1. The respective domains of validity of the investigations in Jager and Mikelic (2009) and in Beavers and Joseph (1967) are different. The claim “We suppose the conditions of the experiment by Beavers and Joseph” in Jager and Mikelic (2009) is not exact, nor was exact “We assume the situation of the experiment by Beavers and Joseph” in Jager and Mikelic (2000). In Beavers and Joseph (1967), the experiments which support the BJBC are conducted for heights h of the “free” fluid channel of the order of magnitude of the pore size √ k, see Figure 4, where σ = h/√k < 10 (σ = b/ < 10 in Jager and Mikelic notations). Beavers and Joseph call our attention to this important point: “...for values of σ near √ 2 the average size of the individual pores within the material is at least equal to the height of the channel....” Therefore, there is no separation of scales between the pores and the channel height, b = O( ), in the experiments of Beavers and Joseph. Whereas the analysis by W. Jager and A. Mikelic is conducted thanks to a separation of scales, b/ 1, a necessary assumption for the validity of their analysis. It results that presenting their results so as to support the BJBC is misleading. 2. What are the consequences of the absence of separation of scales, b = O( ), in the Beavers and Joseph experiments? These consequences are analyzed in Auriault (2010). Equivalent macroscopic models do not exist. A macroscopic boundary condition like the BJBC is not possible. Fluid–porous medium interface averages are meaningless. W. Jager and A. Mikelic demonstrate that the shear stress on the interface in the free fluid is equal to the surface average of the shear stress in the pore fluid when b/ 1; this relation is not physically admissible when b = O( ). 3. What are W. Jager and A. Mikelic demonstrating in their work (2009)? They rigorously show that in the presence of a separation of scales, b/ 1, the boundary condition
Read full abstract