Inclined flow of a second-gradient incompressible fluid with pressure-dependent viscosity

C. Balitactac; C. Rodriguez

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Inclined flow of a second-gradient incompressible fluid with pressure-dependent viscosity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the second-gradient extension of the incompressible Navier-Stokes model with an exponential pressure-dependent viscosity has a unique solution for steady inclined flow, and it computes how angle, ambient…

desk verdict Clean math on a specialized model; the λ→0 convergence claim needs proof or softening, but the core well-posedness result holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01986 v1 pith:27MZW6H6 submitted 2025-06-27 physics.flu-dyn cond-mat.mtrl-scimath-phmath.MP

C. Balitactac , C. Rodriguez This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.flu-dyncond-mat.mtrl-scimath-phmath.MP MSC 76A0576D0334B15 PACS 47.50.-d47.15.gm

keywords second-gradientfluidpressure-dependentviscosityexponentiallawinclinedplaneflowwell-posednessinternallengthscaleweakadherencehyperstresstensor

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that adding second-gradient terms to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations repairs a known defect of pressure-dependent viscosity models: the pressure equation can lose ellipticity, so the system may be ill-posed. For steady gravity-driven flow down an inclined plane with weak adherence at the base and prescribed ambient pressure at the free surface, the authors reduce the model to a single dimensionless boundary value problem for the velocity and prove that this problem always has a unique solution. They then compute numerical profiles showing how the flow responds to the slope angle, ambient pressure, the exponential viscosity-pressure sensitivity, and the internal length scale. The result matters because real high-pressure liquids are nearly incompressible yet have strongly pressure-dependent viscosity, exactly the regime the classical theory cannot handle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the second-gradient constitutive model, in which the standard Cauchy stress $T=-pI+2\hat{\mu}(p)D$ is supplemented by a third-order hyperstress tensor $G$ built from the internal length scales $\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_4$ (equation (1.3)); this extra structure keeps the pressure equation elliptic regardless of the velocity field. In the inclined-flow reduction, the key identity is the transformation of the third-order problem (2.9) into a second-order self-adjoint-type problem for $f=u'$, whose homogeneous version satisfies the energy identity $\int_0^1(\lambda^2(g')^2+\exp(\gamma\pi)g^2)\,d\sigma=0$. That identity carries the uniqueness proof, since $\exp(\gamma\pi(\sigma))$ is bounded below by a positive constant on $[0,1]$. The explicit pressure profile $\pi(\sigma)$, with its hyperbolic boundary-layer terms, is what lets the viscosity coefficient $\exp(\gamma\pi)$ be known before the velocity is solved.

What would settle it

Measure the steady velocity profile of a piezoviscous liquid with a known exponential viscosity-pressure coefficient as it flows down an inclined plane under elevated ambient pressure. The model predicts that, at fixed angle and pressure, the profile overshoots the classical pressure-dependent profile near the free surface and that increasing ambient pressure strongly suppresses velocity; a profile without the overshoot, or a controlled repeat showing non-unique profiles, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the inclined-flow problem for the second-gradient model is unconditionally well posed. After the shear-flow ansatz $v=v(y)e_x$, $p=p(y)$, the governing equations (1.4) reduce to the ODE system (2.2); integrating and applying the weak-adherence and ambient-pressure boundary conditions gives the explicit pressure profile $\pi(\sigma)$ and the third-order velocity equation (2.9). With $f=u'$, this becomes the second-order boundary value problem $\lambda^2 f''(\sigma)-\exp(\gamma\pi(\sigma))f(\sigma)=-(1-\sigma)\sin\alpha$ with $f'(0)=f'(1)=0$. The paper proves uniqueness by multiplying the homogeneous equation by $g$ and integrating by parts, obtaining $\int_0^1(\lambda^2(g')^2+\exp(\gamma\pi)g^2)\,d\sigma=0$, which forces $g\equiv 0$ because the exponential coefficient is bounded below by a positive constant. The numerical solutions then show that as $\lambda\to 0$ the profiles converge pointwise to the classical solutions, while for $\gamma\ne 0$ the pressure-dependent viscosity produces a velocity overshoot near the free surface that is absent in the constant-viscosity case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the constitutive model itself: the hyperstress tensor and the four internal length scales are postulated from the authors' earlier work without direct experimental validation, so if this second-gradient regularization is not a faithful description of real high-pressure liquids, the well-posedness result and the computed profiles do not apply to them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every inclination angle, ambient pressure, viscosity sensitivity, and internal length scale, the steady inclined-flow problem has exactly one solution, so numerical simulations of this model do not chase spurious branches.
As the internal length scale tends to zero, both the pressure and velocity profiles converge pointwise to the classical pressure-dependent profiles, giving a built-in consistency check for the regularization.
When viscosity depends on pressure, the flow near the free surface moves faster than the classical profile predicts, a qualitative signature that distinguishes second-gradient effects from ordinary pressure-dependent viscosity.
Increasing the ambient pressure or the viscosity-pressure sensitivity slows the flow, while increasing the slope angle accelerates it; at zero angle the fluid is stationary.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same reduction works for other steady shear geometries such as Poiseuille or Couette flow, the energy-identity uniqueness argument should carry over almost unchanged, making the second-gradient model a general tool for pressure-dependent flows.
The predicted free-surface overshoot is a measurable signature: a high-pressure lubricant flowing down an incline should show a surface velocity above the classical prediction, which could be tested without needing to resolve internal length scales directly.
Fitting measured profiles to (2.9) would provide the first empirical estimates of the internal length scale $\ell_1$, since the shape of the boundary-layer correction is controlled by $\lambda=\ell/h$.
The authors leave time-dependent flows open; if the elliptic regularization persists dynamically, oscillatory or start-up flows should exhibit length-scale-dependent dispersion that standard rheometry could probe.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful thing here is the explicit well-posedness argument for the inclined-flow reduction and the closed-form recovery of known limits. The uniqueness proof via the energy identity is correct and short: setting f = u′ turns (2.9) into a linear second-order problem with a strictly positive coefficient, so existence and uniqueness follow. The pressure solution and the β = 0, λ = 0 limits check out, and the paper gives the first inclined-flow analysis of this second-gradient model with Barus viscosity. That is a modest but real step; the geometry is textbook, but the analysis is clean.

The main soft spot is the λ → 0 convergence claim. The paper proves pointwise convergence for γ = 0 and for the pressure, then asserts that as λ decreases the velocity profiles converge to the classical solution for γ ≠ 0. That is not established. Equation (2.9) is a singular perturbation: the λ²u‴ term vanishes and the two boundary conditions u″(0) = u″(1) = 0 drop out. With γ ≠ 0, the viscosity coefficient exp(γπ) depends on π, and π has its own boundary layer of width λ near σ = 1. The deviation π − πc is O(λ) before becoming exponentially small, so it feeds into the coefficient at O(γλ). One cannot read the limit off the figures, which only go down to λ² = 10⁻⁴. The claim needs a boundary-layer argument or a rigorous convergence statement, or it should be softened to a numerical observation. This is a genuine gap, though not one that destroys the uniqueness result.

Second, despite the numerical study being central, no code or data are included. For a pure math paper that might be optional, but here the figures carry the physical interpretation; releasing the bvp4c script would raise confidence. Third, the equivalence of boundary conditions (2.1) and (2.3) is asserted, not derived. It is probably true, but a reader has to take it on faith; a short derivation would help.

The physical validity of the second-gradient model is assumed from the authors' own prior paper. That is fine for a mathematical benchmark, but the paper should state more plainly that the model is speculative.

Who is this for? People working on pressure-dependent viscosity models, especially regularizations of the ill-posed classical equations, and anyone needing a test case for second-gradient fluid solvers. It deserves a serious referee; the core math is right, and the gaps are fixable. Send it to peer review, with the convergence claim as the main issue to resolve.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies steady gravity-driven flow of a second-gradient incompressible fluid with Barus-type pressure-dependent viscosity down an inclined plane. Starting from the second-gradient model of Ref. [2], the authors reduce the field equations to a one-dimensional boundary value problem for the velocity and an explicit closed-form pressure profile. They prove existence and uniqueness for the dimensionless BVP by introducing f = u′ and using an energy argument, and they provide closed-form solutions for the constant-viscosity case and for the classical (non-second-gradient) pressure-dependent model. The full problem is then solved numerically with MATLAB's bvp4c, and the paper reports how the velocity profile varies with the internal length scale, the viscosity sensitivity, the ambient pressure, and the inclination angle. The central advertised results are well-posedness of the one-dimensional problem and numerical profiles that are claimed to converge to the classical solution as the internal length scale tends to zero.

Significance. If the convergence claim is fully established, the paper is a useful, self-contained contribution: it is the first application of the second-gradient pressure-dependent model to inclined flow, and it supplies an exact pressure profile and exact limiting solutions. The uniqueness proof is clean, the reduction to a second-order equation for u′ is effective, and the numerical exploration is systematic. The principal weakness is that the λ→0 limit for γ≠0 is asserted rather than proven; this is load-bearing for the numerical interpretation in Figures 2a and 2b. The reduction from the general boundary conditions (2.1) to (2.3) is also asserted without derivation. Both issues are addressable within the manuscript's scope and do not undermine the well-posedness proof for fixed λ>0.

major comments (2)

[Section 2, equations (2.1)–(2.3)] The statement that the general boundary conditions (2.1) are 'equivalent' to the reduced conditions (2.3) is asserted without proof. This equivalence is load-bearing because all subsequent reductions, including the pressure equation and the velocity boundary value problem (2.5), rely on (2.3). Please provide the computation from the traction and hypertraction formulas, or give a precise reference to the relevant equations in [2], showing how v″(0)=0, v″(h)=0, μv′(h)−μ₀ℓ²v‴(h)=0, and ℓ²p″(h)−p(h)=−p₁ follow from the weak-adherence and ambient-pressure conditions.
[Section 3, after equation (2.9) and Figures 2a–2b] The claim that velocity profiles converge to the classical solution as λ→0 is not established for γ≠0. The pointwise limits (2.7)–(2.8) concern only the pressure and the constant-viscosity profile u_{γ=0}. For γ≠0, equation (2.9) is a singular perturbation of the first-order classical equation: the two boundary conditions u″(0)=u″(1)=0 are lost in the limit, and the coefficient exp(γπ) has an O(λ) boundary-layer correction inherited from π. The paper provides no boundary-layer analysis or Green's-function estimate for this limit. Please add a rigorous argument (for example, an estimate for f=u′ satisfying λ²f″−exp(γπ)f=−(1−σ)sinα with f′(0)=f′(1)=0) or revise the claim to a conjecture. As written, the interpretation of Figures 2a and 2b as showing that second-gradient effects vanish is not justified.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2, pressure solution] The explicit solution for p(y) is introduced with 'one readily finds'; a one-line derivation of the homogeneous part would help readers verify that the boundary conditions p′(0)=p′(h)=0 are satisfied.
[Introduction and literature] The manuscript cites the inclined-flow study of Rajagopal, Saccomandi, and Vergori [23] but does not compare its numerical profiles with that work; a brief discussion of similarities and differences would strengthen the paper's positioning.
[Conclusion] The final sentence states that 'a rigorous well-posedness theory for these models remains open'; this should be qualified to refer to the full three-dimensional initial-boundary-value problem, since this paper establishes well-posedness for the one-dimensional steady BVP.
[Section 3, figures] Each figure caption lists some fixed parameters but not always all of them; for reproducibility, please state the fixed values of λ², γ, π₁, and α consistently in every caption or in a short table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the inclined-flow BVP, its uniqueness proof, and the numerical profiles are derived from the stated second-gradient model; self-citations to the authors' prior work supply the constitutive inputs, not the paper's conclusions.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, equations (2.2) are obtained by specialization of the stated model (1.3)-(1.4) to the shear ansatz; the pressure profile follows by direct integration with boundary conditions (2.3), and the velocity BVP (2.9) is obtained by the same integration with (2.5). Uniqueness of (2.9) is proved in the paper itself by the energy argument applied to (2.11); existence follows from linear Fredholm theory, so neither is imported from a citation. The classical profiles uc and uc,γ=0 are closed-form baselines derived in the paper, and the numerical profiles are computed with bvp4c for fixed parameter values, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to [2] (constitutive model, traction definitions, earlier cylindrical examples) are openly disclosed inputs ('recently introduced by the authors') and are not used to justify the new well-posedness or numerical claims. Two caveats are correctness gaps, not circularity: Section 3 asserts the λ→0 convergence for γ≠0 after proving only the pointwise limits (2.7)-(2.8) for the pressure and the γ=0 profile, leaving a singular-perturbation gap; and the Conclusion states 'a rigorous well-posedness theory for these models remains open in both the constant and pressure-dependent viscosity cases.' Neither makes an output equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fitted parameters; the parameters α, π1, γ, and λ are dimensionless inputs varied in the numerics, not fitted to data. The central derivation depends on the second-gradient constitutive equations, the Barus law, the shear-flow ansatz, and the boundary conditions, all assumed without independent validation in this paper. The only invented entity is the second-gradient model with its internal length scales, inherited from the authors' prior work.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The second-gradient constitutive model (1.3)-(1.4) with hyperstress G and internal length scales ℓ1...ℓ4, ℓ0, is a valid description of an incompressible viscous fluid.
The entire paper rests on this model, which is taken from the authors' prior work [2] and is not derived or experimentally validated here.
domain assumption Barus' exponential law (1.2), μ = μ0 exp(β p), describes the pressure dependence of viscosity.
An empirical formula cited to [3]; it is assumed without critical assessment, though it is widely used.
domain assumption The flow is steady, one-dimensional shear flow: v = v(y)e_x and p = p(y).
This ansatz reduces the full partial differential equations to ODEs. It is standard for fully developed inclined plane flow, but its validity for the second-gradient model with the given boundary conditions is not justified in detail.
domain assumption The boundary conditions (2.1) reduce to the one-dimensional conditions (2.3), including v(0)=0, v''(0)=0, p'(0)=0, v''(h)=0, p'(h)=0, μv'(h)-μ0ℓ²v'''(h)=0, and ℓ²p''(h)-p(h)=-p1.
The equivalence is stated without a detailed derivation from the traction and hypertraction formulas; the authors refer to their prior work for the form of t and m.
domain assumption The relation ℓ1² = (3/4)ℓ2² + (1/2)ℓ3² + 2ℓ4² among the length scales (from [2]) holds.
Inherited from the model in [2]; it is used implicitly when reducing the general equations to (1.4).

invented entities (1)

Second-gradient hyperstress tensor G and internal length scales ℓ1...ℓ4 and ℓ0
purpose: To regularize the pressure equation and maintain ellipticity in the pressure-dependent viscosity model, allowing well-posed boundary value problems
These are postulated in the authors' prior paper [2] and are used here without independent experimental or empirical validation. The paper does not provide a falsifiable prediction that could confirm the existence or values of these length scales.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inclined flow of a second-gradient incompressible fluid with pressure-dependent viscosity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27MZW6H6

@misc{pith2026250701986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inclined flow of a second-gradient incompressible fluid with pressure-dependent viscosity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27MZW6H6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01986}
}

read the original abstract

Many viscous liquids behave effectively as incompressible under high pressures but display a pronounced dependence of viscosity on pressure. The classical incompressible Navier-Stokes model cannot account for both features, and a simple pressure-dependent modification introduces questions about the well-posedness of the resulting equations. This paper presents the first study of a second-gradient extension of the incompressible Navier-Stokes model, recently introduced by the authors, which includes higher-order spatial derivatives, pressure-sensitive viscosities, and complementary boundary conditions. Focusing on steady flow down an inclined plane, we adopt Barus' exponential law and impose weak adherence at the lower boundary and a prescribed ambient pressure at the free surface. Through numerical simulations, we examine how the flow profile varies with the angle of inclination, ambient pressure, viscosity sensitivity to pressure, and internal length scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01986 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The set-up of inclined flow. The field equations (1.4) are complemented by the boundary conditions expressing weak adherence along the plane y = 0 and constant pressure p1 (e.g., atmospheric pressure) at y = h: ( v = 0, m = 0, ∂p ∂n = 0, at y = 0 t = −p1ey, m = 0, ∂p ∂n = 0, at y = h. (2.1) Here t and m are the traction and hypertraction (see [2, 9]), given, respectively, by t = T n − (div G)n − div s(Gn) − 2KG[n ⊗ … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Graphs of the dimensionless velocity u(σ) with varying values of λ 2 . The curve corresponding to λ 2 = 0 represents the classical solution uc(σ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Graphs of the dimensionless velocity uγ=0(σ) with varying values of λ 2 . The curve corresponding to λ 2 = 0 represents the classical solution uc,γ=0(σ). 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 (a) α = π/6, π1 = 0, λ2 = 1/1, 000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 (b) α = π/3, π1 = 1, λ2 = 1/10, 000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Graphs of the dimensionless velocity u(σ) with varying values of γ. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 (a) α = π/6, γ = 1/10, λ2 = 1/1, 000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 (b) α = π/3, γ = 1, λ2 = …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Graphs of the dimensionless velocity u(σ) with varying values of π1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Graphs of the dimensionless velocity u(σ) with varying values of α. References [1] S. Bair, M. Khonsari, and W. O. Winer. High-pressure rheology of lubricants and limitations of the Reynolds equation. Tribology Int., 31:573–586, 1998. [2] C. Balitactac and C. Rodriguez…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[2]

Balitactac and C

C. Balitactac and C. Rodriguez. Second-gradient models for incompressible viscous fluid and associated cylindrical flows. Preprint, arXiv:2505.07617

work page arXiv
[1]

S. Bair, M. Khonsari, and W. O. Winer. High-pressure rheology of lubricants and limitations of the Reynolds equation. Tribology Int., 31:573–586, 1998

work page 1998
[3]

C. Barus. Isotherms, isopiestics and isometrics relative to viscosity. Am. J. Sci. , 45:87–96, 1893

work page
[4]

Bayada, B

G. Bayada, B. Cid, G. Garc ´ ıa, and C. V´ azquez. A new more consistent Reynolds model for piezoviscous hydrodynamic lubrication problems in line contact devices. Appl. Math. Model. , 37:8505–8517, 2013

work page 2013
[5]

P. W. Bridgman. The effect of pressure on the viscosity of forty-three pure liquids. Proc. Am. Acad. Art. Sci., 61:57–99, 1926

work page 1926
[6]

P. W. Bridgman. The Physics of High Pressure . MacMillan, 1931

work page 1931
[7]

B. J. Chung and A. Vaidya. On the slow motion of a sphere in fluids with non-constant viscosities. Int. J. Eng. Sci. , 48(1):78–100, 2010

work page 2010
[8]

M. M. Denn. Pressure drop-flow rate equation for adiabatic capillary flow with a pressure- and temperature-dependent viscosity. Polym. Eng. Sci. , 21:65–68, 1981

work page 1981

Show all 28 references

[9]

Fried and M

E. Fried and M. E. Gurtin. Tractions, balances, and boundary conditions for nonsimple materials with application to liquid flow at small-length scales. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 182(3):513–554, 2006

2006
[10]

Gazzola and P

F. Gazzola and P. Secchi. Some results about stationary Navier-Stokes equations with a pressure-dependent viscosity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Navier- Stokes Equations: Theory and Numerical Methods , volume 388 of Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics, p...

1998
[11]

P. Germain. La m´ ethode des puissances virtuelles en m´ ecanique des milieux continus. I. Th´ eorie du second gradient.J. M´ ecanique, 12:235–274, 1973

1973
[12]

P. Germain. The method of virtual power in continuum mechanics. Part 2: Microstructure. SIAM J. Appl. Math. , 25(3):556–575, 1973

1973
[13]

Gustafsson, K

T. Gustafsson, K. R. Rajagopal, R. Stenberg, and J. Videman. Nonlinear Reynolds equation for hydrodynamic lubrication. Appl. Math. Model. , 39:5299–5309, 2015

2015
[14]

D. R. Gwynllyw, A. R. Davies, and T. N. Phillips. On the effects of a piezoviscous lubricant on the dynamics of a journal bearing. J. Rheol., 40:1239–1266, 1996

1996
[15]

K. D. Housiadas, G. C. Georgiou, and R. I. Tanner. A note on the unbounded creeping flow past a sphere for Newtonian fluids with pressure-dependent viscosity. Int. J. Eng. Sci. , 86:1–9, 2015. 10 C. BALITACTAC AND C. RODRIGUEZ

2015
[16]

J. Hron, J. M´ alek, J. Neˇ cas, and K. R. Rajagopal. Numerical simulations and global existence of solutions of two-dimensional flows of fluids with pressure- and shear-dependent viscosities. Math. Comput. Simul. , 61(3–6):297–315, 2003

2003
[17]

J. Hron, J. M´ alek, and K. R. Rajagopal. Simple flows of fluids with pressure-dependent viscosities. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. A, Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. , 457:1603–1622, 2001

2001
[18]

Janeˇ cka and V

A. Janeˇ cka and V. Pr ˚ uˇ sa. The motion of a piezoviscous fluid under a surface load.Int. J. Non-Linear Mech., 60:23–32, 2014

2014
[19]

Kalogirou, S

A. Kalogirou, S. Poyiadji, and G. C. Georgiou. Incompressible Poiseuille flows of Newtonian liquids with a pressure-dependent viscosity. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. , 166:413–419, 2011

2011
[20]

Knauf, S

S. Knauf, S. Frei, T. Richter, and R. Rannacher. Towards a complete numerical description of lubricant film dynamics in ball bearings. Comput. Mech., 2013

2013
[21]

Maruˇ si´ c-Paloka and I

E. Maruˇ si´ c-Paloka and I. Paˇ zanin. A note on the pipe flow with a pressure-dependent viscosity. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. , 197:5–10, 2013

2013
[22]

Pr ˚ uˇ sa

V. Pr ˚ uˇ sa. Revisiting Stokes first and second problems for fluids with pressure-dependent viscosities. Int. J. Eng. Sci. , 48(12):2054–2065, 2010

2010
[23]

K. R. Rajagopal, G. Saccomandi, and L. Vergori. Flow of fluids with pressure- and shear- dependent viscosity down an inclined plane. J. Fluid Mech. , 706:173–189, 2012

2012
[24]

K. R. Rajagopal, G. Saccomandi, and L. Vergori. Unsteady flows of fluids with pressure dependent viscosity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 404:362–372, 2013

2013
[25]

K. R. Rajagopal and A. Z. Szeri. On an inconsistency in the derivation of the equations of elastohydrodynamic lubrication. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. A, Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. , 459:2771–2786, 2003

2003
[26]

Rehor and V

M. Rehor and V. Pr ˚ uˇ sa. Squeeze flow of a piezoviscous fluid.Appl. Math. Comput. , 274:414– 429, 2016

2016
[27]

M. Renardy. Some remarks on the Navier-Stokes equations with a pressure-dependent vis- cosity. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. , 11:779–793, 1986

1986
[28]

Vasudevaiah and K

M. Vasudevaiah and K. R. Rajagopal. On fully developed flows of fluids with a pressure dependent viscosity in a pipe. Appl. Math. , 50:341–353, 2005. C. Balitactac Department of Mathematics, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA corbindb@unc.edu C. Rodriguez ...

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

Balitactac and C

C. Balitactac and C. Rodriguez. Second-gradient models for incompressible viscous fluid and associated cylindrical flows. Preprint, arXiv:2505.07617

work page arXiv

[2] [1]

S. Bair, M. Khonsari, and W. O. Winer. High-pressure rheology of lubricants and limitations of the Reynolds equation. Tribology Int., 31:573–586, 1998

work page 1998

[3] [3]

C. Barus. Isotherms, isopiestics and isometrics relative to viscosity. Am. J. Sci. , 45:87–96, 1893

work page

[4] [4]

Bayada, B

G. Bayada, B. Cid, G. Garc ´ ıa, and C. V´ azquez. A new more consistent Reynolds model for piezoviscous hydrodynamic lubrication problems in line contact devices. Appl. Math. Model. , 37:8505–8517, 2013

work page 2013

[5] [5]

P. W. Bridgman. The effect of pressure on the viscosity of forty-three pure liquids. Proc. Am. Acad. Art. Sci., 61:57–99, 1926

work page 1926

[6] [6]

P. W. Bridgman. The Physics of High Pressure . MacMillan, 1931

work page 1931

[7] [7]

B. J. Chung and A. Vaidya. On the slow motion of a sphere in fluids with non-constant viscosities. Int. J. Eng. Sci. , 48(1):78–100, 2010

work page 2010

[8] [8]

M. M. Denn. Pressure drop-flow rate equation for adiabatic capillary flow with a pressure- and temperature-dependent viscosity. Polym. Eng. Sci. , 21:65–68, 1981

work page 1981