Can Navier Stokes equations explain pressure on a stationary body's surface?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Navier-Stokes equations to calculate the pressure on the surface of a stationary body within a fluid flow. Participants explore the implications of the equations under various conditions, including the no-slip condition and the effects of body motion.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Navier-Stokes equations and questions the reasoning behind calculating pressure on a stationary body's surface, noting the role of impulse and wall shear stress.
  • The same participant expresses confusion about the implications of a no-slip condition when the body is stationary, leading to a focus on shear stress alone.
  • Another participant suggests that the inquiry relates to the Galilean invariance of the Navier-Stokes equations and emphasizes the importance of considering local temporal derivatives when the body is in motion.
  • A later reply agrees with the previous point, highlighting that the dynamics of the fluid depend on the distance from the field point to the body, indicating a shift to an unsteady problem if the body moves.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the Navier-Stokes equations under stationary and moving conditions, with some agreement on the necessity of considering local temporal derivatives, but no consensus on the initial participant's reasoning or potential mistakes.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of applying the Navier-Stokes equations in different scenarios, particularly regarding assumptions about motion and the implications for pressure calculations. There are unresolved aspects concerning the transition from steady to unsteady flow conditions.

schettel
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Consider a stationary body within the flow of some fluid. I want to calculate pressure on the surface of the body. From the Navier Stokes (incompressible, stationary, no volume forces) equations, you would get something like:
dp/dx=-rho(u du/dx+v du/dy+w du/dz)+eta(d²u/dx²+d²u/dy²+d²u/dz²)
...likewise for the other coordinates.
This means that, when calculating pressure on the surface of my body, impulse (rho(..) on the right hand side of the equation) and wall shear stress (eta(..)) come into play. That seams quite logical. But my body is not moving, so, assuming a no-slip condition for its surface, u=v=w=0, which leaves me only with shear stress.
If the body is moving and the fluid is not, you should still get the same pressure on the surface. But in this case, the first term on the right hand side of the equation (impulse) is not zero.
There must be a mistake in my reasoning. Can anybody tell me what it is?
Maybe it has something to do Euler and Lagrange?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
You're asking if N-S is Galilean invariant, right? It is.
The solution lies in that you cannot neglect the local temporal derivative if you shift to a description in which the body has a non-zero velocity.

This makes sense, because roughly, the dynamics in the fluid at a field point should primarily depend upon the distance from the field point to the body.
 
arildno said:
You're asking if N-S is Galilean invariant, right? It is.
The solution lies in that you cannot neglect the local temporal derivative if you shift to a description in which the body has a non-zero velocity.

This makes sense, because roughly, the dynamics in the fluid at a field point should primarily depend upon the distance from the field point to the body.

Welcome to Mech&Aero forum. Glad to see you here, Arildno! :smile:

I do agree with your answer. The local variation of the velocity [tex]\partial u/\partial t[/tex] is non zero if the body is in motion. The problem is transformed into an unsteady one.
 
I do poke my nose into here on occasion..
Thanks for the welcome, though..:smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K