\hfill & {d}_{1}\hfill \\ {d}_{2}\hfill & {c}_{2}\hfill \end{array}\right]$$ 
and $\mathcal{I}$ is the unit matrix.
Proof.
We follow the same ideas as in the proof of Theorem 2.3. Here the LeraySchauder theorem applies on the set ${D}_{R}.$
For $\mathbf{u}\in {D}_{R},$ using (3.9) one has
${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}+{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}$  $\le $  ${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+{\left{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le {\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+{\sigma}_{i}(R)$  
$\le $  $$ 
Hence $T$ is welldefined and continuous on the closed subset ${D}_{R}$ of ${V}^{2}.$ Moreover, the Lipschitz continuity of ${S}_{i}$ implies that ${S}_{i}$ is a bounded operator (maps bounded sets into bounded sets) which together with the complete continuity of ${F}_{i}$ implies that $T=({T}_{1},{T}_{2}),$ ${T}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)={S}_{i}\left({\mathbf{h}}_{i}+{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right),$ is completely continuous on ${D}_{R}.$ Next we show that the LeraySchauder condition holds.
Assume the contrary, i.e. $T\left(\mathbf{u}\right)=\lambda \mathbf{u}$ for some $\mathbf{u}\in {D}_{R}$ with ${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}=R$ or ${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}=R$ and some $\lambda >1.$ Assume that ${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}=R.$ Then multiplying by ${\mathbf{u}}_{1}$ the equation
$$\lambda {\mu}_{1}\mathrm{\Delta}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}+\lambda {\eta}_{1}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}+{\lambda}^{2}{\kappa}_{1}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{1}\cdot \nabla \right){\mathbf{u}}_{1}+\nabla {p}_{1}={\mathbf{h}}_{1}+{F}_{1}\left(\mathbf{u}\right),$$ 
and using (1.7) gives
(3.12)  $$ 
Furthermore,using (3.8) we obtain
$$({F}_{1}\left(\mathbf{u}\right),{\mathbf{u}}_{1})\le {c}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}^{2}+{d}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\le \left({c}_{1}+{d}_{1}\right){R}^{2}.$$ 
Hence
$$ 
Similarly, in case that ${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}=R$ we derive
$$ 
Hence in view of (3.10), we arrive to the contradiction $$
To prove (3.11) we start with
$${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{i}\right}_{i}^{2}=({\mathbf{h}}_{i}+{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right),{\mathbf{u}}_{i})\le {\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{i}\right}_{i}+{c}_{i}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{i}\right}_{i}^{2}+{d}_{i}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}$$ 
which give
${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}\le {\left{\mathbf{h}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+{c}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}+{d}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2},$  
${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\le {\left{\mathbf{h}}_{2}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+{c}_{2}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}+{d}_{2}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}.$ 
These can be put together under the matrix form
$$\left(\mathcal{I}\mathcal{A}\right)\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}\\ {\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\end{array}\right]\le \left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{\mathbf{h}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\\ {\left{\mathbf{h}}_{2}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\end{array}\right].$$ 
From the assumption $$ we easily can check that matrix $\mathcal{A}$ is convergent to zero, which guarantees that $\mathcal{I}\mathcal{A}$ has an inverse whose entries are nonnegative. Thus the multiplication by ${\left(\mathcal{I}\mathcal{A}\right)}^{1}$ does not change inequality and yields (3.11). ∎
Remark 3.3.
Simple computation of ${\left(\mathcal{I}\mathcal{A}\right)}^{1}$ shows that estimate (3.11) means explicitly:
${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}$  $\le $  $\frac{\left(1{c}_{2}\right){\left{\mathbf{h}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+{d}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{h}}_{2}\right}_{{H}^{1}}}{\left(1{c}_{1}\right)\left(1{c}_{2}\right){d}_{1}{d}_{2}}},$  
${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}$  $\le $  $\frac{{d}_{2}{\left{\mathbf{h}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+\left(1{c}_{1}\right){\left{\mathbf{h}}_{2}\right}_{{H}^{1}}}{\left(1{c}_{1}\right)\left(1{c}_{2}\right){d}_{1}{d}_{2}}}.$ 
Remark 3.4.
In the case of the Stokes type equations, when ${\kappa}_{1}={\kappa}_{2}=0,$ under condition (3.8) with the coefficients ${c}_{i},{d}_{i}$ such that the matrix $\mathcal{A}$ is convergent to zero, the problem has a unique solution for every $({\mathbf{h}}_{1},{\mathbf{h}}_{2})\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}.$ Indeed, in this case the operator $T$ is defined and completely continuous on the whole space ${V}^{2}$ and (3.11) gives the a priori bounds of solutions.
4. NavierStokes type model for fluid flow in bidisperse porous media
Now we come back to the specific model of NavierStokes type for bidisperse porous media. Thus we consider the following system
(4.1)  $$\{\begin{array}{c}{\mu}_{1}\mathrm{\Delta}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}+{\eta}_{1}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}+{\kappa}_{1}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{1}\cdot \nabla \right){\mathbf{u}}_{1}+\nabla {p}_{1}={\mathbf{h}}_{1}{\alpha}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}^{p1}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\gamma}_{1}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right)\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ {\mu}_{2}\mathrm{\Delta}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}+{\eta}_{2}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}+{\kappa}_{2}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{2}\cdot \nabla \right){\mathbf{u}}_{2}+\nabla {p}_{2}={\mathbf{h}}_{2}{\alpha}_{2}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}^{p1}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}{\gamma}_{2}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{2}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right)\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ \mathrm{div}\text{}{\mathbf{u}}_{i}=0\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{in}\mathrm{\Omega}\hfill \\ {\mathbf{u}}_{i}=0\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\text{on}\partial \mathrm{\Omega}\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(i=1,2\right),\hfill \end{array}$$ 
where $$ $(N\le 3)$. Here for
$${F}_{1}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)={\alpha}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}^{p1}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\gamma}_{1}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right),{F}_{2}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)={\alpha}_{2}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}^{p1}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}{\gamma}_{2}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{2}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right),$$ 
we have ${F}_{i}:{H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}\to {L}^{{2}^{\ast}/p}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}.$ Indeed, from ${H}_{0}^{1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)\subset {L}^{{2}^{\ast}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)$ we have ${\left\mathbf{u}\right}^{p1}\mathbf{u}\in {L}^{{2}^{\ast}/p}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}.$
Wishing to prove the existence of solutions we shall guarantee that all the assumptions of Theorem 3.3 can be satisfied.
First, since $$ ${2}^{\ast}/p>{\left({2}^{\ast}\right)}^{\prime}$, and so one has ${L}^{{2}^{\ast}/p}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)\subset {H}^{1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)$ compactly. It follows that ${F}_{i}$ is completely continuous from ${H}_{0}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}$ to ${H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}.$
Secondly, if for some $R>0$ we take ${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1},{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\le R,$ then we have
${\left{F}_{1}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}$  $\le $  ${\alpha}_{1}{\left{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}^{p1}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+{\gamma}_{1}\left({\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\right)$  
$\le $  ${\alpha}_{1}{c}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{{L}^{{2}^{\ast}}}^{p}+{\displaystyle \frac{{\gamma}_{1}}{\sqrt{{\lambda}_{1}}}}\left({\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{{L}^{2}}+{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{{L}^{2}}\right)$  
$\le $  ${\alpha}_{1}\stackrel{~}{{c}_{1}}{R}^{p}+2{\gamma}_{1}\stackrel{~}{{c}_{2}}R,$ 
where ${c}_{1}$ is the embedding constant of the inclusion ${L}^{{2}^{\ast}/p}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)\subset {H}^{1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)$ and $\stackrel{~}{{c}_{1}},\stackrel{~}{{c}_{2}}$ take into account the embedding constants for $V\subset {L}^{{2}^{\ast}}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N}$ and $V\subset {L}^{2}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{N},$ respectively. Similarly
$${\left{F}_{2}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le {\alpha}_{2}\stackrel{~}{{c}_{1}}{R}^{p}+2{\gamma}_{2}\stackrel{~}{{c}_{2}}R.$$ 
Therefore
$${\sigma}_{i}\left(R\right)=\underset{\mathbf{u}\in D}{sup}{\left{F}_{i}\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le {\alpha}_{i}\stackrel{~}{{c}_{1}}{R}^{p}+2{\gamma}_{i}\stackrel{~}{{c}_{2}}R\phantom{\rule{1.5em}{0ex}}\left(i=1,2\right).$$ 
Third, we have
$({F}_{1}\left(\mathbf{u}\right),{\mathbf{u}}_{1})$  $=$  $({\alpha}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}^{p1}{\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\gamma}_{1}\left({\mathbf{u}}_{1}{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right),{\mathbf{u}}_{1})\le {\gamma}_{1}({\mathbf{u}}_{2},{\mathbf{u}}_{1})$  
$\le $  ${\gamma}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{{L}^{2}}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{{L}^{2}}\le C{\gamma}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\le C{\gamma}_{1}{R}^{2},$ 
where
(4.2)  $$C=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\left({\lambda}_{1}{\mu}_{1}+{\eta}_{1}\right)\left({\lambda}_{1}{\mu}_{2}+{\eta}_{2}\right)}},$$ 
and analogously
$$({F}_{2}\left(\mathbf{u}\right),{\mathbf{u}}_{2})\le C{\gamma}_{2}{R}^{2}.$$ 
Thus, in this example, one has ${c}_{i}=0,$ ${d}_{i}=C{\gamma}_{i}$, $i=1,2,$ and condition (3.9) holds if
(4.3)  $$ 
Therefore Theorem 3.3 yields the following existence result.
Theorem 4.1.
Let the coefficients ${\mu}_{i},{\alpha}_{i},{\gamma}_{i}>0$ and ${\kappa}_{i},{\eta}_{i}\ge 0$ be given with $$, $i=1,2$, where $C$ is the constant given by (4.2). Then for each $R>0$ satisfying (4.3), system (4.1) has at least one solution $\mathbf{u}\in {D}_{R}$ for every $({\mathbf{h}}_{1},{\mathbf{h}}_{2})\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}$ with
(4.4)  $${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\le \left(1C{\gamma}_{i}\right)R.$$ 
Moreover, for any solution $\mathbf{u}=({\mathbf{u}}_{1},{\mathbf{u}}_{2})\in {V}^{2},$ one has
$${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}\le \frac{{\left{\mathbf{h}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+C{\gamma}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{h}}_{2}\right}_{{H}^{1}}}{1{C}^{2}{\gamma}_{1}{\gamma}_{2}},{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\le \frac{C{\gamma}_{2}{\left{\mathbf{h}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}+{\left{\mathbf{h}}_{2}\right}_{{H}^{1}}}{1{C}^{2}{\gamma}_{1}{\gamma}_{2}}.$$ 
Notice that condition (4.3) is fulfilled if $R$ is sufficiently small and that it can be chosen like this, according to (4.4), provided that ${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}$ are small enough. Thus we have
Corollary 4.2.
Let the coefficients ${\mu}_{i},{\alpha}_{i},{\gamma}_{i}>0$ and ${\kappa}_{i},{\eta}_{i}\ge 0$ be given with $$. Then problem (4.1) has solutions for each $({\mathbf{h}}_{1},{\mathbf{h}}_{2})\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}$ with small ${\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}.$
If now ${\mathbf{h}}_{i}$ are given arbitrarily, then (4.4) is fulfilled by some large enough $R.$ Under this number $R,$ condition (4.3) holds provided that ${\theta}_{i}$ are large (equivalently, ${\kappa}_{i}$ are small, that is system (4.1) is close to a Stokes type system). Thus we have
Corollary 4.3.
For every coefficients ${\mu}_{i},{\alpha}_{i},{\gamma}_{i}>0$ and ${\kappa}_{i},{\eta}_{i}\ge 0$ with $$, and every $({\mathbf{h}}_{1},{\mathbf{h}}_{2})\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N},$ problem (4.1) has solutions provided that ${\kappa}_{i}$ are small enough.
We note that in the case of the Stokes equations, when ${\kappa}_{1}={\kappa}_{2}=0,$ the above theorem guarantees the existence of a solution for every $({\mathbf{h}}_{1},{\mathbf{h}}_{2})\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N},$ under the only condition that $$ for $i=1,2.$ Recall that $1/C=\sqrt{\left({\lambda}_{1}{\mu}_{1}+{\eta}_{1}\right)\left({\lambda}_{1}{\mu}_{2}+{\eta}_{2}\right)}.$ However, a better result is the following:
Theorem 4.4.
Let ${\kappa}_{1}={\kappa}_{2}=0.$ Then problem (4.1) has a solution for every $({\mathbf{h}}_{1},{\mathbf{h}}_{2})\in {H}^{1}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega}\right)}^{2N}$ provided that
(4.5)  $$ 
Proof.
In this case, the operator $T$ being welldefined and completely continuous on the whole space ${V}^{2},$ it remains to guarantee the a priori boundedness of the solutions of the equations $T\left(\mathbf{u}\right)=\lambda \mathbf{u}$ for $\lambda \ge 1.$ For any such a solution, one has
$${\left{\mathbf{u}}_{i}\right}_{i}^{2}\le {\left{\mathbf{h}}_{i}\right}_{{H}^{1}}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{i}\right}_{i}+C{\gamma}_{i}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2},i=1,2.$$ 
These can be put under a matrix form
$$\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}\\ {\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\end{array}\right]\le \left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{\mathbf{h}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\\ {\left{\mathbf{h}}_{2}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & C{\gamma}_{1}\hfill \\ C{\gamma}_{2}\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}\\ {\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\end{array}\right].$$ 
The involved square matrix $\mathcal{A}$ is convergent to zero if $$ which is our assumption (4.5). Thus the above matrix inequality is equivalent to
$$\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{\mathbf{u}}_{1}\right}_{1}\\ {\left{\mathbf{u}}_{2}\right}_{2}\end{array}\right]\le {\left(\mathcal{I}\mathcal{A}\right)}^{1}\left[\begin{array}{c}{\left{\mathbf{h}}_{1}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\\ {\left{\mathbf{h}}_{2}\right}_{{H}^{1}}\end{array}\right]$$ 
which gives the desired a priori bounds. The result follows from the LeraySchauder fixed point theorem. ∎
Remark 4.1.
If in (4.1), ${\alpha}_{1}={\alpha}_{2}=0$, under some suitable conditions on ${\mathbf{h}}_{1}$ and ${\mathbf{h}}_{2}$, one can obtain an existence and uniqueness result by using Banach contraction principle and a similar argument as in [19].
Finally we note that our analysis can be developed in order to treat some models of fluid flows in tridisperse porous media. Moreover, the analysis can be adapted to treat some models with variable coefficients in the anisotropic case. For a numerical approach related to such models we refer the reader to the paper [14] and the references therein.
Acknowledgements
M. Kohr acknowledges the support of the grant PNIIIP4PCE20210993 (cod PCE 69/2022), UEFSCDI, Romania.
Data Availability Statements
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest
References
 [1] C. Amrouche, M.A. RodríguezBellido, The Oseen and NavierStokes equations in a nonsolenoidal framework. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 39 (2016), 5066–5090.
 [2] C. Amrouche, P.G. Ciarlet, C. Mardare, On a Lemma of JacquesLouis Lions and its relation to other fundamental results. J. Math. Pures Appl. 104 (2015), 207–226.
 [3] C. Amrouche, V. Girault, Decomposition of vector spaces and application to the Stokes problem in arbitrary dimension. Czechoslovak Math. J. 44 (1994), 109–140.
 [4] F. Boyer, P. Fabrie, Mathematical Tools for the Study of the Incompressible NavierStokes Equations and Related Models. Springer, New York, 2013.
 [5] C.E. Brennen, Fundamentals of Multiphase Flows. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
 [6] M. Bulí$\stackrel{\u02c7}{c}$ek, J. Málek, J. $\stackrel{\u02c7}{Z}$abenský, On generalized Stokes’ and Brinkman’s equations with a pressure and sheardependent viscosity and drag coefficient. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 26 (2015), 109–132.
 [7] F. Capone, M. Gentile, G. Massa, The onset of thermal convection in anisotropic and rotating bidisperse porous media. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 72:169 (2021).
 [8] Z.Q. Chen, P. Cheng, C.T. Hsu, A theoretical and experimental study on stagnant thermal conductivity of bidispersed porous media. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer. 27 (2000), 601–610.
 [9] P. Constantin, C. Foias, NavierStokes Equations. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, 1988.
 [10] M. Costabel, Boundary integral operators on Lipschitz domains: Elementary results. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 19 (1988), 613–626.
 [11] M. Dindos̆, M. Mitrea, The stationary NavierStokes system in nonsmooth manifolds: The Poisson problem in Lipschitz and ${C}^{1}$ domains. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 174 (2004), 1–47.
 [12] E. Fabes, C. Kenig, G. Verchota, The Dirichlet problem for the Stokes system on Lipschitz domains. Duke Math. J. 57 (1988), 769–793.
 [13] G.P. Galdi, An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier–Stokes Equations. SteadyState Problems. Second Edition, Springer, New York, 2011.
 [14] M. Ghalambaz, H. Hendizadeh, H. Zargartalebi, I. Pop, Free convection in a square cavity filled with a tridisperse porous medium. Transp. Porous Media 116 (2017), 379–392.
 [15] V. Girault, P.A. Raviart, Finite Element Methods for Navier–Stokes Equations, Springer, Berlin, 1986.
 [16] G.C. Hsiao, W.L. Wendland, Boundary Integral Equations. SpringerVerlag, Heidelberg, First Edition 2008, Second Edition 2021.
 [17] M. Kohr, M. Lanza de Cristoforis, W.L. Wendland, Nonlinear Neumanntransmission problems for Stokes and Brinkman equations on Euclidean Lipschitz domains. Potential Anal. 38 (2013), 1123–1171.
 [18] M. Kohr, S.E. Mikhailov, W.L. Wendland, Nonhomogeneous Dirichlettransmission problems for the anisotropic Stokes and NavierStokes systems in Lipschitz domains with transversal interfaces. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 61:198 (2022), 47 pp.
 [19] M. Kohr, S.E. Mikhailov, W.L. Wendland, On some mixedtransmission problems for the anisotropic Stokes and NavierStokes systems in Lipschitz domains with transversal interfaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 516 (2022), 126464.
 [20] M. Kohr, W.L. Wendland, Variational approach for the Stokes and NavierStokes systems with nonsmooth coefficients in Lipschitz domains on compact Riemannian manifolds. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 57:165 (2018), 1–41.
 [21] M. Kohr, W. L. Wendland, Boundary value problems for the Brinkman system with ${L}^{\mathrm{\infty}}$ coefficients in Lipschitz domains on compact Riemannian manifolds. A variational approach. J. Math. Pures Appl. 131 (2019), 17–63.
 [22] M.V. Korobkov, K. Pileckas, R. Russo, On the flux problem in the theory of steady NavierStokes equations with nonhomogeneous boundary conditions. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 207 (2013), 185–213.
 [23] A.V. Kuznetsov, D.A. Nield, Thermally developing forced convection in a bidisperse porous medium. J. Porous Media 9 (2006), 393–402.
 [24] P.G. LemariéRieusset, The NavierStokes Problem in the 21st Century. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York, 2016.
 [25] G. Łukaszewicz, P. Kalita, NavierStokes Equations. An Introduction with Applications. Advances in Mechanics and Mathematics, 34. Springer, Cham, 2016.
 [26] A.L. Mazzucato, V. Nistor, Wellposedness and regularity for the elasticity equation with mixed boundary conditions on polyhedral domains and domains with cracks. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 195 (2010), 25–73.
 [27] M. Mitrea, M. Wright, Boundary value problems for the Stokes system in arbitrary Lipschitz domains. Astérisque. 344 (2012), viii+241 pp.
 [28] D.A. Nield, A note on the modelling of bidisperse porous media. Transp. Porous. Media 111 (2016), 517–520.
 [29] D.A. Nield, A. Bejan, Convection in Porous Media. Third Edition, Springer, New York, 2013.
 [30] D.A. Nield, A.V. Kuznetsov, A twovelocity twotemperature model for a bidispersed porous medium: forced convection in a channel. Transp. Porous Media 59 (2005), 325–339.
 [31] D.A. Nield, A.V. Kuznetsov, Heat transfer in bidisperse porous media. In: D.B. Ingham, I. Pop (Eds.), Transport Phenomena in Porous Media III, Elsevier, Oxford, 2005, pp. 34–59.
 [32] D.A. Nield, A.V. Kuznetsov, The onset of convection in a bidisperse porous medium. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 49 (2006), 3068–3074.
 [33] D.A. Nield, A.V. Kuznetsov, A note on modeling high speed flow in a bidisperse porous medium. Transp. Porous Med. 96 (2013), 495–499.
 [34] D. O’Regan, R. Precup, Theorems of LeraySchauder Type and Applications. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, 2001.
 [35] R. Precup, Existence results for nonlinear boundary value problems under nonresonance conditions. In: Qualitative Problems for Differential Equations and Control Theory, C. Corduneanu (Ed.), World Scientific, Singapore, 1995, pp. 263–273.
 [36] R. Precup, Methods in Nonlinear Integral Equations. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002.
 [37] R. Precup, Linear and Semilinear Partial Differential Equations. De Gruyter, Berlin, 2013.
 [38] R. Precup, P. Rubbioni, Stationary solutions of FokkerPlanck equations with nonlinear reaction terms in bounded domains. Potential Anal. 57 (2022), 181–199.
 [39] F.O. Pătrulescu, T. Groşsan, I. Pop, Natural convection from a vertical plate embedded in a nonDarcy bidisperse porous medium, J. Heat Transfer 142 (2020): 012504.
 [40] C. Revnic, T. Groşan, I. Pop, D.B. Ingham, Free convection in a square cavity filled with a bidisperse porous medium, Int. J. Thermal Sci. 48 (2009), 1876–1883.
 [41] G. Seregin, Lecture Notes on Regularity Theory for the NavierStokes Equations. World Scientific, London, 2015.
 [42] H. Sohr, The NavierStokes Equations: An Elementary Functional Analytic Approach. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel 2001.
 [43] B. Straughan, Bidispersive Porous Media. In: Convection with Local Thermal NonEquilibrium and Microfluidic Effects. Advances in Mechanics and Mathematics, vol. 32, 2015. Springer, Cham.
 [44] B. Straughan, Anisotropic bidispersive convection. Proc. R. Soc. A 475:20190206, 2019.
 [45] R. Temam, NavierStokes Equations. Theory and Numerical Analysis. AMS Chelsea Edition, American Mathematical Society, 2001.
 [46] W. Varnhorn, The Stokes Equations. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1994.
[1] Amrouche, C., RodríguezBellido, M.A.: The Oseen and Navier–Stokes equations in a nonsolenoidal framework. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 39, 5066–5090 (2016) ADS MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[2] Amrouche, C., Ciarlet, P.G., Mardare, C.: On a Lemma of Jacques–Louis Lions and its relation to other fundamental results. J. Math. Pures Appl. 104, 207–226 (2015) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[3] Amrouche, C., Girault, V.: Decomposition of vector spaces and application to the Stokes problem in arbitrary dimension. Czechoslov. Math. J. 44, 109–140 (1994) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[4] Boyer, F., Fabrie, P.: Mathematical Tools for the Study of the Incompressible Navier–Stokes Equations and Related Models. Springer, New York (2013) MATH Google Scholar
[5] Brennen, C.E.: Fundamentals of Multiphase Flows. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005) MATH Google Scholar
[6] Bulíček, M., Málek, J., Žabenský, J.: On generalized Stokes’ and Brinkman’s equations with a pressure and sheardependent viscosity and drag coefficient. Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl. 26, 109–132 (2015) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[7] Capone, F., Gentile, M., Massa, G.: The onset of thermal convection in anisotropic and rotating bidisperse porous media. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 72, 169 (2021) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[8] Chen, Z.Q., Cheng, P., Hsu, C.T.: A theoretical and experimental study on stagnant thermal conductivity of bidispersed porous media. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 27, 601–610 (2000) Google Scholar
[9] Constantin, P., Foias, C.: Navier–Stokes Equations. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1988) MATH Google Scholar
[10] Costabel, M.: Boundary integral operators on Lipschitz domains: elementary results. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 19, 613–626 (1988) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[11] Dindos, M., Mitrea, M.: The stationary Navier–Stokes system in nonsmooth manifolds: the Poisson problem in Lipschitz and C¹ domains. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 174, 1–47 (2004)
[12] Fabes, E., Kenig, C., Verchota, G.: The Dirichlet problem for the Stokes system on Lipschitz domains. Duke Math. J. 57, 769–793 (1988) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[13] Galdi, G.P.: An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier–Stokes Equations. SteadyState Problems, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2011) MATH Google Scholar
[14] Ghalambaz, M., Hendizadeh, H., Zargartalebi, H., Pop, I.: Free convection in a square cavity filled with a tridisperse porous medium. Transp. Porous Media 116, 379–392 (2017) MathSciNet Google Scholar
[15] Girault, V., Raviart, P.A.: Finite Element Methods for Navier–Stokes Equations. Springer, Berlin (1986) MATH Google Scholar
[16] Hsiao, G.C., Wendland, W.L.: Boundary Integral Equations. Springer, Heidelberg, First Edition 2008, Second Edition 2021[17] Kohr, M., Lanza de Cristoforis, M., Wendland, W.L.: Nonlinear Neumanntransmission problems for Stokes and Brinkman equations on Euclidean Lipschitz domains. Potential Anal. 38, 1123–1171 (2013) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[18] Kohr, M., Mikhailov, S.E., Wendland, W.L.: Nonhomogeneous Dirichlettransmission problems for the anisotropic Stokes and Navier–Stokes systems in Lipschitz domains with transversal interfaces. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 61, 198 (2022) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[19] Kohr, M., Mikhailov, S.E., Wendland, W.L.: On some mixedtransmission problems for the anisotropic Stokes and Navier–Stokes systems in Lipschitz domains with transversal interfaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 516, 126464 (2022) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[20] Kohr, M., Wendland, W.L.: Variational approach for the Stokes and Navier–Stokes systems with nonsmooth coefficients in Lipschitz domains on compact Riemannian manifolds. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 57(165), 1–41 (2018) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[21] Kohr, M., Wendland, W.L.: Boundary value problems for the Brinkman system with L^{∞} coefficients in Lipschitz domains on compact Riemannian manifolds.
A variational approach. J. Math. Pures Appl. 131, 17–63 (2019) MathSciNet
[22] Korobkov, M.V., Pileckas, K., Russo, R.: On the flux problem in the theory of steady Navier–Stokes equations with nonhomogeneous boundary conditions. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 207, 185–213 (2013) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[23] Kuznetsov, A.V., Nield, D.A.: Thermally developing forced convection in a bidisperse porous medium. J. Porous Media 9, 393–402 (2006) Google Scholar
[24] LemariéRieusset, P.G.: The Navier–Stokes Problem in the 21st Century. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2016) MATH Google Scholar
[25] Łukaszewicz, G., Kalita, P.: Navier–Stokes Equations. An Introduction with Applications. Advances in Mechanics and Mathematics, vol. 34. Springer, Cham (2016) MATH Google Scholar
[26] Mazzucato, A.L., Nistor, V.: Wellposedness and regularity for the elasticity equation with mixed boundary conditions on polyhedral domains and domains with cracks. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 195, 25–73 (2010) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[27] Mitrea, M., Wright, M.: Boundary value problems for the Stokes system in arbitrary Lipschitz domains. Astérisque. 344, viii+241 pp (2012)
[28] Nield, D.A.: A note on the modelling of bidisperse porous media. Transp. Porous Media 111, 517–520 (2016) MathSciNet Google Scholar
[29] Nield, D.A., Bejan, A.: Convection in Porous Media, 3rd edn. Springer, New York (2013) MATH Google Scholar
[30] Nield, D.A., Kuznetsov, A.V.: A twovelocity twotemperature model for a bidispersed porous medium: forced convection in a channel. Transp. Porous Media 59, 325–339 (2005) Google Scholar
[31] Nield, D.A., Kuznetsov, A.V.: Heat transfer in bidisperse porous media. In: Ingham, D.B., Pop, I. (eds.) Transport Phenomena in Porous Media III, pp. 34–59. Elsevier, Oxford (2005) Google Scholar
[32] Nield, D.A., Kuznetsov, A.V.: The onset of convection in a bidisperse porous medium. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 49, 3068–3074 (2006) MATH Google Scholar
[33] Nield, D.A., Kuznetsov, A.V.: A note on modeling high speed flow in a bidisperse porous medium. Transp. Porous Media 96, 495–499 (2013) MathSciNet Google Scholar
[34] O’Regan, D., Precup, R.: Theorems of Leray–Schauder Type and Applications. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam (2001) MATH Google Scholar
[35] Precup, R.: Existence results for nonlinear boundary value problems under nonresonance conditions. In: Corduneanu, C. (ed.) Qualitative Problems for Differential Equations and Control Theory, pp. 263–273. World Scientific, Singapore (1995) MATH Google Scholar
[36] Precup, R.: Methods in Nonlinear Integral Equations. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002) MATH Google Scholar
[37] Precup, R.: Linear and Semilinear Partial Differential Equations. De Gruyter, Berlin (2013) MATH Google Scholar
[38] Precup, R., Rubbioni, P.: Stationary solutions of Fokker–Planck equations with nonlinear reaction terms in bounded domains. Potential Anal. 57, 181–199 (2022) MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[39] Pătrulescu, F.O., Groşsan, T., Pop, I.: Natural convection from a vertical plate embedded in a nonDarcy bidisperse porous medium. J. Heat Transf. 142, 012504 (2020) Google Scholar
[40] Revnic, C., Groşan, T., Pop, I., Ingham, D.B.: Free convection in a square cavity filled with a bidisperse porous medium. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 48, 1876–1883 (2009) MATH Google Scholar
[41] Seregin, G.: Lecture Notes on Regularity Theory for the Navier–Stokes Equations. World Scientific, London (2015) mMATH Google Scholar
[42] Sohr, H.: The Navier–Stokes Equations: An Elementary Functional Analytic Approach. Birkhäuser, Basel (2001) MATH Google Scholar
[43] Straughan, B.: Bidispersive porous media. In: Straughan, B. (ed.) Convection with Local Thermal NonEquilibrium and Microfluidic Effects. Advances in Mechanics and Mathematics, vol. 32. Springer, Cham (2015) MATH Google Scholar
[44] Straughan, B.: Anisotropic bidispersive convection. Proc. R. Soc. A 475, 20190206 (2019) ADS MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
[45] Temam, R.: Navier–Stokes Equations. Theory and Numerical Analysis, AMS Chelsea edn. American Mathematical Society (2001)
[46] Varnhorn, W.: The Stokes Equations. Akademie, Berlin (1994) MATH Google Scholar